G.R. No. L-27535 - SEPTEMBER 1967 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-27535September 30, 1967 Felix Lomugdang vs. Paterno Javier, et al. G.R. No. L-23655September 30, 1967 Emilia Gabon, et al. vs. Nicanor G. Jorge, et al. G.R. No. L-22107September 30, 1967 Constantino Tirona, et al. vs. Arsenio Nañawa, et al. G.R. No. L-27420September 29, 1967 Renato L. Amponin vs. Commission on Elections G.R. No. L-27266September 29, 1967 Federico G. Real Jr. vs. Commission of Elections, et al. G.R. No. L-24591September 29, 1967 Caltex (Philippines), Inc. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. G.R. No. L-23666September 29, 1967 Eustaquio Amoren, et al. vs. Hernando Pineda, et al. G.R. No. L-23599September 29, 1967 Reynaldo C. Villaseñor vs. Maximo Abano, et al. G.R. No. L-22621September 29, 1967 Jose Maria Ramirez vs. Jose Eugenio Ramirez, et al. G.R. No. L-22523September 29, 1967 In re: Edwin M. Villa Luis E. Santos, Jr. vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-22261September 29, 1967 Enrique Baldisimo vs. Court of First Instance of Capiz, et al. G.R. No. L-22119September 29, 1967 Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Melanio Salcedo, et al. G.R. No. L-22096September 29, 1967 Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-21985September 29, 1967 Amparo Cruz vs. Rosa Hernandez Nalda, et al. G.R. No. L-21979September 29, 1967 National Marketing Corporation vs. Atlas Trading Development Corporation, et al. G.R. No. L-21911September 29, 1967 National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority vs. Hobart Dator G.R. No. L-21879September 29, 1967 San Miguel Brewery, Inc. vs. Francisco Magno G.R. No. L-21876September 29, 1967 Philippine Amusement Enterprises, Inc. vs. Soledad Natividad, et al. G.R. No. L-21749September 29, 1967 Republic of the Philippines vs. Luzon Stevedoring Corporation G.R. No. L-21655September 29, 1967 Fernando Corpuz vs. Damian L. Jimenez, et al. G.R. No. L-20940September 29, 1967 Bernardo Lonaria vs. Pastor L. de Guzman, et al. G.R. No. L-20865September 29, 1967 Asela P. Tactaquin vs. Jose B. Palileo G.R. No. L-20827September 29, 1967 Adela S. Salas-Gatlin vs. Corazon Agrava, et al. G.R. No. L-19978September 29, 1967 Cecilio Rafael vs. Embroidery and Apparel Control and Inspection Board, et al. G.R. No. L-24384September 28, 1967 Margarita Iñigo vs. Estate of Adriana Maloto, et al. G.R. No. L-23463September 28, 1967 People of the Philippines vs. Carlos Clemente, et al. G.R. No. L-23233September 28, 1967 Luis Enguerra vs. Antonio Dolosa A.C. No. 500September 27, 1967 Tahimik Ramirez vs. Jaime S. Ner G.R. No. L-22456September 27, 1967 Francisco Salunga vs. Court of Industral Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-21209September 27, 1967 Chieng Hum vs. Tam Ten, et al. G.R. No. L-20303September 27, 1967 Republic Savings Bank vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-21804September 25, 1967 Teresa Electric and Power Company, Inc. vs. Public Service Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-20706September 25, 1967 Mariano Lapina vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-20055September 25, 1967 National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority vs. NWSA Consolidated Labor Unions, et al. G.R. No. L-19892September 25, 1967 Geronimo Gatmaitan vs. Manila Railroad Company, et al. G.R. No. L-20942September 22, 1967 Commissioner on Internal Revenue vs. A. D. Guerrero G.R. No. L-20812September 22, 1967 In re: Domingo Po Chu Sam Domingo Po Chu Sam vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-24091September 20, 1967 Philippine Education Company, Inc. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. G.R. No. L-23716September 20, 1967 Philippine Education Company, Inc. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. G.R. No. L-23927September 19, 1967 Taller Bisayas Employees and Workers Association (TALBEWA) vs. Panay Allied Workers Union, et al. G.R. No. L-27934September 18, 1967 Constante Pimentel vs. Angelino C. Salanga G.R. No. L-23174September 18, 1967 Concepcion Macabingkil vs. Nicasio Yatco, et al. G.R. No. L-22645September 18, 1967 Carlos Calubayan, et al. vs. Cirilo Pascual G.R. No. L-19713September 18, 1967 In re: Bonifacio Sy Bonifacio Sy vs. Republic of the Philippines A.C. No. 540September 15, 1967 Pedro C. Relativo vs. Mariano de Leon, et al. G.R. No. L-27517September 15, 1967 Insurance Compny of North America vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-27125September 15, 1967 Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation vs. Progressive Labor Association, et al. G.R. No. L-22734September 15, 1967 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Manuel B. Pineda G.R. No. L-21691September 15, 1967 Ramon V. Mitra vs. Abelardo Subido, et al. G.R. No. L-21504September 15, 1967 Manila Railroad Company vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-21166September 15, 1967 Bonifacio Gestosani, et al. vs. Insular Development Company, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-19570September 14, 1967 Jose V. Hilario, Jr. vs. City of Manila, et al. G.R. No. L-18722September 14, 1967 Catalina M. de Leon, et al. vs. Hermogenes Caluag, et al. G.R. No. L-24836September 13, 1967 Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. G.R. No. L-24092September 13, 1967 Genato Commercial Corporation vs. Manila Port Service, et al. G.R. No. L-23936September 13, 1967 In re: Hao Guan Seng Hao Guan Seng vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-26951September 12, 1967 Philippine First Insurance Company, Inc.vs. Customs Arrastre Service, et al. G.R. No. L-17587September 12, 1967 Philippine Banking Corporation vs. Lui She G.R. No. L-26090September 6, 1967 Isidro B. Ramos vs. Abelardo Subido, et al. A.C. No. 492September 5, 1967 Olegaria Blanza, et al. vs. Agustin Arcangel G.R. No. L-27515September 5, 1967 Insurance Company of North America vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-26734September 5, 1967 People of the Philippines vs. Panfilo Padernal G.R. No. L-26703September 5, 1967 In re: Marmolito R. Catelo vs. Chief of the City Jail, et al. G.R. No. L-22492September 5, 1967 Basilan Estates, Inc. vs. Commmissioner of Internal Revenue, et al. G.R. No. L-22146September 5, 1967 Sveriges Angfartygs Assurans Forening vs. Qua Chee Gan G.R. No. L-21184September 5, 1967 Simeon Cordovis, et al. vs. Basilisa A. de Obias, et al. G.R. No. L-19831September 5, 1967 People of the Philippines vs. Fortunato Buco, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Felix Lomugdang vs. Paterno Javier, et al. Emilia Gabon, et al. vs. Nicanor G. Jorge, et al. Constantino Tirona, et al. vs. Arsenio Nañawa, et al. Renato L. Amponin vs. Commission on Elections Federico G. Real Jr. vs. Commission of Elections, et al. Caltex (Philippines), Inc. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. Eustaquio Amoren, et al. vs. Hernando Pineda, et al. Reynaldo C. Villaseñor vs. Maximo Abano, et al. Jose Maria Ramirez vs. Jose Eugenio Ramirez, et al. In re: Edwin M. Villa Luis E. Santos, Jr. vs. Republic of the Philippines Enrique Baldisimo vs. Court of First Instance of Capiz, et al. Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Melanio Salcedo, et al. Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Amparo Cruz vs. Rosa Hernandez Nalda, et al. National Marketing Corporation vs. Atlas Trading Development Corporation, et al. National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority vs. Hobart Dator San Miguel Brewery, Inc. vs. Francisco Magno Philippine Amusement Enterprises, Inc. vs. Soledad Natividad, et al. Republic of the Philippines vs. Luzon Stevedoring Corporation Fernando Corpuz vs. Damian L. Jimenez, et al. Bernardo Lonaria vs. Pastor L. de Guzman, et al. Asela P. Tactaquin vs. Jose B. Palileo Adela S. Salas-Gatlin vs. Corazon Agrava, et al. Cecilio Rafael vs. Embroidery and Apparel Control and Inspection Board, et al. Margarita Iñigo vs. Estate of Adriana Maloto, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Carlos Clemente, et al. Luis Enguerra vs. Antonio Dolosa Tahimik Ramirez vs. Jaime S. Ner Francisco Salunga vs. Court of Industral Relations, et al. Chieng Hum vs. Tam Ten, et al. Republic Savings Bank vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Teresa Electric and Power Company, Inc. vs. Public Service Commission, et al. Mariano Lapina vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority vs. NWSA Consolidated Labor Unions, et al. Geronimo Gatmaitan vs. Manila Railroad Company, et al. Commissioner on Internal Revenue vs. A. D. Guerrero In re: Domingo Po Chu Sam Domingo Po Chu Sam vs. Republic of the Philippines Philippine Education Company, Inc. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. Philippine Education Company, Inc. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. Taller Bisayas Employees and Workers Association (TALBEWA) vs. Panay Allied Workers Union, et al. Constante Pimentel vs. Angelino C. Salanga Concepcion Macabingkil vs. Nicasio Yatco, et al. Carlos Calubayan, et al. vs. Cirilo Pascual In re: Bonifacio Sy Bonifacio Sy vs. Republic of the Philippines Pedro C. Relativo vs. Mariano de Leon, et al. Insurance Compny of North America vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation vs. Progressive Labor Association, et al. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Manuel B. Pineda Ramon V. Mitra vs. Abelardo Subido, et al. Manila Railroad Company vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Bonifacio Gestosani, et al. vs. Insular Development Company, Inc., et al. Jose V. Hilario, Jr. vs. City of Manila, et al. Catalina M. de Leon, et al. vs. Hermogenes Caluag, et al. Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. vs. Manila Port Service, et al. Genato Commercial Corporation vs. Manila Port Service, et al. In re: Hao Guan Seng Hao Guan Seng vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. Philippine First Insurance Company, Inc.vs. Customs Arrastre Service, et al. Philippine Banking Corporation vs. Lui She Isidro B. Ramos vs. Abelardo Subido, et al. Olegaria Blanza, et al. vs. Agustin Arcangel Insurance Company of North America vs. Republic of the Philippines People of the Philippines vs. Panfilo Padernal In re: Marmolito R. Catelo vs. Chief of the City Jail, et al. Basilan Estates, Inc. vs. Commmissioner of Internal Revenue, et al. Sveriges Angfartygs Assurans Forening vs. Qua Chee Gan Simeon Cordovis, et al. vs. Basilisa A. de Obias, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Fortunato Buco, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-27535             September 30, 1967

FELIX LOMUGDANG (Deceased),protestant,
vs.
PATERNO JAVIER,protestee-appellant.
PABLO PE ALOLOD,intervenor-appellee.

Benjamin M. Valente for protestee-appellant.
Zosimo V. Pefianco for intervenor-appellee.

REYES, J.B.L.,J.:

Paterno Javier appeals on points of law from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Antique, in election contest Case No. 3-63 of said Court, declaring the deceased Felix Lomugdang as having received a plurality of votes for the office of Municipal Mayor of Culasi, Antique, as against contestee, Paterno Javier, and declaring the Vice-Mayor elect, Pablo Pe Alolod, entitled to assume the office in view of the death of the protestant.

The facts of the case are the following:

On May 17, 1966, the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Culasi, Antique, certified that in the general elections held on November 12, 1963, Paterno Javier had received 1,203 votes, the plurality of the votes cast for Municipal Mayor according to the election returns, and thereby proclaimed him Mayor. Felix Lomugdang, having obtained the second place with 1,150 votes, on May 30, 1966, protested against the election of Paterno Javier.

In his motion of protest, Lomugdang impugned the result of the election in Precinct No. 4, Culasi, Antique, alleging as grounds the commission of errors or irregularities by the Board of Election Inspectors; erroneous appreciation of ballots, and improper adjudication of votes.

Paterno Javier in due time filed his answer and counter-protest, wherein he impugned the result of the election in Precincts Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35 and 36, alleging as ground the commission of errors or irregularities by the Board of Election Inspectors; erroneous appreciation of ballots, and improper adjudication of votes in the counter-protested precincts. It was likewise alleged that the ballots in the counter-protested precincts, except the ballot box of Precinct No. 4, were burned pursuant to Section 157 of the Revised Election Code, when the ballot boxes were used in the elections of November, 1965; and that he would present evidencealiundeto prove the allegations in the counter-protest.

Shortly before the case was first set for hearing on July 18, 1966, and before any evidence could be adduced in the hearing of the protest, the protestant met an untimely death. The protestee, through counsel, moved to dismiss the protest on July 22, 1966. On September 1, 1966, Pablo Pe Alolod who was elected Vice-Mayor of Culasi, Antique, filed a motion to intervene and/or for substitution, alleging that he would be entitled to the office in the event the protestant would prevail over the protestee in accordance with Section 7 of Republic Act 2264. The protestee opposed this motion to intervene and/or for substitution, alleging that Vice-Mayor Pablo Pe Alolod has no right to intervene under the provisions of Section 176(g) of the Revised Election Code. On September 27, 1966 the trial court denied protestee's motion to dismiss the protest and allowed Vice-Mayor Pablo Pe Alolod to intervene in the case. On September 29, 1966, the protestee filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order denying his motion to dismiss and allowing the vice-mayor to intervene. This motion for reconsideration was denied on October 3, 1966.

On order of the trial court, the commissioners opened the ballot box of Precinct No. 4 on October 11, 1966, and rendered its report. It appears from the report of the commissioners that 83 ballots were claimed by Felix Lomugdang, and 17 ballots were claimed by Paterno Javier. Of the 83 ballots claimed by Lomugdang, 46 were admitted and 37 were objected to by the protestee. Subsequently, the protestee withdrew his objections to 3 ballots, leaving 34 ballots objected to by the protestee, which were marked as Exhibits J-1 to J-34. Of the 17 ballots claimed by the protestee, none was objected by the protestant.

On October 24, 1966, the intervenor, Vice-Mayor Pablo Pe Alolod moved for the dismissal of the counter-protest, on the ground that all the ballots in the counter-protested precincts, except those in Precinct No. 4, have been burned pursuant to Section 157 of the Revised Election Code, and that evidencealiundeis not admissible to prove the allegations in the counter-protest, since the burning of the ballots was done without the intervention or fault of either party. The protestee opposed the intervenor's motion to dismiss the counterprotest, for the reason that in said counter protest, he impugned the correctness of the certificate of canvass and the correctness of the election returns in twenty-two (22) precincts; and that the ballots in the counterprotested precinct except those in Precinct No. 4, having been burned in accordance with law, he is entitled to prove by testimony of the individual voters that they have voted for the protestee, in numbers exceeding those returned by the inspectors as having cast their votes for the protestee in the counterprotested precincts.

In its order of November 14, 1966, the trial court deferred resolution on the motion to dismiss the counterprotest, and rescheduled the hearing of the protest and counter-protest for November 22, 1966. On November 22, 1966, the court ordered the election returns marked (Exhs. L-1 to L-18), and commissioned the Clerk of Court to receive them, after which the Court would resolve whether or not to allow the protestee to introduce evidencealiundeconsisting of the testimony of the voters, and should the Court resolve to deny said motion, then the whole case would be deemed submitted for decision. On December 15, 1966, the trial Court denied the petition of the protestee to present evidencealiundein connection with the precincts involved in the counterprotest, and considered the case submitted for decision.

In its decision of January 26, 1967, the Court declared the protestant, Felix Lomugdang, the duly elected Municipal Mayor of Culasi, Antique in the elections of November 12, 1963, with a plurality of seven (7) votes over the protestee, Paterno Javier, and held Vice-Mayor Pablo Pe Alolod entitled to the office.

Protestee appealed to the Court of Appeals, from that decision of the lower court of January 26, 1967; the order of December 15, 1966, dismissing the counterprotest, the order of January 6, 1967, denying the motion for reconsideration of that order of December 15, and from the order of January 20, 1967, not giving due course to the appeal from the orders of December 15, 1966 and January 6, 1967. The Court of Appeals, however, certified the case to this Court, the issues involved therein being purely of law.

Only the protestee-appellant filed his brief, in August, 1967, but all parties prayed this Court to decide the case as early as possible, thereby submitting the case for decision without the appellee's brief.

Appellant Javier in his brief assigns the following alleged errors:

The first and third assignments refer to the same issue and can be discussed together. Determination of what candidate has been in fact elected. is a matter clothed with public interest, wherefore, public policy demands that an election contest duly commenced, be not abated by the death of the contestant. We have squarely so rule inSibulo Vda. de Mesa. vs. Judge Mencias, G.R. No. L-24583, October 29, 1966, in the same spirit that led this Court to hold that the ineligibility of the protestant is not a defense (Caesar vs. Garrido, 53 Phil. 57), and that the protestee's cessation in the office is not a ground for the dismissal of the contest nor detract the Court's jurisdiction to decide the case (Angeles vs. Rodriguez, 46 Phil. 595; Salcedo vs. Hernandez, 62 Phil. 584).

In the sameSibulocase, already cited, this Court likewise ruled that by virtue of Section 7, of Republic Act 2264, the vice-mayor elect has the status of a real party in interest in the continuation of the proceedings and is entitled to intervene therein. For if the protest succeeds and the protestee is unseated, the vice-mayor succeeds to the office of mayor that becomes vacant if the one duly elected can not assume the post.

Hence, no error was committed by the Court below in allowing Vice-Mayor Alolod to intervene in the protest at bar. Appellant's first and third assignments of error must be and are overruled.1awphîl.nèt

The next issue is whether the Court below should have permitted the protestee-appellant's offer of evidencealiunde(consisting of the testimony of the voters themselves) to support the counterprotest against the official returns in some 22 precincts, because the ballots cast therein were burned after three months, conformably to Section 157 of the Revised Election Code (R.A. No. 180, as amended). The Courta quorejected this offer for the reason that to allow the voters in said precincts (some 4,000 in all) to reveal the names of the candidates for whom they voted would amount to holding another election.

We see no error in the resolution of the trial Court. Because of previous incidents in this case that had to be resolved by this Court (G. R. No. L-22248, January 30, 1965; G. R. No. L-24747, February 28, 1966) hearings on the merits of the protest did not start until October, 1966, and it is easy to see that the presentation of the 4,000 witnesses in support of the counterprotest would have brought the hearings to unmanageable proportions and prolonged the trial even beyond the end of 1967, when the term for which the candidates were to hold office would expire. Furthermore, had the protestee-appellant acted with due diligence and notified the municipal treasurer in due time of his intended counterprotest, the destruction of the ballots of the affected precincts would have been avoided. Only the protestee could have done so, for only he was in a position to know what precincts would be the subjects of his counterprotest. All in all, we perceive here an obvious design of appellant for protracted delay that could not and should not receive either encouragement or sanction from the Courts.

Appellant relies onSalvani vs. Garduño52 Phil. 673, 679, as authority for the admissibility of the testimony of the electors for the purpose of impeaching the return when the ballots are shown to have been destroyed. But theSalvanicase involved only one precinct, while in the present case, appellant wished to introduce the testimony of the electors in practically all the precincts of the municipality, a procedure that, for the reasons previously given, is improper. As aptly remarked by the Court below, it would amount to holding practically a new election, without the secrecy that public policy considers as essential to the electors' freedom of choice.

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed. Considering the proximity of the next elections, this decision shall become final within five (5) days from notice to the parties.1awphîl.nètCosts against appellant. So ordered.

Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.