G.R. No. L-5588 - Bimeda vs. Perez

Salvador E. Bimeda (petitioner) filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus accompanied by a request for a preliminary injunction.
The petition sought to compel Judge Jose T. Surtida (respondent), a Judge of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, to permit the adduction of evidence regarding an alleged irregularity.
The alleged irregularity pertained to the conduct of the board of inspectors at Precinct No. 6 in Pamplona, Camarines Sur during the municipal mayor election held on November 13, 1951.
The petitioner argued that the irregularity, if proved, was critical to contesting the election outcome.

The petitioner was declared the elected municipal mayor of Pamplona, Camarines Sur, winning by a plurality of one vote in the November 13, 1951 elections.
Respondent Arcadio Perez contested the election results within the prescribed period, initiating legal protest.
In his answer, respondent Perez introduced a counter-protest which included several assertions regarding the conduct of the election in Precinct No. 6.
The counter-protest alleged that there were wholesale irregularities and gross violations of the election law by the Board of Inspectors, which purportedly resulted in denying some 20 or more voters the opportunity to vote in favor of the protestee.

During the trial, after the protestant presented his evidence, the protestee (respondent in the counter-protest) sought to adduce additional evidence.
The additional evidence was intended to further establish both his special defenses and his allegations of irregularities in Precinct No. 6.
The respondent Judge, however, ruled out this evidence on the basis that allowing proof of the alleged irregularity would effectively nullify the votes of two hundred or more legitimate voters.
The respondent Judge maintained that the inclusion of such evidence, even if the irregularity were properly alleged, could not serve a useful purpose without causing undue disenfranchisement.

The petitioner challenged the respondent Judge’s ruling by arguing that the exclusion of the evidence was improper and that its admittance was necessary to address the alleged electoral irregularity.
The petitioner claimed that the ruling was not only an error warranting correction, but also one that affected the substantive rights in the electoral contest.
The intended purpose of the preliminary injunction was to restrain the continuation of the trial until the issue regarding the admission of evidence was determined.

Whether the petitioner’s petition for certiorari and mandamus was the proper remedy for correcting the respondent Judge’s ruling on the admission of evidence regarding the alleged irregularity.
Whether the exclusion of the evidence—purported to potentially nullify the votes of two hundred or more voters—constituted an error of jurisdiction or a mere error of judgment.

Whether the evidence relating to the alleged irregularity in Precinct No. 6, though not clearly and specifically set out in the initial pleadings, could be allowed upon amendment or supplemental manifestation.
Whether its admission would unfairly disenfranchise a significant number of legitimate voters, thereby undermining the integrity of the election results.

Whether an appeal would be an adequate remedy to correct the trial court’s ruling on the evidentiary issue, despite potential delays in obtaining a final appellate decision.
Whether the temporary nature of the interlocutory order precludes immediate review via certiorari.