Title
Jose C. Capalla vs. Ramon C. Tabiana
Case
G. R. No. 44566
Decision Date
Mar 31, 1934
1934 Leon, Iloilo election protest: Capalla initially won, but after new trial, Tabiana declared winner by 18 votes; SC upheld jurisdiction, admitted disputed ballots, rejected annulment plea.

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-16-2450)

Initial Court Proceedings

The election protest was heard in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, where, after trial, Capalla was adjudicated to have received 782 valid votes to Tabiana's 756, resulting in a ruling that declared Capalla as the municipal president-elect by a margin of 26 votes. Tabiana appealed the ruling, and on May 18, 1935, the Supreme Court affirmed Capalla's election.

Motion for Reconsideration and New Trial

Following the Supreme Court's decision, Tabiana filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming the lower court failed to adjudicate certain ballots. On July 31, 1935, the Supreme Court granted a new trial specifically to address those unadjudicated ballots in precinct No. 4 of Leon, Iloilo, thus remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Outcome of the New Trial

On October 10, 1935, the trial court rendered a new decision, this time awarding Capalla 802 votes and Tabiana 820 votes, resulting in a new margin of 18 votes in favor of Tabiana. Capalla subsequently appealed this judgment.

Assignments of Error

Capalla presented multiple assignments of error:

  1. Jurisdiction Issue: He contended that the trial court lost jurisdiction to hear the case since the one-year period for resolving election contests had expired.
  2. Admission of Ballots: Capalla argued against the admission of 84 ballots in favor of Tabiana, asserting that their inclusion was erroneous.
  3. Counting of Allegedly Invalid Ballots: He alleged that 64 ballots counted for Tabiana were invalid and sought annulment of the election results in precinct No. 4 if the ballots could not be segregated.
  4. Final Declaration: Capalla contended the trial court erred by not declaring him the duly elected municipal president.

Rulings on Assignments of Error

  1. Jurisdiction Argument Rejected: Citing the precedent of Cacho vs. Abad, the Supreme Court ruled that the one-year limit on election contests does not apply to cases the Supreme Court has taken jurisdiction over, thereby overruling this assignment of error.
  2. Admission of Ballots: The 84 ballots were deemed appropriate for consideration during the new trial as they had not been previously adjudicated, leading to an overruling of this assignment as well.
  3. Invalid Ballots Count: The challenge to the validity of 64 ballots failed due to lack of proper identification and segregation; therefore, this assignment was also overruled. The court underscored that only extreme fraud warr

...continue reading

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