Cortes v. Costa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Pablo C. Cortes, et al. were candidates for municipal vice-mayor and councilor in Makati, Rizal, in the elections held on December 14, 1937. Respondents Deogracias Luciano, et al. were also candidates for the same positions. Procedural History: Petitioners filed a motion of protest within the reglementary period. The respondent judge dismissed the protest upon motion by the protestees, citing the failure to allege the jurisdictional fact that the protestees were proclaimed elected candidates. A motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent judge to proceed with the hearing of the election contest.
Issue(s)
Whether the motion of protest was fatally defective for failure to explicitly allege the proclamation of the protestees. Whether the allegations in the motion of protest sufficiently infer the jurisdictional fact of proclamation.
Ruling
The writ of mandamus is granted, compelling the respondent judge to proceed with the hearing of the election contest. No pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the sufficiency of the motion of protest: The respondent judge correctly stated that failure to allege the proclamation of elected candidates is generally fatal to an election protest. This is a fundamental jurisdictional requirement for the validity of the protest. The Supreme Court has consistently held in previous cases that such an allegation is essential for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the protest. On whether the allegations sufficiently infer proclamation: An examination of the motion of protest reveals paragraph 4, which lists the votes received by both the petitioners (recurrentes) and respondents (recurrentes) in the proclamation made by the Municipal Board of Canvassers on December 18, 1937. This tabulation clearly indicates the number of votes for each candidate and implicitly shows who were the victorious candidates. The language used, while not explicitly stating "proclaimed elected," allows for a clear inference that the candidates with the highest number of votes were, in fact, proclaimed. Precision in pleadings is desirable but not strictly required to the point of nullifying a protest where the essential facts can be clearly inferred. The Court emphasized that a single fact may be alleged in different ways with the same legal effect. Therefore, the motion of protest, despite its lack of explicit wording, contained sufficient allegations from which the jurisdictional fact of proclamation could be inferred, thus warranting a hearing on the merits.
Main Doctrine
A motion of protest in an election contest, while ideally requiring precise allegations, may be deemed sufficient if the jurisdictional fact of proclamation can be clearly inferred from the averments made therein, even if not explicitly stated.