G.R. No. 28320 - San Juan vs. Abordo

On June 24, 1925, the provincial board of Palawan, acting as board of canvassers, proclaimed Perfecto Abordo as the elected provincial governor with 1,444 votes against 1,406 votes obtained by his opponent, Rufo San Juan.
The proclamation was made based on the canvassing of ballots in the provincial election.

On July 1, 1925, Rufo San Juan filed a protest in the Court of First Instance of Palawan against the election of Perfecto Abordo, alleging eleven specific grounds.
In response, Perfecto Abordo presented a counter-protest, raising four grounds in his answer.

During the course of the election contest in the Court of First Instance, Rufo San Juan filed a separate protest with the Executive Bureau of the Government. This protest was based on the allegation that Perfecto Abordo was not a legal resident of Palawan at the time of his election.
The new protest triggered administrative proceedings under Section 408 of the Election Law.

The administrative investigation culminated in the issuance of Proclamation No. 48, series of 1926, by Governor-General Leonard Wood.
The Proclamation declared that Perfecto Abordo did not satisfy the requisite residency for eligibility and was therefore ineligible to hold the office of provincial governor of Palawan.
The Proclamation was issued on October 18, 1926, officially declaring the office vacant.

On January 25, 1927, the election contest was heard by the Court of First Instance of Palawan.
On March 27, 1927, the trial judge rendered a 74-page decision finding that Rufo San Juan had obtained 1,340 votes while Perfecto Abordo secured 1,067 votes, the latter being nullified by the court on the ground of his ineligibility.

Notwithstanding the Governor-General’s proclamation, Perfecto Abordo appealed the trial court’s decision, and the records were received by this court on September 1, 1927.
On September 8, 1927, counsel for the protestant-appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on three grounds:

The appeal was presented beyond the time fixed by law, rendering the trial court’s decision final and executory.
Perfecto Abordo had been declared ineligible by the Governor-General’s Proclamation No. 48.
Perfecto Abordo was not a registered candidate for the office in the general elections of June 2, 1925.

The central issue was whether an appellant, already declared ineligible under Section 408 of the Election Law, may prosecute his appeal in this court.
It was noted that even if the appellate review rendered a favorable vote count for the appellant, such a judgment would be ineffectual since his ineligibility precluded the execution of any decision in his favor.
The situation would be equally problematic if an outcome declared the election a tie.

The case cited Topacio vs. Paredes (23 Phil. 238) in establishing that questions regarding the eligibility of candidates elected to an office fall outside the jurisdiction of the courts hearing election contests.
The law assigns the resolution of eligibility issues for provincial elective offices to the Executive Department.
Emphasis was placed on the necessity for rapid and economical resolution of election contests to preserve public interest, avoid unnecessary delays, and restore political order.

Whether an appellant declared ineligible (by the Governor-General’s Proclamation under Section 408 of the Election Law) has standing to prosecute an appeal challenging the election results.

Does the ineligibility of the appellant render any favorable decision on the merits of his appeal moot and nugatory?
Can the court entertain an appeal if any judgment in favor of the appellant would be impossible to execute?

Whether the court has jurisdiction to consider issues regarding the eligibility of a candidate elected to an office when such matters are reserved to the Executive Department.
How precedent (e.g., Topacio vs. Paredes) influences the court's obligation to refrain from deciding eligibility questions in an election contest.

Whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed period established by election law.
The impact of a delayed appeal on the finality and executory nature of the trial court’s decision.