G.R. No. L-5579 December 29, 1952
ELEUTERIO DE LEON, protestant-appellant, vs. NICANOR F. CRUZ, protestee-appellee.

FACTS

In the November 15, 1951 elections for municipal mayor of Parañaque, Rizal, Nicanor F. Cruz (protestee-appellee) was proclaimed elected with 6,161 votes against Eleuterio de Leon’s (protestant-appellant) 5,669 votes, a plurality of 492. De Leon filed an election protest on December 6, 1951, alleging multiple voting, substitution of voters, misreading of ballots, discrepancies in election returns, illegal precinct location, exclusion of watchers, casting of ballots by watchers for others, counting of marked ballots, and ballots written by one hand in various precincts. Cruz filed an answer with counter-protest. The court appointed commissioners to revise the ballots, grouping them into contested and uncontested ballots. After revision began in eight precincts, de Leon moved to waive revision in twenty-one other contested precincts, limiting it to Precincts Nos. 19, 20, 21, and 21-A. Subsequently, de Leon moved for a fingerprint examination of registry lists. Cruz opposed and filed a counter-motion to dismiss the protest on February 15, 1952, arguing the protest failed to state a claim for relief as the contested votes (426) were fewer than Cruz’s plurality (492). The court heard the motion on February 18, denying de Leon’s motion for postponement, and dismissed the protest, confirming Cruz’s election. De Leon’s motions for reconsideration were denied, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the election protest on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action, specifically due to the lack of an allegation that the alleged irregularities would change the election result, and that the number of votes contested was insufficient to overcome the proclaimed plurality.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order dismissing the protest. The Court held that the protest failed to allege that the frauds and irregularities would alter the election result, a necessary allegation for a valid cause of action in an election protest. The Court noted that during the revision, the protestant only contested 426 votes, which was less than the protestee’s plurality of 492 votes, making any further proceedings academic. The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that jurisdictional allegations under the Election Code were sufficient, distinguishing the cited case of Gallares vs. Caseñas because that protest contained an explicit allegation that the result would be changed. The Court also found no merit in the appellant’s reservation to challenge uncontested ballots based on fingerprint discrepancies, as this would nullify the purpose of separating ballots and such evidence would not directly prove that illegal voters prepared ballots for the appellee. The Court further held that the protest lacked proper allegations to justify evidence of pervasive fraud invalidating all votes in precincts. The denial of the motion for postponement was proper as the case involved multiple attorneys and needed expedited resolution within the statutory period for election contests.