Title
Basa vs. Senatin
Case
G.R. No. 12293
Decision Date
Jan 25, 1917
A 1916 election dispute in Pola, Mindoro, centered on jurisdiction, timely protest filing, and procedural compliance, upheld by the Supreme Court.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 12293)

Facts:

  1. Election Results and Initial Protest:

    • On June 6, 1916, an election was held for township officials in Pola, Province of Mindoro.
    • Gregorio Basa received 50 votes, Hilarion Senatin received 48 votes, and other candidates received fewer votes for the position of township president.
    • The election returns were certified by the election inspectors and received by the provincial board on June 8, 1916, without any protest.
    • On the same day, Hilarion Senatin submitted a written protest to the provincial governor against the election results.
  2. Jurisdictional Dispute:

    • A dispute arose over whether the election contest should be heard by the provincial board or the Court of First Instance.
    • On June 12, 1916, Hilarion Senatin filed a motion contesting the election in the Court of First Instance. The court certified the case to the provincial board, asserting that the board had exclusive jurisdiction over township election contests.
  3. Proceedings Before the Provincial Board:

    • Gregorio Basa moved to dismiss the contest, arguing that the protest was not filed with the board of election inspectors within the three-day period required by law.
    • Hilarion Senatin countered that the protest was delivered to the board of election inspectors on June 7, 1916, but the inspectors refused to accept it and advised him to forward it to the provincial board.
    • The provincial board found that the protest was timely presented to the election inspectors and proceeded to hear the case. After reviewing the evidence and ballots, the board declared Hilarion Senatin the winner with 62 votes, compared to Gregorio Basa's 50 votes.
  4. Petition for Prohibition:

    • Gregorio Basa filed a petition for prohibition, arguing that the provincial board lacked jurisdiction because the protest was filed late and that the contestant abandoned his case by filing in the Court of First Instance.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Jurisdiction of the Provincial Board:

    • Under Act No. 1397 (later reenacted in the Administrative Code), the provincial board had exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide township election contests.
    • The protest was deemed timely filed because it was presented to the board of election inspectors within the three-day period, even though the inspectors refused to accept it and advised the contestant to forward it to the provincial board.
  2. Timeliness of the Protest:

    • The protest was delivered to the board of election inspectors on June 7, 1916, within the three-day period required by law. The board's refusal to accept it did not render the protest untimely.
  3. No Abandonment of the Case:

    • The contestant's filing of a motion in the Court of First Instance did not constitute abandonment of his protest before the provincial board. He sought to ensure that his protest would be heard by the proper forum, and the return of the case to the provincial board did not deprive it of jurisdiction.
  4. Strict Compliance with Election Laws:

    • The Court emphasized that election laws must be strictly followed, but irregularities or informalities that do not affect the actual will of the electors should be ignored.

Dissenting Opinion (Justice Moreland)

Justice Moreland dissented, arguing that:

  1. The protest was not filed in accordance with the statutory requirements, as it was addressed to the provincial board and not the board of election judges.
  2. The provincial board lacked jurisdiction because the protest was not certified by the board of election judges, as required by law.
  3. The contestant failed to follow the proper procedure, and the provincial board's actions were without legal authority.


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.