Case Digest (G.R. No. L-16365)
Facts:
- The case involves a petition filed by the City Board of Canvassers of Tacloban City against Judge Segundo Moscoso and several respondents.
- The case was decided by the Supreme Court on September 30, 1963.
- Respondent Jose Hidalgo was a candidate for the office of city councilor in the elections of November 10, 1959.
- The city treasurer sent notice to the city board of canvassers to convene on November 20, 1959, for the purpose of canvassing the returns of votes and proclaiming the winning candidates.
- Hidalgo filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Leyte, presided by Judge Moscoso, seeking a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the board of canvassers from canvassing the votes and proclaiming the elected city officials.
- Hidalgo alleged several grounds, including that the city treasurer was not authorized to convene the board of canvassers and that the board members were not duly qualified.
- Judge Moscoso issued a writ of preliminary injunction, and the city board of canvassers filed an answer with a motion to dissolve the injunction and dismiss the case.
- Hidalgo then filed an amended petition, providing specific instances of terrorism, vote-buying, and other irregularities allegedly committed in the elections.
- The city board of canvassers challenged the sufficiency of the amended petition and the jurisdiction of the court.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court ruled that the allegations of terrorism, vote-buying, and other irregularities should be ventilated in a regular election protest, pursuant to section 174 of the Election Code.
- The duty of the city board of canvassers to canvass the election returns and proclaim the winning candidates is more or less ministerial and does not pass upon the vali...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The court held that the city board of canvassers may not be enjoined from assessing the returns because it would result in a lack of incumbents in the offices concerned after the termination of the current terms and while the case remains pending in court.
- This is not within the contemplation of the Election Code, which provides for election contests only after the proclamation of the wi...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-16365)
Facts:
The case of City Board of Canvassers v. Moscoso involves a petition filed by the City Board of Canvassers of Tacloban City, along with other petitioners, against Judge Segundo Moscoso and several respondents. The petitioners sought to restrain the board of canvassers from canvassing the votes cast in the city and from proclaiming the elected city officials. The respondents, on the other hand, filed a motion to intervene, claiming that they were candidates for various positions in the city.
Issue:
The main issues raised in the case were whether the allegations of terrorism, vote-buying, and other irregularities in the municipal elections should be addressed in a regular election protest or in a petition to enjoin the city board of canvassers from proclaiming the winning candidates, and whether the city board of canvassers could be enjoined from assessing the returns.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the allegations of terrorism, vote-buying, and other irregularities should be addressed in a regular election protest, pursuant to section 174 of the Election Code, and not in a petition to enjoin the city board of canvassers. The duty of the board to canvass the election returns and proclaim the winning candidates is ministerial and does not pass upon the validity or invalidity of the ballots cast. The court emphasized that the board's action is without prejudice to the determination of such questions in a proper court proceeding later.
The court further held that the city board of canvassers could not be enjoined from assessing the returns because it ...