JUAN REINANTE, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE SEGUNDO APOSTOL, ETC. and FIDEL ESCOBAR, respondents.
FACTS
Juan Reinante filed an election protest against Fidel Escobar on November 23, 1951, contesting the results from Precinct No. 3 of Burgos, Ilocos Sur, and seeking to be declared the elected mayor. Escobar filed his answer on December 14, 1951, defending the legality of the election in that precinct. During the pendency of the protest, Escobar filed motions on February 19 and April 8, 1952, to open the ballot boxes from the other precincts of Burgos, which were denied by Judge Apostol because those precincts were not the subject of the protest or counter-protest. After a hearing, Judge Apostol rendered a decision on May 23, 1952, declaring Reinante the elected mayor with a majority of 108 votes. Subsequently, on May 29 and 30, 1952, Escobar, along with other municipal officials and representatives, and without court authorization or Reinante’s intervention, opened the ballot boxes from Precincts Nos. 4 and 5 of Burgos at the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, purportedly under Section 157 of the Revised Election Code. Based on alleged evidence of tampering found, Escobar filed a motion for new trial on June 2, 1952. Judge Apostol granted this motion on June 18, 1952, revoking his May 23 decision. Reinante then filed a petition for a writ of prohibition with the Supreme Court to challenge the order granting a new trial.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction in granting the motion for new trial and reopening the case based on evidence obtained from ballot boxes not originally involved in the election protest.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the writ of prohibition. The Court ruled that the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction. The period for a protestee to answer and file a counter-protest is peremptory. Once expired, the protestee cannot amend the answer or file a counter-protest alleging new facts not originally raised. The motion for new trial, which was based on evidence from precincts not subject to the original protest, was filed five months and twenty days after the expiration of the legal period to answer or counter-protest. Considering it either as an amendment to the answer or as a counter-protest, it was filed out of time. The Court of First Instance, when acting on election protests, is a special court of limited jurisdiction. By revoking a final decision and granting a new trial based on evidence from outside the scope of the original protest, the judge exceeded his jurisdiction. The order of June 18, 1952, was null and void. Costs were imposed on respondent Fidel Escobar.
