G.R. No. L-12706; March 26, 1917
RUPERTO VENTURANZA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATANGAS and RAMON CABRERA, respondents.

FACTS:
Petitioner Ruperto Venturanza was elected municipal president of Lemery, Batangas, in the June 1916 elections. Respondent Ramon Cabrera filed an election protest, which resulted in Venturanza’s defeat and Cabrera being declared the winner. During the proceedings, Venturanza filed a “counter-protest” alleging irregularities in precincts not originally raised in Cabrera’s protest. The Court of First Instance of Batangas, upon Cabrera’s objection, struck out Venturanza’s counter-protest. The trial proceeded, but Venturanza presented no evidence on the allegations in his counter-protest. The court ruled in favor of Cabrera. Venturanza then filed this petition for certiorari, challenging the trial court’s order striking out his counter-protest.

ISSUE:
Whether a writ of certiorari may be issued against the Court of First Instance of Batangas for striking out Venturanza’s counter-protest in the election contest.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. It held that certiorari lies only when a court acts without or in excess of jurisdiction. The Court of First Instance had jurisdiction over the election contest and the parties. Striking out the counter-protesteven if potentially erroneouswas an exercise of that jurisdiction, not an act outside or in excess of it. The Court declined to rule on the propriety of the order but emphasized that certiorari is not a remedy for correcting errors of judgment within jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed with costs.

Separate Concurrences:
– Justice Carson concurred, stating the application was filed too late.
– Justice Trent concurred, noting the petition was for certiorari, not mandamus.

This is AI (Gemini and Deepseek) Generated. Please Double Check. Powered by Armztrong.