GR L 22779; (March, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22779 March 31, 1965
Hadji Lomontod Macasundig, protestant-appellant, vs. Dirugungun Macalangan, protestee-appellee.
FACTS
On November 24, 1963, the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Poonabayabao, Lanao del Sur, proclaimed Dirugungun Macalangan as the duly elected Municipal Mayor. On November 29, 1963, Sheik Bolug G. B. Nuska, a defeated candidate who placed fifth, filed an election protest against Macalangan, docketed as Election Case No. 1300. On December 2, 1963, Hadji Lomontod Macasundig, the appellant who placed second and was behind by only 23 votes, also filed an election protest against Macalangan, docketed as Election Case No. 1305. The protestee-appellee (Macalangan) filed a motion to dismiss Case No. 1305. The lower court initially denied the motion but, upon reconsideration, dismissed Macasundig’s protest. The lower court reasoned that having two separate protests (Case No. 1300 and Case No. 1305) against the same protestee created a dilemma, as there could be two winners. It held that Macasundig should have intervened in the earlier-filed Case No. 1300 under Section 176(g) of the Revised Election Code, instead of filing a separate protest.
ISSUE
Whether a motion of protest that contains all jurisdictional facts and states a cause of action should be dismissed solely because another motion of protest against the same protestee had previously been filed in the same court.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court set aside the lower court’s order of dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held that while the appellant did not file his protest in the manner provided under Section 176(g) of the Revised Election Code (i.e., by intervention), this alone is not sufficient to dismiss his protest. The motion was filed on time and contained allegations conferring jurisdiction. Dismissing it on this technicality would defeat public interest, as election protests involve the determination of the true will of the electorate and must be liberally interpreted. The Court noted that the appellant, who was only 23 votes behind, had a stronger claim than the protestant in Case No. 1300, who was 105 votes behind. The lower court could have heard the two cases jointly and decided them in one decision. The Supreme Court instructed the lower court to hear and decide Case No. 1305 jointly with Case No. 1300, or if Case No. 1300 had already been dismissed (as indicated in the appellant’s reply brief), to hear and decide Case No. 1305 on its merits.