Malimit v. Degamo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jose Malimit and Esteban Degamo were opposing candidates for mayor of Carmen, Agusan. The municipal board of canvassers initially proclaimed Malimit as mayor-elect. However, the Commission on Elections nullified the canvass and proclamation due to alleged tampering of election returns and authorized the appointment of substitute board members. Procedural History: A reconstituted board of canvassers proclaimed Degamo as mayor-elect. Malimit subsequently filed a quo warranto proceeding against Degamo and an election protest. The Court of First Instance of Agusan dismissed the quo warranto petition for being filed out of time and for lack of jurisdiction, noting that docket fees were paid significantly after the mailing date and the statutory period for filing. The election protest was also dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Petition: Jose Malimit appealed the dismissal orders of the Court of First Instance.
Issue(s)
Whether the quo warranto petition was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the election protest was properly dismissed.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court, dismissing the appeals. The quo warranto petition was deemed filed out of time, and the election protest was dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the quo warranto petition: The Court held that a petition for quo warranto in election cases is considered filed only upon payment of the required docket fees. While the original petition was mailed on December 14, 1959, the docket fees were paid only on January 5, 1960. This latter date was deemed the true date of filing. The Court cited Lazaro vs. Endencia and In the matter of the petition for citizenship of Jimmy Lee to support the principle that a case is not deemed duly registered and docketed before payment of docket fees. Since the proclamation of Degamo as mayor-elect was made on December 7, 1959, and the petition was effectively filed on January 5, 1960, it was clearly filed out of time, violating Section 173 of the Revised Election Code which requires filing within one week after proclamation. The Court emphasized that the period of thirty days for hearing and decision had also expired due to the petitioner's inaction. On the dismissal of the election protest: The Court found no merit in the appellant's contention that the election protest was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The records indicated that the dismissal was due to the petitioner's failure to prosecute the case, as stated in the lower court's order of July 18, 1960. Therefore, the dismissal was proper and not a matter of jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
A petition for quo warranto in election cases is considered filed only upon payment of the required docket fees, and not merely upon mailing. Failure to pay docket fees within the statutory period for filing renders the petition out of time, divesting the court of jurisdiction.