Case Summary (G.R. No. 30705)

Case Background

• This case concerns an election contest for the office of municipal president of Cabalian, Leyte, following the general election on June 5, 1928.
• Filomeno Garrido was initially proclaimed elected with a plurality of 27 votes over contestant Macario E. Caesar.
• The trial court later reversed this decision, declaring Caesar as the elected president by a plurality of 71 votes.

Contest Initiation

• The contest was initiated through a motion stating that Caesar was a qualified elector and a registered candidate.
• Garrido moved to dismiss the contest based on the allegation that Caesar did not state his eligibility for the office.

Court Ruling on Dismissal Motion

• The trial court ruled that it was unnecessary for Caesar to explicitly state his eligibility in the motion.
• The court referenced prior cases (Viola vs. Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Adolfo and Tabada cases) to support this ruling.

Vote Count Dispute

• The contest focused on the first precinct of Cabalian, where initial vote counts were disregarded by inspectors due to Caesar's alleged ineligibility as he was not listed as an enrolled voter.
• Upon recounting, it was established that Caesar received 139 votes, with 127 being counted after exceptions were raised.

Eligibility and Voting Rights

• The court ruled that the election inspectors could not discard votes based on allegations of ineligibility.
• It was established that a candidate must have general qualifications to run for office but does not need to be listed as a registered voter at the time of the election.

Special Defense and Ineligibility Claims

• Garrido asserted that Caesar was not a resident of Cabalian for the required period to be eligible for office.
• The trial court deemed this defense irrelevant, emphasizing that eligibility questions do not belong in an election contest.

Legal Framework on Eligibility

• Under previous laws (sections of Act No. 1582 and Act No. 1726), eligibility was not a matter for election contest proceedings.
• Changes in law now allow for a quo warranto proceeding to challenge a candidate's eligibility, but this must be done within two weeks of election proclamation.

Consequences of Ineligibility

• If a candidate found ineligible has received a majority of votes, the office is declared vacant and a new election must be held.
• Dismissing the contest based on ineligibility would unjustly allow Garrido to retain office despite receiving fewer votes.

Conclusion and Judgment

• The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding Caesar's election and ordering costs against Garrido.

Ke

...continue reading

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 30705)

Case Background

• This case revolves around a contest for the office of president in the municipality of Cabalian, Leyte, following the general election held on June 5, 1928.
• Filomeno Garrido, the contestee, was initially proclaimed elected with a plurality of 27 votes over contestant Macario E. Caesar.
• A third candidate, Julian Cordobes, was also mentioned but did not participate in the contest.

Trial Court Proceedings

• The trial court reversed the board of canvassers' decision, declaring Macario E. Caesar the winner by a plurality of 71 votes.
• The judgment mandated Garrido to pay costs and expenses, including the fees of the commissioners.

Contestant's Qualifications

• The contest was initiated by a motion asserting that Caesar was a duly qualified elector and a registered candidate.
• Garrido's motion to dismiss the contest was based on the argument that Caesar had failed to allege his eligibility at the time of the election.
• The trial court overruled this motion, stating that the implication of Caesar being a qualified elector and registered candidate sufficed to establish eligibility.

Legal Precedents Cited

• The court referenced prior cases (Viola vs. Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur and Tabada vs. Zandueta and Vergara) to support the position that specific allegations regarding eligibility were unnecessary in an election contest.
• The case of Verceles vs. Araneta Diaz was distinguished

...continue reading