A.C. No. 244 - Diao vs. Martinez

On November 25, 1959, following the general elections held on November 10, 1959, the Provincial Board of Canvassers of Camarines Norte proclaimed petitioner Dominador S. Asis as the Governor-elect with a plurality of 59 votes over his closest rival, Fernando V. Pajarillo.
Soon after the proclamation, election protests were filed by the losing candidate, marking the beginning of litigation over the conduct and outcome of the elections.

On December 4, 1959, respondent Fernando V. Pajarillo filed an election protest contesting the election of petitioner Asis.
Petitioner Asis filed his answer and counter-protest on December 21, 1959, thereby escalating the issues in the electoral dispute.

The respondent Judge set the case for a hearing on July 6, 1960, and presided over the hearings up to July 27, 1960.
On July 29, 1960, the respondent court issued an order appointing Deputy Clerk of Court Basilio Zantua as commissioner to receive evidence.

The order stated that the appointment was made to facilitate the continuance of ordinary civil and criminal proceedings, while also handling the voluminous evidence in the electoral protest.
It emphasized that the commissioner’s role was limited to receiving ballots objectively identified by both parties, without the authority to receive parol evidence or appreciate the validity of the ballots.

On August 18, 1960, in a subsequent order, the court provided further justification for the appointment:

Citing the presence of multiple pending election protests involving hundreds and even thousands of ballots, the court noted that without such an appointment, the resolution of the case would incur impractical delays.
It underscored that the Rules of Court, though applicable by analogy and in a suppletory manner in election cases, allow the appointment of a commissioner to handle evidence in cases requiring examination of voluminous accounts.

That the Election Law and the Rules of Court do not authorize such an appointment except where the parties consent or in specified circumstances such as the examination of long accounts or upon the identification of a novel issue of fact.
That the appointment was done “on the court’s own motion” rather than through the parties’ agreement, which he argued was contrary to established procedures.
That the appointment resulted in grave and irreparable prejudice against him, citing incidents during the hearings (e.g., the erasure of his name on ballots by respondent counsel when the judge was not present).

On September 20, 1960, the Supreme Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the enforcement of the July 29, 1960 order and ordered responses from all respondents.

Denied involvement in the referral of the case to a commissioner and expressed a preference for the election protest be heard directly by the Judge.
Argued that the appointment of the commissioner had limited authority—restricted only to handling the logistical aspects of marking and receiving ballots under specific guidelines.

Other respondents did not file an answer, but the case consolidated issues pertinent to the appointment of a commissioner in the context of election protests.

Whether the rules governing civil proceedings (specifically Rule 132 and Rule 32 of the Rules of Court) permit the appointment of a commissioner to hear evidence in an election protest case without the express consent of the parties, except in designated circumstances.
Whether the appointment of Deputy Clerk of Court Basilio Zantua, made on the court's own motion (or under the supposed agreement of the parties), was in accordance with the legal provisions and the election law, particularly given that the petitioner contended that such appointment might prejudice his rights.

Marking the ballots objected to by the parties and receiving such evidence, or
Extending to the appreciation and examination of parol or extraneous evidence, which the petitioner argued should be reserved for judicial determination.

Whether the Rules of Court, although applied by analogy or in a suppletory manner in election cases, can be extended to allow a trial before a commissioner in cases that are essentially distinct from ordinary civil actions.