Title
Filart vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. L-35154
Decision Date
Oct 26, 1973
A 1971 mayoral election dispute between Filart and Galicia led to conflicting rulings; the Supreme Court annulled Comelec's resolution, asserting jurisdiction lies with the Court of First Instance once an election protest is filed.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-35154)

Background of the Case

In this case, Alvaro Filart, the incumbent mayor of San Guillermo, Isabela, was proclaimed the winning candidate based on the election returns from the November 8, 1971 election. However, his proclamation was contested by Armando H. Galicia, who had finished second in the mayoral race. Galicia filed a petition with the Commission on Elections to annul Filart's proclamation, claiming illegalities in the voting process, particularly in several precincts where he alleged acts of terrorism and manipulation of votes had occurred.

Proceedings at the Court of First Instance

Galicia initiated an election protest against Filart on November 20, 1971, specifically targeting the election returns from five precincts where he alleged significant irregularities, including intimidation of voters and manipulation of ballots by armed individuals supporting Filart. This protest was followed by procedural instructions from the Court of First Instance of Isabela, requiring Filart to respond and for relevant election paraphernalia to be presented for examination.

Filart’s Counter-Protest and Legal Maneuvering

Filart countered Galicia's accusations by asserting the lawful conduct of the elections and disputing the validity of Galicia's claims. He argued that the election results reflected the true will of the voters. Furthermore, both parties engaged in a series of legal maneuvers including responses to petitions and counter-protests that complicated the proceedings, each accusing the other of foul play during the elections.

Comelec’s Investigation and Findings

Following Galicia's petition, Comelec conducted an investigation which included hearings and examination of the contested precincts’ ballots. The Comelec ultimately issued Resolution RR-1174, which set aside Filart’s proclamation based on their findings that the election returns from certain precincts were spurious or manufactured. They ordered a new canvass while restricting the upcoming procedure to exclude those returns.

Jurisdictional Concerns

A central point of contention in this case revolved around whether the Comelec had jurisdiction to entertain Galicia's petition, given the already pending election protest in the Court of First Instance. The decision noted that questions regarding the authenticity of electoral returns must be raised first before the Board of Canvassers and not directly to the Comelec, as per established legal precedent. Filart claimed Galicia failed to assert his objections in the proper forum initially, seeking instead to circumvent the established legal process by turning directly to the Comelec.

Decision of the Court

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Filart, granting his petition for certiorari and prohibition. The ruling annulled the Comelec's Resolution RR-1174 due to lack of jurisdiction. The Court emphasized the principle that once an election protes

...continue reading

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