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...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The case concerns an election contest for the office of municipal president in Cabalian, Province of Leyte, following the general election held on June 5, 1928.
• The contest arose after the original board of canvassers proclaimed Filomeno Garrido as the winner by a plurality of 27 votes.

Parties and Their Roles

• Macario E. Caesar – Contestant and appellee, who filed the election contest asserting his qualifications and the invalidity of certain vote returns against him.
• Filomeno Garrido – Contestee and appellant, who was originally proclaimed the winner by the electoral board.
• A third candidate, Julian Cordobes, is mentioned in the motion but did not actively participate in the contest proceedings.

Election and Vote Count Discrepancies

• The dispute centered on the counting of votes from the first precinct of Cabalian.
• Initially, inspectors in the precinct recorded 135 votes for Caesar on the tally sheets.
• Two of the three inspectors later ruled that these votes were invalid because Caesar’s name did not appear in the official list of enrolled voters in any precinct, treating them as scattering votes.
• When the matter was reexamined in court, commissioners were appointed and they recounted the votes in the first precinct, obtaining 139 votes for Caesar.
• After the contestee raised exceptions to 12 of these votes, 127 votes remained uncontroverted in favor of Caesar.
• Adjusting the returns from the precincts, the trial court found that Caesar had, overall, won the election by a plurality of 71 votes.

Proceedings and Preliminary Challenges

• The contest was instituted via a motion by Caesar, which began with an assertion that he was a duly qualified elector and a registered candidate, thereby implying his eligibility for office.
• The contestee moved to dismiss on the ground that the motion failed to explicitly allege that Caesar was eligible for the office at the time of the election.
• The trial court overruled the motion to dismiss, relying on prior jurisprudence that held:
• The implication of eligibility from the assertion of being a duly qualified elector and a registered candidate was sufficient.
• The issue of a candidate’s eligibility is not a proper matter of exception or defense in an election contest.

Defense on Eligibility Raised by the Contestee

• In the answer filed after the dismissal motion was overruled, Garrido argued, as a special defense, that Caesar was ineligible due to insufficient residency in Cabalian (either not meeting the one-year requirement for municipal office or the six-month requirement for enrollment among qualified voters).
• The trial judge rejected this defense, stating that issues pertaining to eligibility are irrelevant in an election contest, which focuses solely on the vote count.

Issue:

Whether the contestant’s motion needed to explicitly allege his eligibility to the office, beyond asserting that he was a qualified elector and registered candidate.

• The issue pertains to the sufficiency of the motion in establishing jurisdiction over the contest.
• Past decisions (as in Viola, Adolfo, and Tabada) support the notion that no additional explicit allegation is required.

Whether the election inspectors acted appropriately in discarding the votes from the first precinct based solely on the absence of the contestant’s name from the official voters’ registration list.

• This issue involves determining the propriety of excluding votes already recorded on the tally sheets.

Whether the special defense based on the participant’s alleged failure to meet the residency requirements is valid and proper within the context of an election contest.

• The issue examines if eligibility questions can be raised in a contest that is fundamentally concerned with the vote count.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)