Montiague v. Lampa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the general elections of June 5, 1934, Jose Montiague and Germanico Legaspi were candidates for municipal vice-president of Miagao, Iloilo. The municipal council, acting as the board of canvassers, declared a tie with 1,263 votes each. Pursuant to section 477 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended, both parties voluntarily submitted to a drawing of lots to break the tie, which favored Germanico Legaspi. Legaspi was then proclaimed elected. Procedural History: Jose Montiague filed a protest (case No. 9906) alleging irregularities in the vote counting. Legaspi filed a counter-protest. On September 26, 1934, the Court of First Instance (CFI) rendered judgment declaring Legaspi elected with a plurality of two votes. Both parties filed motions for reconsideration. On October 15, 1934, the CFI issued an order setting aside its previous judgment, declaring a new tie with 1,259 votes each, and ordering a second drawing of lots. Legaspi filed a motion for reconsideration of this order, which was denied. Montiague also excepted to the October 15th order and announced his intention to appeal. The Petition: Two petitions for certiorari were filed: one by Montiague seeking to set aside the part of the October 15th order that declared a tie and ordered a new drawing of lots, and another by Legaspi seeking to set aside the same order for invalidating the September 26th judgment and ordering a second drawing without nullifying the first. Both respondents, except the judge, admitted the material allegations. A preliminary injunction was issued in Montiague's case.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction in reconsidering his judgment of September 26, 1934, after it had allegedly become final and executed. Whether Jose Montiague was estopped from protesting the election of Germanico Legaspi after voluntarily submitting to a drawing of lots to break a tie. Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering a second drawing of lots without first nullifying the initial drawing.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition of Germanico Legaspi and denied the petition of Jose Montiague. It held that Germanico Legaspi was the duly elected vice-president of Miagao, Iloilo, that Jose Montiague had no right to protest Legaspi's election, and declared all proceedings in election case No. 9906 null and void. Costs were against Jose Montiague.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and reconsideration of judgment: The Court affirmed the principle that courts possess the power to reexamine evidence when a motion for reconsideration is filed, even in election contests. This power extends to setting aside a previously promulgated decision before it becomes final and executed, in order to ensure the decision conforms to the weight of the evidence. Therefore, the respondent judge did not exceed his jurisdiction in reexamining the ballots and setting aside the September 26th decision, even if one motion for reconsideration was filed out of time, as the judge could act motu proprio. On the issue of estoppel and the right to protest: The Court applied the doctrine established in Radaza vs. Enaje, holding that when parties voluntarily submit to a drawing of lots to break a tie in an election, they are estopped from later attacking the validity of the election returns or the canvass that resulted in the tie. This submission creates an irrebuttable presumption (juris et de jure) that the election returns and the canvass were made in full accord with the law and regulations. Consequently, Jose Montiague, having voluntarily participated in the initial drawing of lots, was estopped from filing a protest against Germanico Legaspi's election. The Court found that the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction in allowing the protest and proceeding with it, as his only authority should have been to dismiss the protest outright. On the issue of the second drawing of lots: Given the conclusion that Montiague was estopped from protesting, the initial drawing of lots was the legally operative event that determined the winner. The subsequent order by the judge to conduct a second drawing of lots, after having erroneously entertained the protest, was therefore without basis and part of the proceedings that were declared null and void. The Court found no violation of the preliminary injunction as it only pertained to further proceedings in election case No. 9906.
Main Doctrine
A party who voluntarily submits to a tie-breaking drawing of lots in an election contest is estopped from later questioning the validity of the election returns or the canvass that resulted in the tie, as this creates an irrebuttable presumption of the correctness and lawfulness of the returns and the canvass.