GR L 5601; (May, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5601 May 29, 1953
LEON VELEZ, petitioner, vs. VICENTE VARELA, ETC. and VICENTE M. FLORIDO, respondents.
FACTS
On November 28, 1951, respondent Vicente M. Florido filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, contesting the election of petitioner Leon Velez as Vice-Mayor of Carcar, Cebu. The protest alleged irregularities in 13 specified precincts. Velez filed his answer, and a committee for the revision of ballots was appointed, with revision set to begin on February 11, 1952. As the revision work neared completion and the trial was already scheduled, Florido filed a motion on February 26, 1952, seeking leave to drop two specified precincts from his protest and include a new one in their place. The motion did not state a reason. The court, presided by respondent Judge Vicente Varela, granted the motion over Velez’s objection in an order dated March 4, 1952. Velez’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Velez then filed this petition for certiorari to annul the order allowing the amendment.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction or committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the protestant’s motion to amend his election protest by dropping two precincts and including a new one after the period for filing the protest had lapsed and when the revision of ballots was nearly complete.
RULING
Yes. The petition for certiorari is granted and the order dated March 4, 1952, is annulled. The Supreme Court ruled that it is against the policy of the law to allow an amendment to an election protest that introduces new matter or new precincts after the time prescribed for filing the original protest. The law aims for the speedy determination of election contests, as evidenced by the limited periods for filing and deciding such protests. Allowing such amendments would prolong the litigation, necessitate a new answer from the protestee, and defeat the purpose of the law. The Court cited the precedent in Fernando vs. Endencia. Consequently, the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction in permitting the amendment. Since the order is not appealable, certiorari is the appropriate remedy. Costs are imposed on respondent Vicente M. Florido.