Lugay v. Locsin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Procopio Hilario filed an election protest against Arsenio Lugay and four other candidates, challenging Lugay's proclamation as mayor-elect of Tarlac. Hilario alleged violations of law, frauds, and irregularities, claiming that but for these, he would have obtained a majority of approximately 629 votes. Procedural History: Lugay, as respondent, filed an answer with a special defense contesting the court's jurisdiction, arguing that Hilario's allegation of being a "registered candidate voted for" was insufficient. The respondent judge denied this motion. Subsequently, after Hilario presented his evidence except his certificate of candidacy, Lugay filed a second motion to dismiss, asserting Hilario's failure to prove he was a registered candidate. The respondent judge again denied this motion, holding that the jurisdictional allegations in the sworn protest, not denied by Lugay, established a prima facie case. The Petition: Lugay filed a petition for certiorari to test the validity of the respondent judge's resolutions denying his two motions for dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the allegations in the election protest conferred jurisdiction on the respondent judge. Whether the failure of the protestant to adduce evidence of his registered candidacy resulted in the loss of jurisdiction.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The resolutions of the respondent judge denying the motions for dismissal are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the allegations in the election protest conferred jurisdiction on the respondent judge: The Court held that the facts alleged in an election protest, and not those proved during the trial, are determinative of whether the court has jurisdiction. While the law requires election protests to be heard at the instance of candidates duly voted for and who have filed their certificates of candidacy, the allegation in Hilario's protest that he "was a registered candidate voted for the office of mayor of Tarlac" substantially complied with this requirement. The phrase "that he has duly filed his candidacy" is not an indispensable condition for the sufficiency of the protest or for conferring jurisdiction. The presumption of law is that acts are performed in compliance with legal requirements. Furthermore, the fact that Hilario received 1,387 votes as against Lugay's 2,053 votes, and these votes were adjudicated to him, strongly suggests that his certificate of candidacy was filed in accordance with law, as votes for non-candidates are treated as scattering votes. Therefore, the written protest contained sufficient allegations to confer jurisdiction on the respondent judge. On Whether the failure of the protestant to adduce evidence of his registered candidacy resulted in the loss of jurisdiction: The Court ruled that the respondent judge did not lose the jurisdiction he had acquired. The lack of a sworn denial by Lugay of Hilario's allegation that he was a registered candidate, coupled with the fact that the protest itself was sworn to, not only relieved Hilario from presenting evidence to sustain that specific allegation but also gave reason to believe it was true. The Court cited the case of Noble vs. Tuason and Peñoso (48 Phil., 387) as applicable. The distinction between the cases disappeared because, after the denial of the first motion to dismiss, the parties proceeded with the trial, and documents showing Hilario was voted for the office were presented. Under these circumstances, the court acted regularly in denying the dismissal, as public interest requires the trial to continue until the final determination of the election's validity.
Main Doctrine
The facts alleged in an election protest, not those proved during the trial, determine whether the court has jurisdiction. A sworn protest with jurisdictional allegations, if not denied under oath, establishes a prima facie case, relieving the protestant from presenting evidence on those specific allegations.