Mendoza v. Mendiola
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case involves an election contest where the appellee filed a motion for reconsideration of a judgment previously rendered. The case was referred to the court en banc. Procedural History: The appellee filed a motion for reconsideration. The appellant contended that the court could no longer reconsider its judgment due to the lapse of the reglementary period. The appellee's motion was found meritorious, and both parties were ordered to submit memoranda. The Petition: The appellee's motion for reconsideration was based on three grounds: (1) errors assigned by the appellee were not considered; (2) certain ballots adjudicated to the appellant should not have been; and (3) one ballot, Exhibit A-15, should not have been rejected.
Issue(s)
Whether the court can still reconsider its judgment after the alleged lapse of the reglementary period. Whether the appellee's assignments of error should be considered despite his failure to appeal from the lower court's judgment. Whether certain ballots were correctly or incorrectly adjudicated to the appellant.
Ruling
The motion for reconsideration was granted. The original decision was modified, holding that the appellee obtained a plurality of one vote over the appellant, and the judgment of the court below was affirmed with costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and reconsideration: The Court held that the appellee's motion for reconsideration was filed within the reglementary period. The denial by the Vacation Justice was not final, as the resolutions of the Vacation Justice were subject to the final action of the full Court. Therefore, the period for the judgment's finality was suspended, and the Court could still reconsider its judgment. The doctrine in Arnedo vs. Llorente and Liongson was distinguished as not applicable because the motion in that case was filed beyond the prescribed period. On the consideration of appellee's assignments of error: The Court ruled that, pursuant to Section 480 of the Election Law, the procedure on appeal in election contests is the same as in criminal cases, meaning they are tried de novo on appeal. Therefore, the appellee's assignments of error should have been taken into consideration, even without a separate appeal from the lower court's judgment, as held in Lucero vs. De Guzman. On the adjudication of ballots: The Court noted that the appellee had withdrawn his objections to certain ballots (Exhibits A-62, A-67, A-69, A-71, A-72, A-73, and A-75). Regarding other ballots (Exhibits A-13, A-16, A-15, A-52, A-54, A-92, A-101, A-124, and A-160), the Court found they were rightly adjudicated to the appellant based on the substantial compliance with the name and initials, applying the rule of idem sonans where applicable. However, ballots Exhibits A-125, I, and K could not be adjudicated to the appellant due to the presence of initials (D, V, D) for which no proof was presented to link them to the appellant's name, thus preventing them from being counted in his favor. The Court also addressed Exhibit A-15, clarifying that the surname was 'Mindiosa' and not 'Mindiola', and that under the idem sonans rule, it sounded more like 'Mendoza' than 'Mendiola', but the initial 'D' prevented its adjudication to either party in the original decision. However, upon reconsideration, the Court found that the surname in Exhibit A-15 was 'Mindiosa' and not 'Mendiola', and the 's' was distinct from 'l', thus it should not be adjudicated to the appellant. The Court's final count adjusted the votes, resulting in the appellee having a plurality of one vote.
Main Doctrine
A motion for reconsideration filed within the reglementary period suspends the running of the period for the finality of judgment, even if initially denied by a Vacation Justice, provided the denial is subject to the final action of the full Court. In election contests, the procedure on appeal is de novo, and assignments of error should be considered even without a separate appeal from the lower court's judgment.