Case Digest (G.R. No. L-4512)
Facts:
The case of Gregorio Abendan vs. Martin Llorente et al. was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on February 25, 1908. The case arose from a municipal election held in the city of Cebu on November 5, 1907, where Vicente Sotto received 650 votes, Martin Llorente received 483 votes, and Timoteo de Castro received 9 votes. Following the election, on November 18, 1907, Llorente filed a protest in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, claiming that Sotto was ineligible for the position of municipal president and requested that the votes cast for Sotto be declared void, thereby declaring himself as the duly elected president.
During the proceedings, Gregorio Abendan, who represented Sotto, was denied the opportunity to present his case because Sotto was deemed a fugitive from justice. On January 4, 1908, the Court of First Instance ruled in favor of Llorente, declaring the votes for Sotto void and affirming Llorente as the elected president. The...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-4512)
Facts:
Election and Protest
- A municipal election was held in Cebu on November 5, 1907, for the office of municipal president.
- Vicente Sotto received 650 votes, Martin Llorente received 483 votes, and Timoteo de Castro received 9 votes.
- On November 18, 1907, Martin Llorente filed a protest in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, alleging that Vicente Sotto was ineligible for the office of municipal president. Llorente sought to have Sotto's votes declared void and himself declared the winner.
Court Proceedings
- The lawyer representing Gregorio Abendan (the plaintiff in this case) appeared on behalf of Vicente Sotto in the protest.
- The Court of First Instance refused to hear Sotto's lawyer, citing that Sotto was a fugitive from justice.
- On January 4, 1908, the Court of First Instance ruled that the votes cast for Vicente Sotto were void and declared Martin Llorente the duly elected president of Cebu. The court also ordered Sotto to pay ₱100 as costs.
Certiorari Action
- Gregorio Abendan, a duly qualified elector of Cebu but not a party to the original protest, filed an original action of certiorari in the Supreme Court.
- Abendan sought to have the judgment of the Court of First Instance reviewed, declared void, and to restrain the judge from issuing an execution against Vicente Sotto's property.
Plaintiff's Standing
- Abendan was not a candidate in the election nor a party to the original protest.
- His only claim to standing was that he was a qualified elector of Cebu. However, the complaint did not specify whether he voted or for whom he voted.
Issue:
- Whether Gregorio Abendan, as a qualified elector but not a candidate or party to the original protest, has the legal standing to file a certiorari proceeding to review the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
- Whether the Election Law (Act No. 1582) allows a voter who was not a candidate to contest the legality of an election.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding, holding that Gregorio Abendan had no legal standing to file the certiorari action. The Court ruled that Abendan, as a mere elector and not a candidate or party to the original protest, had no right under the Election Law to challenge the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
Ratio:
- Legal Standing: Under Section 27 of Act No. 1582 (Election Law), only candidates who received votes in the election are allowed to file a protest or contest the election results. A qualified elector who was not a candidate has no legal standing to initiate such proceedings.
- Certiorari Proceedings: Certiorari is a remedy available to parties directly affected by a judgment. Since Abendan was not a party to the original protest and had no legal right to intervene, he could not maintain a certiorari action to review the judgment.
- Election Law Interpretation: The Court emphasized that the Election Law does not grant voters the right to contest election results unless they are candidates. Abendan's status as a qualified elector did not confer upon him any right to challenge the election outcome.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the certiorari proceeding, with costs against Gregorio Abendan, as he lacked the legal standing to challenge the judgment of the Court of First Instance.