Facts:
On December 2, 1959,
Jose Pascual filed with the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte a
protest contesting the election of
Claro Ibasco as Mayor of Mercedes, Camarines Norte. When summons was served upon Ibasco, instead of filing an answer, he filed a
motion for bill of particulars, which the trial court granted on January 5, 1960, ordering Pascual to amend his motion of protest by naming the precincts where the alleged minors voted, the date and the precincts where they were registered, the persons who voted twice and the precincts where they voted, and the precincts where the inspectors allegedly committed irregularities, all within five days from receipt of the order. As Pascual failed to file an amended protest, Ibasco filed a motion to dismiss on January 19, 1960, which was denied by the trial court. In the meantime, Ibasco did not file an answer within the period required by law; nevertheless, the court did not declare him in default and he was
deemed to have entered a general denial under
Section 176 (e) of the Revised Election Code. During the hearing, Ibasco questioned the validity of the ballots cast in favor of Pascual by introducing as exhibits before the Committee on Revision the questioned ballots in the precincts covered by the protest. The trial court refused to allow Ibasco to impugn those ballots on the theory that, having failed to file an answer, he was deemed to have entered merely a general denial and thus could not dispute the protest’s material allegations. Ibasco moved for reconsideration, arguing that since he had not been declared in default, he had the right to contest votes cast in precincts involved in the protest; the motion was denied. Ibasco then sought review by
certiorari in the Supreme Court, praying that the trial court be ordered to allow him to present evidence necessary to nullify the questioned ballots cast in favor of Pascual in the precincts involved in the protest, and the Supreme Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction.
Issues:
Whether a protestee who is
deemed to have entered a general denial under
Section 176 (e) of the Revised Election Code, without being declared in default, may introduce evidence to disprove the allegations of the election protest concerning ballots in precincts covered by the protest.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: