GR L 15827; (October, 1919) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15827; October 10, 1919
FRANCISCO CORDERO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE PROVINCE OF RIZAL, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS:
An election was held in the municipality of Caloocan to elect councilmen. After the election, the municipal board of canvassers counted the votes and proclaimed the winning candidates. Subsequently, some defeated candidates filed an election protest. During the hearing of the protest, the petitioners moved to dismiss the protest on the ground that three individuals who received votes for councilmenVicente Sevilla, Diego Justo, and Mariano Laborerowere not notified of the protest. The respondent judge required the presentation of evidence and, after hearing, denied the motion to dismiss. The lower court found that Sevilla and Justo had been duly notified, and that Laborero’s name did not appear in the original proclamation of the board of canvassers until after the protest was filed; thus, the failure to notify him initially did not deprive the court of jurisdiction. The petitioners then filed this original action in the Supreme Court seeking a writ of prohibition to stop the trial and compel dismissal of the protest.
ISSUE:
Whether the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in denying the motion to dismiss the election protest despite the alleged lack of notice to all candidates voted for.
RULING:
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that the question of whether a person is a candidate voted for and entitled to notice is a factual determination by the trial court. The Supreme Court will not interfere with or substitute its judgment on questions of fact unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. The protestant may rely on the official proclamation of the municipal board of canvassers to identify the candidates voted for. Notice to all persons named in that proclamation satisfies the legal requirement. The subsequent discovery that other individuals received votes does not oust the court of jurisdiction; the court may order such persons to be joined as parties.
Furthermore, the municipal board of canvassers, upon completing its canvass and issuing its proclamation, ceases to exist as a board. Any amendment or recanvass thereafter, without a court order, is unauthorized. In this case, the board’s amended proclamation adding Laborero’s name was issued without legal authority. Therefore, the protestant’s reliance on the original proclamation was proper, and the trial court correctly retained jurisdiction. The petition for prohibition was denied, with costs against the petitioners.