Title
Lomugdang vs. Javier
Case
G.R. No. L-27535
Decision Date
Sep 30, 1967
Election protest over Culasi mayoralty; protestant died, vice-mayor intervened; burned ballots barred evidence aliunde; SC upheld trial court, ruling for deceased protestant.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 268891)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Election Background and Certification
    • On November 12, 1963, general elections were held for the office of Municipal Mayor of Culasi, Antique.
    • The Municipal Board of Canvassers of Culasi certified the election returns on May 17, 1966, which showed that:
      • Paterno Javier had received 1,203 votes – a plurality of all votes cast.
      • Felix Lomugdang, who later became the protestant, secured 1,150 votes.
  • Filing of Protest and Counter-Protest
    • On May 30, 1966, Felix Lomugdang, later designated as the protestant, filed a protest challenging the election results in Precinct No. 4, Culasi.
      • His grounds included alleged errors or irregularities by the Board of Election Inspectors.
      • He contended that there was erroneous appreciation of ballots and improper adjudication of votes.
    • Paterno Javier, the protestee and appellant, filed an answer and counter-protest challenging the results in 22 different precincts (including Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, and 36).
      • He similarly alleged errors or irregularities committed by the Board of Election Inspectors.
      • He claimed that ballots in the counter-protested precincts, except for those in Precinct No. 4, had been burned pursuant to Section 157 of the Revised Election Code during the November 1965 elections.
      • He intended to introduce evidence aliunde (testimony of voters) to support his allegations regarding the damaged ballots.
  • Death of the Protestant and Subsequent Motions
    • Shortly before the first hearing on July 18, 1966, Felix Lomugdang (the protestant) met an untimely death.
    • Based on his death, the protestee (Paterno Javier) moved to dismiss the protest on July 22, 1966.
    • On September 1, 1966, Vice-Mayor Pablo Pe Alolod filed a motion to intervene and/or substitute, asserting his entitlement to assume the mayoral office if the protest succeeded, in accordance with Section 7 of Republic Act 2264.
    • The protestee opposed this motion by citing Section 176(g) of the Revised Election Code, contending that the vice-mayor had no legal basis to intervene.
    • The trial court, on September 27, 1966, denied the protestee’s motion to dismiss the protest and allowed the vice-mayor to intervene.
    • A subsequent motion for reconsideration filed on September 2, 1966, was denied on October 3, 1966.
  • Presentation of Evidence and Additional Proceedings
    • On October 11, 1966, under order from the trial court, the ballot box of Precinct No. 4 was opened by the commissioner:
      • The report indicated that from 83 ballots claimed by Lomugdang, 46 were admitted while 37 were objected to by the protestee, later reduced to 34 after withdrawing objections to 3 ballots.
      • All 17 ballots claimed by Paterno Javier were accepted without objections.
    • On October 24, 1966, Vice-Mayor Pablo Pe Alolod moved to dismiss the counter-protest on the grounds:
      • The ballots in all counter-protested precincts (except Precinct No. 4) had been burned under Section 157 of the Revised Election Code.
      • The introduction of evidence aliunde was argued to be impermissible as it would effectively constitute holding a new election.
    • The trial court deferred resolution on the motion to dismiss the counter-protest and scheduled further hearings for November 22, 1966.
    • On November 22, 1966, the court received the election returns (Exhibits L-1 to L-18) and agreed to determine whether evidence aliunde should be allowed.
    • On December 15, 1966, the trial court denied the petition to present evidence aliunde regarding the counter-protest, thereby deeming the case submitted for decision.
  • Decision of the Trial Court and Subsequent Appeal
    • On January 26, 1967, the trial court declared:
      • Felix Lomugdang (the protestant) as the duly elected Municipal Mayor of Culasi, Antique, having achieved a plurality of seven votes over Paterno Javier.
      • Vice-Mayor Pablo Pe Alolod was declared entitled to assume the mayoral office due to the death of the protestant.
    • Paterno Javier, the protestee, appealed the decision on several points of law, contesting:
      • The non-dismissal of the protest on grounds of the death of the protestant.
      • The denial of his motion to introduce evidence aliunde.
      • The procedural legitimacy of allowing the vice-mayor to intervene.
      • The ultimate determination of the election results.
    • The appellate brief was submitted only by the protestee-appellant, requesting an expedited decision due to the proximity of the next scheduled elections.

Issues:

  • The Impact of the Protestant’s Death on the Election Contest
    • Whether the trial court erred in not dismissing the protest following the death of Felix Lomugdang.
    • Whether the death of a candidate inherently voids or abates an ongoing election contest.
  • The Admissibility of Evidence Aliunde in the Counter-Protest
    • Whether the trial court erred in denying the protestee the opportunity to introduce evidence aliunde (i.e., the testimony of voters) to challenge the official returns in the 22 counter-protested precincts.
    • Whether allowing such evidence (from nearly 4,000 voters) would compromise the orderly resolution of the election contest.
  • The Validity of the Intervention by Vice-Mayor Pablo Pe Alolod
    • Whether the court erred in permitting the vice-mayor to intervene in the case.
    • Whether the intervention is justified under Section 7 of Republic Act 2264, considering his potential entitlement to the mayoral office should the protest succeed.
  • Overall Determination of the Election Results
    • Whether the trial court properly declared Felix Lomugdang as the duly elected mayor despite the contested vote counts and subsequent procedural issues.
    • The effect of procedural mishaps and the handling of the evidence on the final determination of the election contest.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms