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.

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

Overview of the Case

The petition for certiorari and mandamus with a preliminary injunction sought to compel the Honorable Judge Surtida to allow evidence pertaining to alleged irregularities during the municipal mayoral election in Pamplona, Camarines Sur, held on November 13, 1951. The petitioner, Salvador E. Bimeda, was declared the winner of the election by a margin of one vote, an outcome contested by respondent Arcadio Perez, who argued that the election was tainted by significant violations of electoral law.

Contestation and Counter-Protest

Arcadio Perez filed a counter-protest asserting that the electoral returns from Precinct No. 6 were affected by wholesale irregularities and violations committed by the Board of Inspectors. He contended that had these irregularities not occurred, he would have gained at least 20 additional votes. During the trial, after the presentation of evidence by the protestant, the respondent Judge ruled against allowing additional evidence regarding these irregularities on the grounds that it could potentially disfranchise over 200 voters whose rights had not been contested.

Rulings and Legal Reasoning

The judge’s refusal to permit evidence concerning the alleged irregularities stemmed not from a lack of specificity in Perez's answer, as this could be rectified through amendment, but rather from a belief that such evidence would serve no beneficial purpose. It was determined that allowing the evidence might lead to nullifying the entire election, thereby impacting legitimate voters who had not been implicated in the dispute.

Adequacy of Appeal as a Remedy

The Supreme Court analyzed whether the judge’s actions constituted an error of jurisdiction, which could justify a petition for certiorari, or merely an error of judgment, which would require an appeal. The Court held that errors committed by the trial court during the exercise of its jurisdiction are typically errors of judgment and thus should be challenged through

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.