Facts:

This case revolves around an election protest initiated by Lucas Ancheta and Florencio A. Aguilar against Marcos Verceles in the municipality of Luna, La Union, following a municipal election held on June 3, 1919. In this election, Verceles was declared the winner by the municipal council, which acted as the board of canvassers. On June 17 and June 19, 1919, Aguilar and Ancheta respectively filed election protests against Verceles, with both petitioners offering to provide the required bond for any costs associated with the motions. However, at the time the protests were filed, the presiding judge was on vacation, thus delaying the determination of the bond amount that needed to be set according to Section 482 of the Administrative Code.

Upon returning from vacation on July 1, 1919, the judge fixed the bond at P500 and notified the petitioners on July 5 and July 11, 1919. Consequently, the petitioners submitted the bond shortly thereafter. On August 8, 1919, Verceles filed a mo

...

Facts:

Election and Candidacy

• An election was held on June 3, 1919, in the municipality of Luna, Province of La Union.
• The purpose of the election was to elect a municipal president.
• The candidates included Lucas Ancheta, Florencio A. Aguilar, Marcos Verceles, among others.

Canvassing and Declaration of Results

• The municipal council, acting as the board of canvassers, counted the votes cast in the election.
• The canvassers determined that Marcos Verceles obtained a majority of the votes.
• On June 7, 1919, the council declared Marcos Verceles duly elected as municipal president.

Filing of Election Protests

• On June 17, 1919, Florencio A. Aguilar filed a protest against the election results, with all candidates duly notified (Exhibit A).
• On June 19, 1919, Lucas Ancheta likewise filed a protest and ensured that all candidates received notice (Exhibit B).
• At the time of both protests, each protestant offered to give a bond for the payment of any potential costs or incidental expenses, conforming to the procedural requirements (Par. 7 of Aguilar’s petition; Par. 8 of Ancheta’s petition).

Absence of the Judge and the Bond Requirement

• The respondent judge was on vacation when the protests were filed (June 17 and 19, 1919), resulting in a delay in fixing the bond amount required under section 482 of the Administrative Code (Act No. 2711).
• The absence led to the bond not being fixed and, consequently, not being given at the time of protest filing.

Post-Vacation Proceedings

• Upon returning from vacation, on July 1, 1919, the respondent judge fixed the bond amount at P500 for each protest case.
• The protestants complied by providing the bonds on July 5 and July 11, 1919, as they were duly notified (Exhibits C and D).

Respondent’s Answer and Defense

• On July 8, 1919, respondent Marcos Verceles appeared and filed an answer to Florencio A. Aguilar’s protest.
• In his answer, he presented both a general and a special defense.
• His special defense questioned whether he had been duly notified of the protest as required by section 481 of the Administrative Code and prayed for the dismissal of the protest (Exhibit E).

Commission Appointment and Ballot Examination

• On August 11, 1919, after both parties expressed readiness to proceed, the court appointed three commissioners: Miguel Rilloraza, Placido Singson, and Gregorio Garcia.
• The commissioners were sworn in and instructed to examine the ballots and the registration list before the court.
• Their examination spanned over August 11, 12, and 14, 1919, culminating in a report submitted on August 14, 1919, at around 4:30 p.m.
• The report was subsequently examined in court by the parties and their attorneys on August 15, 1919.

Motion for Dismissal and Dismissal of the Protest

• On August 16, 1919, through his attorney, respondent Marcos Verceles filed a motion requesting dismissal of the protest on the grounds that the required bond had not been given within the prescribed time.
• Subsequently, on August 31, 1919, the respondent judge dismissed the protest on the basis that the bond required by section 482 of the Administrative Code was not timely furnished.
• The judge also fixed compensation for the commissioners at P5 per day for each day they were engaged in the examination and reporting of the ballots.

Issue:

Timeliness of the Bond

• Was the bond required under section 482 of the Administrative Code given within a reasonable and legally acceptable time?

Jurisdiction and Authority of the Court

• Did the court possess the authority under the law to dismiss the election protest on the ground of the bond not being given in time?
• Did the filing of the protest within the prescribed period suffice to confer jurisdiction to the court even if the bond was submitted later?

Appropriate Remedy

• Should a writ of mandamus be issued to compel the respondent judge to reinstate the dismissed election protest?
• Is reinstatement necessary to protect the rights of the protestants and to ensure a fair and expeditious resolution of the election contest?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)