G.R. No. L-1983; June 30, 1948
FELIX M. PAMANIAN, protestant-appellant, vs. PERFECTO PILAPIL, protestee-appellee.

FACTS

Felix M. Pamanian filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance of Leyte against Perfecto Pilapil. The trial court, through Judge Edmundo S. Piccio, dismissed the protest for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that the protest motion failed to allege that the protestant had duly filed a certificate of candidacy as required by section 174 of the Revised Election Code. The motion only alleged that Pamanian “was a candidate voted for… with a valid certificate of candidacy.”

ISSUE

Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the election protest, given that the motion of protest did not contain a precise technical allegation that the protestant “presented” or “filed” a certificate of candidacy.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order of dismissal. The allegation in the motion that the protestant “was a candidate voted for… with a valid certificate of candidacy” is legally equivalent to an allegation that he presented or filed a certificate of candidacy. Jurisdictional facts need not be alleged in precise technical language; it is sufficient if the required matters can be gathered from the allegations taken together. The Court cited its prior rulings in Dato Ali v. Court of First Instance of Lanao and Marohon v. Court of First Instance of Lanao, where similar allegations were deemed adequate. The case was remanded to the trial court for trial on the merits.

AI Generated by Armztrong.