GR L 10918; (February, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10918; February 15, 1957
CLARO R. ROBLES, petitioner, vs. HON. VICENTE DEL ROSARIO, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Claro Robles and Leon Guinto, Sr. were candidates for Provincial Governor of Quezon in the November 1955 elections. Guinto was proclaimed elected on December 5, 1955. On December 12, 1955, Robles filed an election protest. Guinto filed his answer and counter-protest on December 16, 1955, which he amended on December 27, 1955. Neither the original nor the amended counter-protest mentioned Precinct No. 1-A of Guinayangan. The hearing began on January 20, 1956, and the revision of ballots started on February 2, 1956. On June 1, 1956, six months after the case began, Guinto petitioned the trial court for permission to amend his counter-protest to include Precinct No. 1-A. The court initially denied the petition but later reconsidered and, on July 6, 1956, authorized the amendment and ordered the production and recount of the ballot boxes for that precinct. Robles objected and sought certiorari from the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in allowing the protestee to amend his counter-protest to include a new precinct six months after the case was filed, beyond the statutory period for filing counter-protests.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari and set aside the trial court’s order. The Court held that a substantial amendment introducing new grounds of protest or new precincts is only allowed within the time granted by law for filing a protest or counter-protest, citing established jurisprudence (Orencia vs. Araneta, Fernando vs. Endencia, Velez vs. Varela, Almeda vs. Silvosa). This rule aims to prevent unfair surprise and, more importantly, to implement the speedy determination of election contests in line with legislative policy. The Court found the lapse of six months before discovering the alleged omission of the precinct to be inexcusable carelessness. It also rejected the argument that Section 175 of the Election Code authorized the court to order the production and recount of ballots irrespective of the pleadings, holding that the rule of allegata et probata applies to election contests and the court cannot disregard the issues framed by the parties. The time limitations on the parties’ allegations are jurisdictional and cannot be circumvented.