G.R. No. 37524, December 12, 1932
Miguel Arrieta vs. Mariano Rodriguez

FACTS

Miguel Arrieta and Mariano Rodriguez were candidates for member of the provincial board of Palawan. The provincial board of canvassers declared a tie, with each receiving 2,054 votes. The Philippine Senate, pursuant to the Election Law, then proclaimed Rodriguez elected. Arrieta filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance, seeking to annul the election in eight precincts of Coron. Rodriguez filed an answer and a counterprotest contesting votes in other municipalities. The trial court upheld the Coron election results and, after considering the counterprotest, declared Rodriguez elected with a plurality of 66 votes. Arrieta appealed, arguing, among other points, that the court lacked jurisdiction over the counterprotest because it was filed outside the statutory period.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and decide the counterprotest filed by Rodriguez.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the counterprotest. Applying Section 481 of the Election Law and its precedent in Morente vs. Filamor, the Court ruled that a counterprotest must be filed within fifteen days after summons unless a demurrer to the protest is filed. Here, Rodriguez was summoned on September 8, 1931, but filed his counterprotest only on October 2, 1931, beyond the 15-day period, and he had not filed a demurrer. Consequently, the counterprotest was filed out of time and the trial court had no jurisdiction to consider it. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision regarding the validity of the Coron election but reversed it regarding the counterprotest. Excluding the counterprotest results and adjusting the Coron totals as found by the trial court, Arrieta was declared elected with a plurality of 54 votes.

AI Generated by Armztrong.