Case Digest (G.R. No. L-6404)
Facts:
The case involves Pedro Calano as the petitioner and appellant, and Pedro Cruz as the respondent and appellee. The events leading to this case began after the 1951 elections when Pedro Cruz was proclaimed as a councilor-elect in the municipality of Orion, Bataan, by the Municipal Board of Canvassers. Pedro Calano contested Cruz's eligibility for the office by filing a petition for quo warranto under Section 173 of the Revised Election Code (Republic Act No. 180). Calano's petition sought to declare Cruz's proclamation null and void and requested that he be declared the rightful councilor-elect in Cruz's place. The Court of First Instance of Bataan dismissed Calano's petition on December 27, 1951, citing that it was filed out of time and that Calano lacked the legal capacity to sue. Calano appealed this dismissal, and on May 7, 1952, the Supreme Court ruled that the petition was indeed filed within the legal timeframe and that the grounds for dismissal did ...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-6404)
Facts:
Election and Proclamation:
- Respondent Pedro Cruz was proclaimed as a councilor-elect in the municipality of Orion, Bataan, following the 1951 elections by the Municipal Board of Canvassers.
Quo Warranto Petition:
- Petitioner Pedro Calano filed a petition for quo warranto under Section 173 of the Revised Election Code (Republic Act No. 180), contesting Cruz's eligibility for the office of municipal councilor.
- Calano sought to nullify Cruz's proclamation and requested that he (Calano) be declared the elected councilor in Cruz's place.
Initial Dismissal:
- The Court of First Instance of Bataan dismissed Calano's petition on December 27, 1951, on two grounds:
- The petition was filed out of time.
- Calano lacked legal capacity to sue.
- The Court of First Instance of Bataan dismissed Calano's petition on December 27, 1951, on two grounds:
First Appeal:
- On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled on May 7, 1952, that the petition was filed within the prescribed period.
- The Court also noted that the petition was defective for failing to state a sufficient cause of action, but this issue was not raised in the motion to dismiss.
- The order of dismissal was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Second Motion to Dismiss:
- Upon remand, Cruz filed another motion to dismiss, arguing that the petition failed to state a sufficient cause of action.
- The trial court granted the motion on September 30, 1952, and Calano appealed again.
Appealability of the Case:
- Cruz argued that the appeal should not be given due course because Section 178 of the Revised Election Code limits appeals to election contests involving higher offices (e.g., Provincial Governor, City Mayors).
- The Supreme Court clarified that appeals involving purely legal questions, such as this case, are permissible even for municipal councilor contests.
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in dismissing Calano's petition for quo warranto on the ground that it failed to state a sufficient cause of action.
- Whether the appeal was properly given due course despite the limitations under Section 178 of the Revised Election Code.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order of dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held that:
- The petition for quo warranto filed by Calano constituted a sufficient cause of action under Section 173 of the Revised Election Code.
- The appeal was proper because it involved purely legal questions, which are appealable under the law.
Ratio:
- (Unlock)