GR 46098; (August, 1938) (Digest)
G.R. No. 46098; August 29, 1938
NICANOR GUNDAN, FELIPE ALANSIGAN, and JUAN PINGAD, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAGAYAN, MARCELO JURADO, VICENTE GUNDAN, LUIS GOROSPE, and RAYMUNDO GUNDAN, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners and respondents were candidates for municipal councilors in Rizal, Cagayan, in the December 14, 1937 elections. After canvassing, the municipal council proclaimed respondents as the elected councilors. Petitioners filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan, alleging irregularities in the canvassing of votes in three precincts. Respondents countered with a counter-protest. Before the hearing, respondents moved to dismiss the protest, arguing that petitioners’ certificates of candidacy were not verified (not sworn to), thus petitioners lacked standing to file the protest and the court lacked jurisdiction. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the protest. Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus to compel the trial court to proceed with the protest.
ISSUE
Whether the lack of verification (oath) in the petitioners’ certificates of candidacy deprives them of standing to file an election protest and divests the court of jurisdiction over the protest.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted the petition for mandamus, set aside the trial court’s dismissal order, and directed the trial court to hear and decide the election protest. The Court held that while the requirement for a sworn certificate of candidacy is mandatory before the election, it becomes merely directory after the election has been held. To nullify the votes cast for the petitioners based on a technical defect in their certificates would be to defeat the will of the electorate. The Court applied the doctrine established in *De Guzman vs. Provincial Board of Canvassers of La Union*, which emphasized that after an election, public interest in upholding the people’s will prevails over technicalities. Therefore, the defect in the certificates of candidacy does not bar the petitioners from prosecuting their protest, nor does it deprive the court of jurisdiction.
AI Generated by Armztrong.