GR L 10998; (January, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10998 January 31, 1957
BERNARDINO O. ALMEDA, petitioner, vs. FERNANDO SILVOSA and MODESTO R. ROMALETE, Judge of the Court of Surigao, respondents.
FACTS
In the November 8, 1955 election, Bernardino O. Almeda and Fernando Silvosa were candidates for Provincial Governor of Surigao. Almeda was proclaimed the winner on November 25, 1955, and qualified for office on January 1, 1956. On December 2, 1955, Silvosa filed Election Protest No. 877 contesting Almeda’s election. Silvosa subsequently intervened in two unrelated election protests for municipal mayors (Election Protests Nos. 872 and 873), which the court allowed despite Almeda’s opposition. On July 16, 1956, the first day of trial for Protest No. 877, Silvosa sought to amend his protest to include six new precincts (Precincts Nos. 19, 20, 22, 23, and 23-A of Tago and Precinct No. 9 of Loreto). The court admitted the amended petition over Almeda’s vigorous objections. Almeda’s motions for reconsideration were denied, prompting him to file this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion and exceeded its jurisdiction in admitting the amended petition of protest that included six new precincts not originally protested.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari, annulled the order admitting the amended protest, and made the preliminary injunction permanent. The Court ruled that an amendment to an election protest that introduces new precincts after the statutory period for filing the original protest has expired constitutes a new ground or cause of action. Such an amendment is not allowed, as it would produce unfair surprise to the contestee, prolong the litigation, and defeat the law’s purpose of ensuring the speedy determination of election contests. The amendment, filed approximately eight months after the proclamation and well beyond the two-week period prescribed in Section 174 of the Revised Election Code, was therefore invalid. The Court cited established jurisprudence, including Fernando vs. Endencia and Velez vs. Varela, which prohibit amendments that introduce new matter or new precincts after the statutory filing period.