Case Digest (G.R. No. 136257)
Facts:
Antonio S. Sanagustin v. Conrado Barrios, G.R. No. 46497. September 18, 1939, the Supreme Court, Laurel, J., writing for the Court.On December 31, 1937, petitioner Antonio S. Sanagustin, then a candidate for councilor of the City of Iloilo, filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo presided over by respondent Conrado Barrios, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, against the proclaimed election of several candidates for city councilor. After hearing the protest the respondent judge rendered a decision confirming the proclaimed winners and set forth the vote totals for each candidate, showing Sanagustin with 4,207 votes and Crispino Melocoton with 4,222 votes.
Petitioner then instituted an original action in this Court (recorded as G.R. No. 46196) to obtain reversal of the respondent judge’s decision and a declaration that he was elected, alleging among other things that 38 stubless ballots found in the red ballot box of precinct No. 32 had been improperly excluded. On September 12, 1938, this Court reversed and set aside the respondent judge’s decision and ordered him to reopen the protest, consider the 38 stubless ballots, separate excess ballots from those rejected as marked or countersigned, determine whether the rejections were erroneous, and thereafter render another decision.
Pursuant to that mandate, respondent Judge Barrios reopened the proceedings, re-examined the contested ballots and the election records (including the precinct return, Exhibit R), and issued a new decision (in Spanish) again declaring the seven contested candidates legally elected and ordering the protest of Sanagustin to be dismissed with costs. In his new decision the judge identified nine of the 38 ballots as "excess" and the remaining 29 as properly rejected as marked or countersigned; he explained this conclusion by reference to the precinct return (Exhibit R), the absence of required packaging and notation for marked ballots, and the particular inscriptions and marks found on the ballots.
Sanagustin then filed the present petition for certiorari in this Court seeking revocation of the respondent judge’s new decision and an order directing compliance with the Court’s previous September 12, 1938 mandate; he contended that the judge ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the respondent judge comply with this Court’s September 12, 1938 mandate by properly considering the 38 ballots, segregating excess from marked ballots, and determining whether the board’s rejection of ballots was erroneous?
- Is petitioner precluded from complaining now about the method of segregation and rejection when he had urged a different ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)