Facts:

• The case involves a joint election contest proceeding filed by the petitioners in the Court of First Instance of Rizal.
• The contested offices in the election were the municipal president, vice-president, and municipal councilors of the town of Binangonan, Rizal.
• The respondents filed a motion to dismiss the protest, arguing that the court had no jurisdiction to hear and decide an election contest involving all the contested offices in one protest.
• The respondents based their motion on a provision in the Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3834, which allowed the joint filing of protests for the offices of vice-president and municipal councilors but prohibited the inclusion of a candidate for the office of municipal president in such a protest.
• The respondent judge, Francisco Zandueta, ordered the petitioners to amend their protest within three days or else the protest would be dismissed.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The respondent judge did not exceed his jurisdiction or abuse his discretion in ordering the petitioners to amend their protest.
• The joint protest of the petitioners was filed in good faith, alleging a common ground of action.
• Under section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, all persons having an interest in the subject of the action and in obtaining the relief demanded should be joined as plaintiffs.
• The fact that the petitioners united in filing a protest involving multiple contested offices did not deprive the respondent judge of his jurisdiction to order the amendment of the protest.
• The only question raised by the respondents' motion to dismiss was the misjoi...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Administrative Code and the Code of Civil Procedur...continue reading