G.R. No. L-8515; March 29, 1913
Mamerto Manalo vs. Catalino Sevilla and Mariano Melendres

FACTS

An election for Governor of Rizal was held on June 14, 1912. Based on the face of the returns, Catalino Sevilla had a plurality and was declared elected by the provincial board of canvassers. Mamerto Manalo filed an election protest on June 18, 1912. Mariano Melendres was allowed to intervene. The trial court ruled in favor of protestant Manalo. Sevilla and Melendres appealed, raising several issues, including the timeliness of the protest. Appellants argued the protest was filed late, contending that the two-week period to file under the Election Law should be counted from election day (June 14), excluding the first day and including the last, making June 18 the 15th day and thus beyond the period.

ISSUE

Whether the election protest was filed within the period prescribed by law, specifically the meaning of “within two weeks after the election” under the Election Law.

RULING

Yes, the protest was filed on time. The Supreme Court, affirming its ruling in Navarro vs. Veloso, held that the period to file an election protest for a provincial office begins to run from the proclamation of the result by the provincial board of canvassers, not from the day the votes were cast. The Court reasoned that a protest cannot legally be initiated until after the board’s proclamation, as that proclamation is the primary evidence establishing the election of the protestee, which is a fundamental prerequisite for a valid protest. Since the protest was filed on June 18, 1912, which was within two weeks after the provincial board’s proclamation (which occurred after the election), it was timely filed. The Court also clarified that, even assuming the period were counted from election day, the correct method of computation is to exclude the first day and include the last, making June 18, 1912, the fourteenth day and thus within the two-week period.