G.R. No. L-8606; March 29, 1913
Ramon Hontiveros vs. Jose Altavas

FACTS

In the June 4, 1912, election for provincial governor of Capiz, the provincial board of canvassers proclaimed Jose Altavas as the winner. Ramon Hontiveros filed an election protest. The Court of First Instance, after a recount, found Hontiveros received more legal votes and ordered the board to correct its canvass. Altavas appealed, raising multiple alleged errors, including that Hontiveros’s certificate of candidacy was invalid, the protest was premature and not filed on time, and that procedural errors occurred during the recount of ballots.

ISSUE

The primary issues resolved were: (1) whether questions of a candidate’s eligibility can be raised in an election protest; (2) whether the period to file an election protest runs from the day the ballots were cast or from the date of the proclamation by the provincial board of canvassers; and (3) whether various procedural rulings by the trial court during the recount were correct.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. (1) Questions relating to the eligibility of a candidate cannot be raised in an election protest proceeding, following the precedent in Topacio vs. Paredes. The Court added, obiter dictum, that Hontiveros’s certificate of candidacy was sufficient. (2) The period to file an election contest under Section 27 of Act No. 1582 is two weeks from the date the provincial board of canvassers proclaims the result of the election, not from the day the ballots are cast, following Navarro vs. Veloso and Manalo vs. Sevilla. The protest filed on July 27, 1912 (treated as an amended protest), was filed within this period from the July 12 proclamation. (3) The Court found no merit in the appellant’s procedural objections regarding the recount. The trial court did not err in its appointment of commissioners, in its control over the recount process, or in its refusal to allow the protestee to intervene in selecting commissioners or to be present during the commissioners’ examination. The protestee’s right to a hearing was satisfied by the court’s subsequent consideration of his objections to the commissioners’ report.