Tengco v. Jocson
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A general election was held in Malolos on June 6, 1922. On June 8, 1922, Mariano Tengco was declared elected president. On June 15, 1922, Anastacio Santos filed an election protest. Procedural History: In his answer to the protest, Mariano Tengco argued that the protest was insufficient and the court lacked jurisdiction because Santos did not allege he was a "registered candidate voted for." Santos later filed an amended protest on July 7, 1922, alleging he was a "registered candidate voted for." The lower court allowed the amendment and denied Tengco's motion to dismiss. The Petition: Mariano Tengco filed an original petition for a writ of prohibition with the Supreme Court to restrain the respondent judge from proceeding with the election protest, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance acquired jurisdiction over the election protest. Whether a motion of protest, which fails to allege the protestant is a "registered candidate voted for," can be amended after the statutory period for filing has expired.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of prohibition. It ordered the respondent judge to desist from taking further jurisdiction and deciding the election protest.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance: The Court held that the Court of First Instance, in election protest cases, exercises special jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is not presumed and must affirmatively appear on the face of the proceedings. Section 44 of Act No. 3030, amending Section 479 of Act No. 2711, explicitly requires that election contests "shall" be heard upon motion by "any registered candidate voted for." The original motion of protest filed by Anastacio Santos did not contain this essential allegation, thus failing to establish the court's jurisdiction. On the amendment of the motion of protest: The Court ruled that a motion of protest, which fails to aver the protestant's qualifications to maintain the proceedings, cannot be amended to supply the omission after the lapse of the statutory time for commencing the proceeding. Section 44 of Act No. 3030 mandates that the motion of protest "shall" be filed within two weeks after the promulgation of the election. The promulgation was on June 8, 1922, meaning the two-week period expired on June 22, 1922. The amended motion of protest was filed on July 7, 1922, which was beyond the statutory period. Citing Gillespie vs. Dion, the Court emphasized that amendments that are radical and virtually initiate a contest where no grounds were originally specified ought not to be permitted after the statutory period has expired, as dissatisfied electors should be vigilant.
Main Doctrine
A Court of First Instance, exercising special jurisdiction in election protest cases, acquires jurisdiction only when the "motion of protest" affirmatively shows on its face that it was presented by a "registered candidate voted for," as required by law. Such a jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by amendment after the statutory period for filing the protest has expired.