GR 46099; (August, 1938) (Digest)
G.R. No. 46099 ; August 30, 1938
ANDRES FERNANDO, petitioner, vs. PASTOR M. ENDENCIA, Judge of First Instance of Bulacan, LEOPOLDO SANTIAGO, CRESCENCIO DOMINGO and ESTEBAN CONSTANTINO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Andres Fernando filed an election protest contesting the election of respondent Leopoldo Santiago as mayor of Polo, Bulacan. The original protest specified irregularities in precincts Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9. After the statutory period for filing a protest had lapsed, Fernando filed an amended motion adding allegations of irregularities in precincts Nos. 1, 8, and 10. Respondent Santiago objected, arguing the amendment was filed out of time and introduced new precincts. The respondent judge allowed the amendment only as to precinct No. 1 (which was already in the original protest) but disallowed it as to the new precincts (Nos. 8 and 10). Fernando then filed this petition for mandamus to compel the judge to admit the full amended motion.
ISSUE
May an election protest be amended after the statutory filing period to include allegations of irregularities in precincts not originally specified in the protest?
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus. The specification of precincts in an election protest is required to apprise the contestee of the issues he must meet. Allowing an amendment to add new precincts after the statutory period would prejudice the contestee by surprise and potentially necessitate a postponement. Furthermore, the prompt determination of election contests is a matter of public interest, and the election law aims to ensure this. Permitting such amendments would prolong litigation and defeat the law’s purpose. The amendment was properly disallowed as to the newly introduced precincts.
AI Generated by Armztrong.