Title
Acerden vs. Tonolete
Case
G.R. No. 30263
Decision Date
Dec 8, 1928
In a 1928 election protest, Roman Acerden contested Santiago Tonolete's one-vote victory. The court ruled Acerden won by 26 votes, affirming jurisdiction and dismissing technical challenges to his candidacy, prioritizing voter intent over procedural flaws.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 30263)

Facts:

Election Context: In the general elections held on June 5, 1928, Roman Acerden and Santiago Tonolete were the only registered and voted candidates for the position of municipal president in Carigara, Leyte.

Vote Count: The municipal council of Carigara, acting as the board of canvassers, declared Santiago Tonolete as the winner with 886 votes, while Roman Acerden received 885 votes—a margin of one vote.

Election Protest: Roman Acerden contested the election results. The trial judge, Honorable Eulalio E. Causing, found that Acerden was entitled to 913 votes and Tonolete to 887 votes, giving Acerden a plurality of 26 votes.

Appeal: Santiago Tonolete appealed the decision, not disputing the factual findings but arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the protest.

Legal Background: Section 479 of the Election Law, as amended by Act No. 3030, allowed election contests to be heard by the Court of First Instance "upon motion by any registered candidate voted for at such election." However, Act No. 3387 later amended this provision, removing the word "registered" and adding the phrase "who has duly filed his certificate of candidacy."

Issue:

  1. Whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the election protest based on the sufficiency of the allegations in the motion of protest.
  2. Whether the term "registered candidate voted for at such election" is synonymous with "candidate voted for at such election and who has duly filed his certificate of candidacy."
  3. Whether the certificate of candidacy was valid despite technical challenges to the affidavit.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roman Acerden, affirming the trial court's decision. The Court held that the allegations in the election protest were sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the court. It also clarified that the term "registered candidate voted for at such election" is effectively synonymous with "candidate voted for at such election and who has duly filed his certificate of candidacy." Additionally, the Court dismissed technical challenges to the certificate of candidacy, emphasizing that the will of the electorate should not be defeated by supertechnical arguments.

Ratio:

  1. Jurisdiction: The court has jurisdiction over an election protest if the motion is filed by a candidate who was voted for and has duly filed a certificate of candidacy. The removal of the word "registered" and the addition of the phrase "who has duly filed his certificate of candidacy" in Act No. 3387 did not change the substantive requirement but made the law more practical.
  2. Interpretation of Terms: The term "registered candidate voted for at such election" is comprehensive and includes the idea of a properly filed certificate of candidacy.
  3. Technicalities: Courts should not allow technicalities to override the will of the electorate. The certificate of candidacy, despite minor technical challenges, was valid in form and substance.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.