G.R. No. 46191; September 12, 1938
JOAQUIN SURTIDA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. JUAN G. LESACA, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners and respondent Ariston Sarmiento were proclaimed councilors-elect of Virac, Catanduanes, on December 15, 1937. Respondent Primo Panti mailed a motion of protest against their election from Virac to the Clerk of the Court of First Instance in Legaspi, Albay, on December 29, 1937—the last day of the two-week statutory period for filing such a protest under the Election Law. The motion was received by the clerk on January 4, 1938. The docketing fees were sent separately by telegraphic transfer on December 31, 1937, and were also received on January 4. Petitioners filed a demurrer and later a motion to dismiss, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the protest was not “filed” within the two-week period, as the motion and fees were received after the deadline.

ISSUE

Whether the motion of protest was filed within the period prescribed by law, considering it was mailed on the last day but received by the court after the deadline.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari, upholding the lower court’s jurisdiction. The date of mailing the motion of protest (December 29, 1937) is deemed the date of its filing, applying by analogy Rule 13 of the Supreme Court Rules, which provides that the date of mailing is considered the date of filing for papers required by the rules. This rule is based on justice and equity, ensuring litigants in remote towns are not disadvantaged by distance and postal delays. The separate telegraphic transfer of docketing fees, received simultaneously with the motion, constituted substantial compliance and caused no prejudice. The dissent argued Rule 13 did not apply to election protests and that the statutory filing period should be strictly applied as the law in force at the time.

AI Generated by Armztrong.