Biagtan v. Estayo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Andres Garcia filed a motion of protest against Cosme Biagtan, who was declared elected as municipal president of Mangaldan, Pangasinan. During the proceedings, Pedro Estayo, another candidate who received votes, filed a pleading of intervention, incorporating the facts alleged in Garcia's motion of protest. Procedural History: The respondent judge, Vicente Nepomuceno, decided the protest in favor of Pedro Estayo and ordered the municipal council, acting as the board of canvassers, to correct its canvass in accordance with the facts found by the court. The Petition: Cosme Biagtan filed a petition for suspension of proceedings or for the case to be placed in its original state, alleging that the respondent judge committed an abuse of judicial powers and an excess of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether a candidate who received votes in an election, and who was neither the protestant nor the protestee in an election protest, may be declared elected to the disputed office. Whether the respondent judge committed an abuse of powers and an excess of jurisdiction in ordering the board of canvassers to correct its canvass.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge did not commit an abuse of powers or an excess of jurisdiction. The Court affirmed the decision of the respondent judge, ordering the board of canvassers to correct its canvass in conformity with the judicial findings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether a candidate who received votes but was neither protestant nor protestee may be declared elected: The Court held that such a candidate, if notified of the protest, becomes an interested party with all the rights of any other party. The law, specifically Section 479 of the Administrative Code, grants the Court of First Instance exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide election protests and to issue a mandamus to the board of canvassers to correct its canvass in accordance with the court's findings. The respondent, Pedro Estayo, being an interested party and having been notified, was not under the necessity of filing a separate protest. His pleading of intervention, alleging the facts of the protest, was sufficient to allow the court to consider his claim and declare him elected if the recount warranted it. On the issue of abuse of powers and excess of jurisdiction: The Court found no abuse of powers or excess of jurisdiction. The action taken by the respondent judge was precisely what the law mandates. Section 479 of the Administrative Code explicitly empowers the court to issue a mandamus directed to the board of canvassers to correct its canvass in accordance with the facts found by the court. Therefore, ordering the correction of the canvass to conform to the judicial count, which resulted in declaring Pedro Estayo elected, was a lawful exercise of jurisdiction, not an abuse thereof. The law requires that the board of canvassers correct its canvass to conform to the result of the protest as determined by the court, and the candidate with the greater number of votes according to the judicial decision should be declared elected.
Main Doctrine
A candidate who received votes in an election and was notified of an election protest, even if not the protestant or protestee, may be declared elected if the evidence and judicial recount warrant it, and the court may issue a mandamus to the board of canvassers to correct its canvass accordingly.