GR L 17451; (January, 1962) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-17451; January 31, 1962
DOMINADOR S. ASIS, petitioner, vs. HON. MELQUIADES G. ILAO, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte, BASILIO ZANTUA, in his capacity as Deputy Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte and FERNANDO V. PAJARILLO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Dominador S. Asis was proclaimed Provincial Governor-elect of Camarines Norte after the 1959 elections. Respondent Fernando V. Pajarillo filed an election protest. After presiding over initial hearings, respondent Judge Melquiades G. Ilao issued an order dated July 29, 1960, appointing Deputy Clerk of Court Basilio Zantua as a commissioner. The order stated this was to allow the court to proceed with other cases, and the commissioner was tasked to receive evidence, specifically the ballots objected to by the parties, with hearings to begin in August.
Petitioner Asis sought reconsideration, arguing the Election Law and Rules of Court do not authorize appointing a commissioner to receive evidence in an election case without party consent, except under specific circumstances not present here. He also expressed fear of potential anomalies if a commissioner presided. The respondent judge denied the motion, explaining the practical necessity due to the volume of ballots in multiple pending election protests and clarifying the commissioner’s limited role. Asis then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition to annul the order.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in appointing a commissioner to receive evidence in the election protest.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the respondent judge’s order. The legal logic centers on the source of authority for such an appointment. The Court clarified that the authority is derived not primarily from Rule 34 of the Rules of Court, which governs references in ordinary civil actions, but from Section 175 of the Revised Election Code itself. This specific statutory provision empowers the court, in election contests, to order the production of election documents and the examination and recounting of ballots. Crucially, it authorizes the court to appoint such officers as it may deem necessary for that purpose.
The Court distinguished the nature of the evidence. The commissioner’s appointed task—marking objected ballots for identification in preparation for the court’s own examination and the subsequent trial for parol evidence—pertained to the summary examination of election paraphernalia under the Election Code. This is distinct from the trial of issues requiring the reception of parol evidence. Since the appointment was for a ministerial, preparatory function explicitly contemplated by the Election Code to expedite the proceedings, the conditions and restrictions of Rule 34 of the Rules of Court were inapplicable. The Court found the appointment, justified by the overwhelming number of ballots and the need to administer justice efficiently, was a valid exercise of the court’s discretion under the Election Code to subserve the interests of justice. The preliminary injunction was lifted.