Title
Bimeda vs. Perez
Case
G.R. No. L-5588
Decision Date
Aug 26, 1953
Election protest over a one-vote margin; judge excluded evidence of irregularities, deemed an error of judgment, not abuse of discretion; appeal, not certiorari, proper remedy.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-5588)

Facts:

  1. Election and Protest:

    • Petitioner Salvador E. Bimeda was declared elected as municipal mayor of Pamplona, Camarines Sur, with a plurality of one vote in the elections held on November 13, 1951.
    • Respondent Arcadio Perez contested the election, filing a protest in due time.
  2. Counter-Protest:

    • In his answer, Perez set up a counter-protest, alleging irregularities in Precinct No. 6 of Pamplona. He claimed that the Board of Inspectors committed wholesale irregularities, gross violations of election law, and disenfranchised 20 or more voters who would have voted for Bimeda.
  3. Trial Proceedings:

    • During the trial, after Perez concluded presenting his evidence, Bimeda attempted to present evidence to support his counter-protest regarding the alleged irregularities in Precinct No. 6.
    • The respondent Judge, however, ruled out this evidence, stating that allowing it would disenfranchise over 200 voters if the election in the precinct were annulled.
  4. Grounds for Opposition:

    • Perez opposed the presentation of evidence, arguing that the irregularities were not clearly and specifically set out in Bimeda’s answer, making the averment insufficient to serve as a basis for evidence.
    • The Judge, however, ruled out the evidence not on this ground but on the belief that the evidence would not serve any useful purpose, as it could not nullify the election without disenfranchising legitimate voters.

Issue:

  1. Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion or acted without jurisdiction in ruling out the evidence Bimeda sought to present regarding the alleged irregularities in Precinct No. 6.
  2. Whether the proper remedy for Bimeda is a petition for certiorari or an appeal.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari and mandamus. The Court held that the respondent Judge’s ruling was a mere error of judgment, not a lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The proper remedy for Bimeda was an appeal, not a petition for certiorari. The writ of injunction issued by the Court was dissolved.

Ratio:

  1. Errors of Judgment vs. Errors of Jurisdiction:

    • Errors of judgment committed by a court in the exercise of its jurisdiction are not grounds for certiorari. Such errors may be corrected by appeal.
    • Certiorari is only appropriate when there is a lack of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction, or grave abuse of discretion.
  2. Adequacy of Appeal as a Remedy:

    • The Court emphasized that an appeal is an adequate remedy, even if it is less speedy than certiorari. Mere delay in the appeal process does not justify departing from the prescribed procedure unless there is a lack or excess of jurisdiction or abuse of discretion that would cause injustice.
  3. Interlocutory Orders:

    • The order complained of was interlocutory and addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Even if erroneous, it is a mere error of judgment that can be corrected on appeal.
  4. No Injustice to Petitioner:

    • The Court noted that Bimeda was currently holding the contested office, and any delay in the proceedings would not work injustice to him.


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.