G.R. No. 24769 - Eleazar vs. Zandueta

On June 8, 1925, the municipal board of canvassers of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, proclaimed the election of Federico Eleazar and six others as councillors for the term 1925–1928.
Joaquin Agsalud, a defeated candidate for the office of councillor, initiated an election contest (civil case No. 4391) on June 12, 1925, in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, naming only the candidates proclaimed as elected.

On June 18, 1925, Agustin Bongolan and nine associates, who were defeated candidates and not originally impleaded in the action, appeared in the contest.
They filed a “Motion of Protest” (Moción Protesta) declaring that they had been candidates with duly registered certificates and aligning themselves with the protest of the initially contested election results.
Subsequently, on July 8, 1925, these interveners filed an "Answer" which acted as an amendment to their motion, alleging that votes in various precincts were improperly diverted from them to the protestees.

Initially, the contest was heard in the first sala, where Judge Villareal, upon a motion from the protestees, struck out the interveners’ answer on July 9, 1925, deeming the intervention unprecedented and improper.
A rule of assignment was in practice whereby all cases from the same municipality were placed in the sala determined by the lowest case number among them.

Since another protest from Urdaneta over the office of president (with a lower case number) was pending in the second sala, case No. 4391 was transferred accordingly.

On August 4, 1925, Judge Zandueta reconsidered Judge Villareal’s order and permitted the intervention writings (both the motion of protest and the answer) to stand, subject to the interveners executing a bond of P500 to answer for costs.

The protestees requested reconsideration of this ruling, but Judge Zandueta denied their motion on August 15, 1925.
On September 12, 1925, the protestees filed a petition for a writ of certiorari challenging Judge Zandueta’s order, seeking relief from its effects.

Petitioners questioned whether Judge Zandueta had the authority to reconsider and reverse an order previously issued by Judge Villareal, citing precedents (Gabigao and Izquierdo vs. Del Rosario and Lim; Jerez vs. Wislizenus) that delineate limits on cross-sala interventions.

Petitioners also contested the right of defeated candidates, who were not initially impleaded, to intervene in the contest.
The legal sufficiency of the “motion of protest” and its accompanying “answer” by the interveners was put into question, particularly noting the delay in filing the answer beyond the fifteen-day period.

Whether Judge Francisco Zandueta had the authority to reconsider and reverse the order rendered by Judge C. M. Villareal after the case was transferred from the first to the second sala.

Consideration of the precedents concerning the power of judges in different branches to act over pending orders.
Analysis of the transfer rule and its impact on judicial authority.

Whether the interveners, namely Agustin Bongolan and his nine associates, had the legal right to intervene in the election contest.

Interpretation of paragraph 5 of section 481 of the Election Law (as amended by Act No. 3210) which allows defeated candidates, not initially impleaded, to join the matter if they have been registered and voted for.
Evaluation of the sufficiency and timely submission of their intervention pleadings (motion of protest and answer) as a means to establish their status as parties in the case.