G.R. No. L-3626; April 27, 1951
FRANCISCO M. PAJAO, petitioner-appellee, vs. THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF LEYTE COMPOSED OF MEMBER RAGA RUFO ET AL., respondents-appellants.

FACTS

In the November 8, 1949 elections, Francisco M. Pajao and Filemon Saavedra were rival candidates for Congressman of the third district of Leyte. The Provincial Board of Canvassers, upon Saavedra’s representation of irregularities, annulled and excluded election returns from certain precincts in the municipalities of Biloan, Malicbog, and Cabalian. Excluding these returns, the board proclaimed Saavedra as Congressman-elect on November 25, 1949, with a 302-vote majority. Had the excluded returns been included, Pajao would have won by nearly 2,000 votes. That same afternoon, unaware of the proclamation, Pajao filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Leyte to compel the board to proclaim him and to enjoin it from proclaiming Saavedra. The court issued a preliminary injunction ordering the board to refrain from proclaiming any candidate. Pajao then wired the Commission on Elections, which set aside Saavedra’s proclamation and directed a new canvass including the disputed returns. The board initially refused but, after being threatened with disciplinary action, reconvened on December 2, 1949, included the returns, and proclaimed Pajao as Congressman-elect. On December 5, 1949, Saavedra filed a motion in the mandamus case to annul Pajao’s proclamation and hold the board members in contempt. He also filed an election protest with the Electoral Tribunal of the House. Pajao moved to dismiss his mandamus petition as moot. The court denied Saavedra’s motion for contempt and granted Pajao’s motion for dismissal. Saavedra appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance correctly dismissed Pajao’s mandamus petition and denied Saavedra’s motion for contempt.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the order dismissing the mandamus petition and denying the motion for contempt. The mandamus action had become purposeless and devoid of cause after Pajao’s proclamation as Congressman-elect by the board, which was a sufficient ground for dismissal. Furthermore, Saavedra had already filed an election protest with the House Electoral Tribunal, the constitutional body designated as the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of House members. Continued court intervention would lead to a conflict of authority and confusion. Regarding the contempt motion, contempt proceedings are penal in nature, and the denial of the motion after trial amounts to a virtual acquittal from which no appeal lies. The order was upheld, with costs against appellant Saavedra.