G.R. No. L-5588 - Bimeda vs. Perez

Title: Bimeda vs. Perez

Case: G.R. No. L-5588

Decision Date: Aug 26, 1953

Election protest over a one-vote margin; judge excluded evidence of irregularities, deemed an error of judgment, not abuse of discretion; appeal, not certiorari, proper remedy.

Font Size:

Dark Mode

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-5588)

Election Protest and Certiorari

The protestee sought to present evidence regarding alleged irregularities in a precinct during an election.
The trial court ruled out this evidence, stating it could not nullify the election without disenfranchising over 200 legitimate voters.
Certiorari was deemed an improper remedy for this situation, as it was a mere error of judgment rather than a lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.

Distinction Between Errors of Judgment and Errors of Jurisdiction

Errors committed by the trial court are generally classified as errors of judgment.
It is essential to differentiate between errors of jurisdiction, which can be reviewed through certiorari, and errors of judgment, which must be addressed through appeal.
Errors of jurisdiction can render a judgment void or voidable, while errors of judgment do not automatically warrant reversal.

Adequate and Speedy Remedy Explained

A writ of certiorari will be denied if an appeal is available as an adequate remedy, even if it is less speedy.
Possible delays in the appeal process do not justify bypassing the prescribed legal procedures unless there is a lack of jurisdiction or abuse of discretion that would cause injustice.
The order in question was characterized as interlocutory, indicating it was within the court's discretion and could be corrected...continue reading

END