G.R. No.: L-12301

FACTS:

2. Bernardo Dacuycuy was declared elected by the municipal board of canvassers.
3. Mariano Bello, through his attorney Miguel Binag, filed a motion of contest within the prescribed period. Attorney Binag was authorized by Bello to prepare, sign, and file the motion, but was not specifically authorized to represent Bello in court after its filing.
4. The respondent judge, Hermogenes Reyes, dismissed the election contest.
5. Mariano Bello filed an original action for mandamus in the Supreme Court to compel the judge to reinstate the election contest and proceed with its trial.

ISSUE:
Is mandamus the proper remedy to compel the reinstatement of an election contest that was dismissed by the trial court based on an erroneous interpretation of the law?

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition for mandamus.
1. The Court held that the motion of contest, having been signed and filed by a duly licensed attorney upon the contestant’s authority, complied with the statutory requirements and vested the court with jurisdiction over the subject matter, as established in the precedent of De Castro vs. Salas and Santiago (34 Phil. Rep., 818).
2. The fact that Attorney Binag was only authorized to prepare and file the motion, and not to appear in court thereafter, did not affect the validity of the filing or the court’s jurisdiction.
3. The Court ruled that mandamus is the appropriate remedy to correct the lower court’s dismissal based on a mistaken interpretation of the law.
4. The writ of mandamus was issued, directing Judge Hermogenes Reyes to reinstate the election contest and proceed with its trial. Costs were imposed on respondent Bernardo Dacuycuy.

Separate Opinion:
Justice Moreland concurred in the result based on the authority of the De Castro case but dissented from the Court’s broad statement that “Mandamus is the proper remedy when the court dismisses a contest upon an erroneous interpretation of the law,” indicating he did not agree that this was a correct general statement of mandamus law.