G.R. No. 16332 - Ocampo vs. Mina

An election for the provincial governor of Ambos Camarines was held on June 3, 1919.
The vote counts were as follows:

On June 27, 1919, Tomas Arejola filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance against the results affecting Julian Ocampo and other candidates.
On July 10, 1919, Arejola submitted a motion alleging that Julian Ocampo was nowhere to be found in the province, thereby requesting that notice of the protest be given by publication instead of personal service.

The respondent judge, on July 15, 1919, granted the motion by ordering publication of the notice in two local newspapers (El Bicolano and La Vanguardia) once a week for three consecutive weeks.
On August 11, 1919, attorneys for Julian Ocampo made a special appearance solely to contest the court’s jurisdiction over him on the ground of improper notice.
On the same day, the respondent judge denied those attorneys the authority to represent Ocampo regarding their objection, stating that a denial of jurisdiction precluded their appearance on his behalf.
Later, on August 19, 1919, the attorneys formally excepted to the judge’s order denying them the right to appear for the specific purpose of objecting to jurisdiction.
Finally, on February 26, 1920, the judge promulgated an order (signed February 12, 1920) declaring that he had acquired jurisdiction over all protestees—including Julian Ocampo—and continued with the trial of the protest.

On March 16, 1920, Julian Ocampo filed an original petition in the Supreme Court seeking to prohibit the respondent judge from continuing the election protest proceedings.
The petition was based on the argument that Ocampo was not notified of the protest in the manner prescribed by law, thereby depriving the court of proper jurisdiction over his person.

A copy of the original election protest (marked as Exhibit A) was filed, which notably did not allege that any candidate was proclaimed elected as a result of the election.
The protest was deemed premature; an objection to its prematurity should have been raised before the canvass or proclamation of the vote results, pursuant to established jurisprudence on the matter.

Section 479 of Act No. 2711 mandated that an election protest must be filed with the court within two weeks after the election.
Section 481 of Act No. 2711 required that notice of the protest be given to all candidates within twenty days from the filing of the protest.
In the absence of specific guidelines in the Election Law regarding the mode of serving notice, the protestant is permitted to choose any method that ensures actual notice is provided within the prescribed period.
The respondent judge, however, based his order on provisions from Act No. 190 (sections 396 and 398) pertaining to substituted service and service by publication—a method that inherently requires a publication period of at least three consecutive weeks.

The statutory requirement of a 20-day notice period conflicts with the publication method as ordered by the respondent judge.
Publication, by its nature, could not satisfy the timely and direct notice mandated by Section 481, thus raising a question of the validity of the court’s jurisdiction over Julian Ocampo.

Can a Court of First Instance acquire jurisdiction over the person of a protestee by serving notice through publication when personal or direct notice is mandated by law?

Does the method of publication adopted by the respondent judge satisfy the requirement under Section 481 of Act No. 2711 that notice be given to all candidates within a strict 20-day period?

Is the judicial proceeding valid if the prescribed statutory time limits for filing the protest and giving notice are not strictly complied with?