Case Digest (G.R. No. L-49588)
Facts:
The case titled "Magdalena Sibulo Vda. de Mesa, Widow of the Late Francisco de Mesa, Juan Gilbuena, Dr. Pedro Molera, Emetrio Presnedi, and Lucio Victa, as Officers and in Representation of the Local Chapter of the Liberal Party in Muntinlupa, Rizal, and Demetrio R. Loresca, Petitioners, vs. Hon. Eulogio Mencias and/or Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Maximino A. Argana, and the Chief of Police, and the Municipal Treasurer, both of Muntinlupa, Rizal, Respondents" was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on October 29, 1966, under G.R. No. L-24583. The case arose from an election contest in Muntinlupa, Rizal concerning the mayoralty position in the 1963 elections, where Francisco de Mesa was initially declared the winner against Maximino A. Argana. Following de Mesa's assassination on March 18, 1964, his successor, Demetrio R. Loresca, assumed the office as mandated by law. After de Mesa's death, Argana continued his electoral protest a
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-49588)
Facts:
- Election Contest: In the 1963 elections for the mayoralty of Muntinlupa, Rizal, Francisco De Mesa and Maximino A. Argana were opponents. De Mesa was proclaimed the winner, and Demetrio R. Loresca was elected vice-mayor. Both assumed office.
- Protest Filed: Argana filed an election protest (Election Case No. 7924) alleging fraud, terrorism, and irregularities in certain precincts. De Mesa countered with a counter-protest.
- Death of De Mesa: On March 18, 1964, De Mesa was assassinated. Vice-mayor Loresca succeeded him as mayor by operation of law.
- Substitution Issue: The trial court ordered De Mesa’s widow and children to appear and be substituted for him in the case. They failed to comply, and the court proceeded ex parte, appointing a commissioner for De Mesa.
- Judgment: On August 10, 1964, the trial court declared Argana the duly elected mayor and taxed costs against De Mesa’s estate.
- Attempts to Intervene: De Mesa’s widow, the local Liberal Party chapter, and Loresca sought to intervene, file a motion for reconsideration, and appeal the decision. The trial court denied their motions, citing lack of personality to intervene.
- Appeal to Court of Appeals: The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals, which upheld the trial court’s decision, ruling that the Rules on substitution of parties did not apply to election cases.
Issues:
- Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in proceeding ex parte after De Mesa’s death without appointing a legal representative for him.
- Whether the Rules of Court on substitution of parties (Section 17, Rule 3) apply to election cases.
- Whether the petitioners (De Mesa’s widow, the Liberal Party chapter, and Loresca) had the legal standing to intervene and appeal the decision.
- Whether the trial court’s judgment and subsequent proceedings were null and void due to lack of jurisdiction over the deceased protestee’s legal representative.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)