Delizo v. Santos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In an election protest (No. 9997) concerning the vice-mayoral election in San Quintin, Pangasinan, Valeriano Victorio protested the proclamation of Delfin Romero as vice-mayor elect. Victorio alleged that Romero failed to file a certificate of candidacy, rendering votes cast for him as stray. The municipal board of canvassers proclaimed Romero with 1176 votes, Victorio with 976 votes, and Tomas Delizo with 966 votes. Procedural History: Valeriano Victorio filed his protest on November 27, 1947, the last day of the two-week period following the proclamation. On December 5, 1947, Tomas Delizo filed a motion for leave to intervene as a third-party claimant, asserting his interest and superior right to the vice-mayoral position. The Honorable Judge Ceferino de los Santos denied Delizo's petition for intervention on December 18, 1947, and subsequently denied his motion for reconsideration on January 12, 1948. The Petition: Tomas Delizo filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the order denying his intervention and to compel the respondent judge to allow his intervention in the election protest.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court abused its discretion in denying Tomas Delizo's petition for intervention as a third-party claimant in an election protest. Whether the timeliness of filing a petition for intervention (terceria) is mandatory and jurisdictional.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The order of the respondent judge denying the motion for intervention is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the lower court abused its discretion in denying Tomas Delizo's petition for intervention as a third-party claimant in an election protest: The Supreme Court held that the lower court did not abuse its discretion. The petitioner, Tomas Delizo, sought to intervene as a third-party claimant in an election protest. The law, specifically Article 176, paragraph (g) of the Revised Election Code, provides that other defeated candidates may intervene as protestants within the period fixed for filing a protest, through a "terceria." This intervention is treated as another protest but must be processed within the same expediente. Crucially, the law explicitly states that "[n]o intervention shall be authorized otherwise." The petitioner filed his motion for "terceria" on December 5, 1947, which was eight days after the expiration of the two-week period for filing protests, as prescribed by Article 174 of the Revised Election Code. Therefore, the lower court no longer had jurisdiction to entertain the petition for intervention. On the issue of whether the timeliness of filing a petition for intervention (terceria) is mandatory and jurisdictional: The Supreme Court affirmed that the timeliness of filing a petition for intervention is mandatory and jurisdictional. Courts of First Instance, while possessing general jurisdiction, exercise special and limited jurisdiction in electoral matters as conferred by special laws, such as the Revised Election Code. Consequently, they cannot take cognizance of a protest or a "terceria" unless the corresponding pleading is filed within the statutory period, which is two weeks from the proclamation of the elected candidate. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction over the subject matter is not conferred by the conformity, assent, or silence of a party but by the Electoral Law. The legislative power indisputably has the authority to provide the period within which "tercerias" in election protests must be filed. The petitioner's argument that he could not file earlier because the protest was filed at the last minute is untenable, as he was aware of the legal provisions and had the alternative of filing either a protest or a "terceria" within the prescribed period. His delay in asserting his claim, which resulted in filing on December 5, 1947, was too late, and "desidia" (negligence or sloth) is not protected but punished by law. The right to be elected to public office is not an inalienable right but a statutory right subject to reasonable limitations and conditions established by the legislature, which can be lost by abandonment or "incuria" (negligence).
Main Doctrine
A petition for intervention (terceria) in an election protest must be filed within the statutory period for filing protests, as jurisdiction over the matter is conferred by law and cannot be acquired by consent or laches. Failure to file within the prescribed period results in the denial of the intervention.