Title
Asis vs. Ilao
Case
G.R. No. L-17451
Decision Date
Jan 31, 1962
An election protest challenged a 59-vote victory; court appointed a commissioner to expedite ballot review, upheld by Supreme Court, ensuring expeditious resolution.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-19344)

Procedural History

Following the declaration of the election results, Pajarillo lodged an election protest on December 4, 1959, to which Asis responded with a counter-protest on December 21, 1959. Hearings for the case began on July 6, 1960, and were attended by the presiding judge until July 27, 1960. On July 29, 1960, the court appointed Basilio Zantua, Deputy Clerk of Court, as commissioner to receive evidence, stating it was necessary due to the substantial number of ballots—199 boxes totaling approximately 4,000 ballots—implicated in the case, implying that the judge’s ability to handle ordinary cases would be hampered.

Legal Justifications for Commissioner Appointment

The court asserted that appointing a commissioner was not only permissible under the Rules of Court but also necessary given the complexities of the election case. The court’s orders delineated that the commissioner’s role was confined to receiving evidence of disputed ballots and not to conducting a full trial or hearing parol evidence. The court referenced past practices where commissioners were appointed in similarly complex election cases and noted that Section 175 of the Revised Election Code allows the court to appoint officers as deemed necessary for the preparation and examination of ballots.

Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition

Asis challenged the appointment of the commissioner through a petition for certiorari and prohibition, arguing that the Rules of Court allow for such an appointment only with the parties' consent or under specific circumstances not applicable to the case at hand. He claimed that the respondent judge's actions would cause him grave and irreparable injury, particularly citing incidents indicating a lack of respect for court procedures by Pajarillo’s counsel.

Responses from Respondents

In response, Pajarillo contended that he did not request the appointment of a commissioner and preferred a direct hearing in front of the judge. Nonetheless, he contended that the appointment could serve the interests of justice and support a speedy resolution, pointing to the analogous nature of the hearing process and arguing that the election law does not explicitly prohibit such appointments.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

The court analyzed the legitimacy of appointing a commissioner within the context of election case procedures. It reinforced that while election contest proceedings aim to expedite resolutions due to pressing public interests, there remains a necess

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.