G.R. No. L-16897; January 31, 1962
GREGORIO M. MATAS, petitioner, vs. THE HON. HONORIO ROMERO, Judge of the Court of First Instance, Branch III, Davao, and ISIDRO ORDANEZA, respondents.

FACTS

In the 1959 mayoral election in Padada, Davao, Gregorio M. Matas was proclaimed winner over Isidro Ordaneza. Ordaneza filed an election protest, initially contesting 9 precincts and later amending his petition to include 20 precincts total. Matas, the protestee, filed an answer generally denying the allegations of fraud and irregularities. His answer contained a counter-protest specifically alleging irregularities only in Precinct No. 15. Before the revision of ballots began, Ordaneza filed a motion indicating he would likely only request the actual counting of ballots from 8 precincts. The court appointed commissioners, and with no objection from Matas, the revision proceeded solely for those 8 specified precincts.
Upon nearing completion of the revision in the 8 precincts, Matas filed an urgent motion demanding the opening and revision of the ballot boxes from the remaining 12 precincts. In response, Ordaneza formally waived his right to proceed with the revision of the 12 other precincts, citing financial constraints and believing the results from the 8 precincts were sufficient for his protest. The court granted Ordaneza’s waiver and dismissed the protest concerning the 12 unrevised precincts. Matas moved for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the protestee in an election contest has the right to demand the opening of ballot boxes in precincts included in the protestant’s petition when the protestant, after partial revision, waives further revision of those precincts, and the protestee did not include them in a counter-protest or make specific allegations of irregularities therein.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling that the protestee, Matas, had no right to compel the revision of the remaining 12 precincts. The legal logic rests on the nature of election protests and the conduct of the parties. An election protest is initiated by the protestant, who bears the burden of proof and has the prerogative to choose the evidence, including the specific precincts for ballot revision, to substantiate his claim of victory. The protestant may limit or withdraw his protest as to certain precincts, especially to simplify issues and ensure the prompt termination of the contest, given the short terms of office involved.
Crucially, Matas, in his answer, did not file a counter-protest for the 12 precincts in question nor make specific allegations of irregularities prejudicial to him within them. His general denial of the protestant’s claims was insufficient to create an independent right to demand their revision. Furthermore, he initially acquiesced to the limitation of the revision to the 8 precincts by not objecting to the protestant’s pre-hearing motion. His subsequent demand arose only after the partial revision, suggesting a tactical shift based on the initial results, which the Court found impermissible. To allow such a demand would permit a party to alter the issues mid-trial for convenience, undermining procedural order. The protestant’s waiver was valid, and the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in upholding it.