San Agustin v. Barrios
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the election of councilors for the City of Iloilo held on December 14, 1937. Antonio S. San Agustin, a candidate for councilor, filed an election protest against the proclaimed winners, alleging he had a plurality of three votes over respondent Crispino Melocoton. 2. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Iloilo initially confirmed the election of the respondents. Upon appeal by San Agustin, this Court (G.R. No. 46196) reversed the decision and ordered the lower court to reopen the protest and consider 38 stubless ballots found in a red box, separating excess ballots from those rejected as marked and determining if the rejection was erroneous. The respondent judge subsequently re-examined the case and reiterated his original decision, declaring the respondents as legally elected councilors. 3. The Petition: This petition for certiorari seeks to revoke the respondent judge's latest decision and compel compliance with this Court's previous order. Petitioner contends the respondent judge failed to properly segregate excess ballots from rejected marked ballots and did not determine the correctness of the board of canvassers' rejections. The Court finds these contentions groundless, holding that the respondent judge adequately considered the ballots and that the petitioner is estopped from raising new theories on appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge properly complied with the Supreme Court's directive to reopen the election protest, segregate excess ballots from marked ballots, and determine the validity of the rejection of marked ballots. Whether the petitioner is estopped from assailing the segregation of ballots due to his stance during the reopened proceedings.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge sufficiently complied with its previous order and that the petitioner is estopped from raising new theories on appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the compliance with the Supreme Court's directive: The Court found that the respondent judge had considered the 38 ballots and determined which were excess and which were marked. The judge's decision explicitly stated that 9 ballots were considered excess and the remaining 29 were considered duly rejected for being marked or countersigned. The judge also detailed the inscriptions and marks found on the ballots in controversy. This was deemed a sufficient compliance with the order to segregate and determine the validity of rejections, as the Court stated that a judge may be required to decide a question, but not in a particular way. The Court reiterated its stance that it will not, through mandamus, order or direct what judgment shall be rendered. On the petitioner's estoppel: The Court noted that during the reopened proceedings, the petitioner had opposed the idea of segregating excess ballots by drawing lots and insisted that the excess and marked ballots should be appreciated by the court to determine if they were indeed countersigned. The respondent judge acted in accordance with the petitioner's theory. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now criticize the segregation process, as he is not permitted to shift from one theory at trial to a new and different theory in the appellate court. This principle was supported by previous rulings of the Court.
Main Doctrine
A judge may be required to decide a question, but not to decide it in a particular way. The Supreme Court will not, through mandamus, order or direct what judgment shall be rendered in any given case. A party cannot shift from one theory at the trial to a new and different theory in the appellate court.