Title
Velasco vs. Judge, Court of 1st Instance of the Province of Pangasi
Case
G.R. No. 12190
Decision Date
Nov 17, 1916
Velasco contested election protest jurisdiction after 1916 Asingan election, claiming improper notice; Supreme Court upheld lower court’s jurisdiction and sufficiency of notice.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 12190)

Facts of the Case

On June 10, 1916, the municipal board of inspectors declared Hermenegildo Velasco as the duly elected president of Asingan, having received 624 votes compared to Moises Malong's 582 votes. On June 20, 1916, Malong filed a protest in the Court of First Instance, alleging fraud during the election that warranted declaring Velasco's election invalid. A copy of the protest was delivered to Velasco and the other candidates. The hearing was scheduled for July 24, 1916. Velasco subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the protest, claiming insufficient notification per legal requirements and asserting that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

Legal Proceedings

On August 22, 1916, Judge Julio Llorente denied Velasco's motion to dismiss, stating that proper notification had been complied with as all candidates were informed of the protest within the required timeframe. This refusal led to Velasco submitting a petition for a writ of prohibition to the Supreme Court, seeking to prevent the lower court from continuing with the case.

Respondent's Defense

In response to the petition, the respondents admitted to most of the facts but contested Velasco's claims regarding proper notice. They argued that the protest does not follow ordinary complaint procedures and that no specific form of notice is required under the Election Law. The respondents maintained that the delivery of the copy of the protest sufficed as adequate notice to provide jurisdiction for the court's proceedings.

Legal Analysis of Notice Requirements

The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of the relevant Administrative Code sections regarding election contests. It found no specific formality required in providing notice for election protests but affirmed that some form of notice is necessary to establish the court's jurisdiction. The court examined whether the delivery of the protest document itself constituted adequate notice and concluded that since the document outlined the essential

...continue reading

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