G.R. No. 44627 - Salcedo vs. Herdez

The case involves an electoral protest initiated in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas.
The protest was originally filed on June 18, 1934, contesting certain election results.
Prior to the Supreme Court’s intervention, the trial court had rendered a decision on October 10, 1935, dismissing further proceedings on the ground of lack of jurisdiction due to the one-year limitation provided in the Election Law.

The trial court noted a motion, filed on September 18, 1935, by the protestee’s counsel which argued that the court had lost its jurisdiction because the one-year period for settling electoral protests had expired.
The said motion cited the relevant provision in Article 479, paragraph 2, of the Election Law.
In its decision, the trial court declared the protest over, reasoning that after one year (June 18, 1935), the court was barred by the mandatory limitation from issuing any further decision on the matter.
The decision was rendered without presentation of the protestant’s reserved written reply, and consequently, any authorization for the protestant to file a further reply had lapsed.

Prior to the appeal under discussion, the election contest had been previously brought before this Court in G.R. No. 42992.
On rehearing that earlier appeal on August 9, 1935, the Supreme Court ordered a remand to the Court of First Instance with explicit instructions:

To count and verify the actual ballots in the affected precincts.
To assess the validity of thirty-six ballots specified in a particular assignment of error.
To render a new judgment without special pronouncement on costs.

No motion for reconsideration was filed following the Supreme Court's August 9, 1935 decision.
In response, the trial court, with the subsequent motion by respondent-appellee Hernandez, attempted once more to dismiss the protest on the basis that the one-year limitation had expired.

Whether the one-year period for the disposition of electoral protests, as mandated by paragraph 2 of section 479 of the Election Law, applies solely to the proceedings in the Courts of First Instance.
Whether the time consumed during the pendency of appellate proceedings in the Supreme Court should be included in computing the one-year limitation period.

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the protest on the ground that the one-year limitation had expired, despite the appeal being lodged in the Supreme Court.
Whether the Supreme Court possesses inherent jurisdiction to remand the case back to the Court of First Instance, even if part of the one-year period was consumed prior to the elevation of the case.

Whether Section 480, which governs appeals to the Supreme Court in electoral contests, and Section 481, which mandates the prompt resolution of such cases, allow for any extension or “tolling” of the one-year limitation period applicable to the lower court.
Whether the decision in Portillo vs. Salvani is controlling in this context, given that it involved a different stage of trial in the electoral process.