Case Digest (G.R. No. 30705)
Facts:
The case of Macario E. Caesar vs. Filomeno Garrido revolves around a contest for the office of president in the municipality of Cabalian, Leyte, following the general election held on June 5, 1928. Filomeno Garrido was initially proclaimed elected with a plurality of 27 votes over Macario E. Caesar. A third candidate, Julian Cordobes, was named in the motion but did not participate in the contest. The trial court later reversed the board of canvassers' decision, declaring that Caesar had actually won the election by a plurality of 71 votes. The court ordered that Caesar be recognized as the duly elected president and ruled against Garrido for costs and expenses, including the fees of the commissioners involved in the recount. Garrido subsequently appealed this decision. The contest was initiated by a motion asserting that Caesar was a qualified elector and a registered candidate. Garrido moved to dismiss the contest, arguing that Caesar had not alleged his eligibility for...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 30705)
Facts:
Election Context: The case involves a contest over the office of municipal president in Cabalian, Leyte, following the general election held on June 5, 1928. Filomeno Garrido was initially proclaimed elected with a plurality of 27 votes over Macario E. Caesar. A third candidate, Julian Cordobes, was named but did not participate in the contest.
Trial Court Decision: The trial court reversed the result, finding that Caesar had been elected over Garrido by a plurality of 71 votes. The court declared Caesar as the rightful winner and ordered Garrido to pay costs and expenses, including the fees of the commissioners.
Motion to Dismiss: Garrido moved to dismiss the contest, arguing that Caesar failed to allege in his motion that he was eligible for the office at the time of the election. The trial court overruled this motion, holding that the allegation of being a duly qualified elector and registered candidate implied eligibility. The court also ruled that ineligibility is not a proper defense in an election contest.
Vote Counting Dispute: The contestant challenged the returns from the first precinct of Cabalian. The election inspectors initially counted 135 votes for Caesar but later ruled that these votes could not be returned for him because his name did not appear in the official list of enrolled voters. The votes were treated as scattering votes.
Recount by Commissioners: Upon recounting the votes, it was found that Caesar had received 139 votes, with 127 deemed valid after exceptions were taken. The trial court ruled that these votes should be counted for Caesar, resulting in a 71-vote plurality in his favor.
Residency and Eligibility: Garrido alleged in his answer that Caesar had not been a resident of Cabalian for the required period to be eligible for municipal office. The trial court held this issue irrelevant to the contest, as eligibility is a separate matter from the number of votes received.
Issue:
Jurisdiction and Sufficiency of Allegations: Whether the contestant’s motion was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the court, given the absence of an explicit allegation of eligibility.
Role of Election Inspectors: Whether the election inspectors were justified in discarding votes for Caesar based on his alleged ineligibility due to not being listed as a qualified voter.
Relevance of Eligibility in Election Contests: Whether the ineligibility of a candidate is a proper defense in an election contest.
Proper Forum for Eligibility Challenges: Whether eligibility issues should be raised in a separate quo warranto proceeding rather than in an election contest.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that:
Sufficiency of Allegations: The contestant’s motion was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the court. It was unnecessary to explicitly allege eligibility, as the allegation of being a duly qualified elector and registered candidate implied eligibility.
Role of Election Inspectors: The election inspectors had no authority to discard votes for Caesar based on his alleged ineligibility. The certificate of registration of a candidate is conclusive for the purpose of counting votes.
Eligibility as a Defense: The ineligibility of a candidate is not a proper defense in an election contest. Such issues must be raised in a separate quo warranto proceeding.
Premature Defense: The defense of ineligibility was premature, as the contestant had not yet been proclaimed. The proper time to challenge eligibility is within two weeks after proclamation.
Ratio:
Jurisdiction and Sufficiency of Allegations: The court held that the contestant’s motion, which alleged that he was a duly qualified elector and registered candidate, was sufficient to confer jurisdiction. The court relied on precedents (Viola vs. Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur and Tabada vs. Zandueta and Vergara) to conclude that no further allegations were necessary.
Role of Election Inspectors: The court ruled that election inspectors are limited to counting votes and certifying results. They cannot adjudicate on the eligibility of candidates, as this is beyond their authority. The certificate of registration is conclusive for the purpose of counting votes.
Eligibility as a Defense: The court emphasized that eligibility is a separate issue from the number of votes received. Ineligibility must be challenged in a quo warranto proceeding, not in an election contest. This ensures that the two issues are addressed in their proper forums.
Premature Defense: The court noted that the defense of ineligibility was premature because the contestant had not yet been proclaimed. The proper time to challenge eligibility is within two weeks after proclamation, as provided by the Election Law.
Avoiding Circuity of Action: While the court acknowledged the principle of avoiding circuity of action, it held that this principle cannot be applied where the defense is incongruous and premature. Eligibility issues must be addressed in a separate proceeding at the appropriate time.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, ruling that the contestant, Macario E. Caesar, was duly elected as municipal president of Cabalian. The court held that the election inspectors had no authority to discard votes based on eligibility concerns and that eligibility issues must be raised in a separate quo warranto proceeding. The judgment was affirmed, with costs against the appellant, Garrido.