Ancheta v. Ortiz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An election for the office of governor of La Union was held on June 6, 1916. Pio Ancheta and Mauro Ortiz were candidates. The provincial board of canvassers declared Mauro Ortiz as the winner with 3,499 votes, Pio Ancheta with 3,331 votes, Gabriel Tabora with 1,989 votes, and Vicente Valpiedad with 55 votes. Procedural History: Pio Ancheta filed an election protest, alleging irregularities and frauds in several municipalities. Mauro Ortiz filed an answer, denying the allegations and alleging frauds and irregularities in other municipalities. The parties consented to the appointment of commissioners to hear evidence and examine ballots. The commissioners submitted a report. Both parties agreed to the report's accuracy regarding the number of ballots, except for the municipality of Bacnotan, where additional proof was allowed. The Court of First Instance of La Union, after hearing further proof and re-examining ballots from Bacnotan, rendered a decision declaring Pio Ancheta as having received more legal votes and ordered the provincial board of canvassers to correct its return. The Petition: Mauro Ortiz appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance, assigning several errors.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in not being present and presiding over the sessions of the commissioners. Whether the lower court erred in accepting the report of the commissioners without hearing further proofs relating to the frauds and irregularities charged, except for Bacnotan. Whether the municipal board of inspectors of Bacnotan committed errors in assisting voters and permitting unqualified persons to vote. Whether the lower court erred in its division of eleven disputed ballots in Bacnotan.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, holding that the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed, with costs against the protestee and appellant Mauro Ortiz.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the lower court's absence during commissioners' sessions: The appellant's contention that the lower court erred in not presiding over the commissioners' sessions was dismissed. The Court held that objections not raised in the lower court are deemed waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The appellant, by his presence and lack of objection, implicitly consented to the procedure adopted by the commissioners. The primary purpose of appointing commissioners is to relieve busy courts of the detailed work of counting ballots, a purpose that would be defeated if the court were required to be present during the entire process. Therefore, the appellant's consent to the method of investigation barred him from raising this objection on appeal. On the issue of accepting the commissioners' report: The appellant's argument that the lower court erred in accepting the report without hearing further proofs was rejected. Both parties had agreed that the commissioners' report was true and exact for all municipalities except Bacnotan. Proofs were subsequently adduced only for Bacnotan. Having agreed to the report and presented no further evidence affecting the findings in other municipalities, the appellant could not belatedly object to the acceptance of the report for those municipalities. On the alleged errors by the municipal board of inspectors of Bacnotan: The Court found that the alleged errors, namely, assisting ignorant voters without oath and allowing unqualified persons to vote, were questions of fact. While the proof was conflicting, a fair preponderance of the evidence showed that these irregularities were not committed by the municipal board of inspectors. The lower court's findings on these factual matters, supported by evidence, were given due weight. On the division of disputed ballots in Bacnotan: The protestee alleged that unqualified persons voted. Although the lower court found this allegation unproven by a preponderance of evidence, it divided eleven disputed ballots among the candidates to be cautious. This division resulted in fractional votes. The Court noted that even if all eleven votes had been cast for the protestee, it would not have been sufficient to change the outcome of the election. The refusal to annul the election results was based on the finding that the alleged irregularities were not sufficiently proven to affect the overall result.
Main Doctrine
Objections not raised in the lower court are deemed waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Parties who consent to a procedure or method of investigation cannot later protest it to annul the proceedings.