Hontiveros vs. Altavas

Beltran, Roberto Francisco R.
Hontiveros vs. Altavas

Facts: At the general election held in the Province of Capiz on June 4, 1912, Jose Altavas,
according to the proclamation of the provincial board of canvassers, received 3,542 votes, and
Ramon Hontiveros received 3,371 votes, for the office of provincial governor. Hontiveros
protested. The Court of First Instance, after trial, found that the protestant received 3,317 legal
votes and the protestee 2,842. Judgment was entered directing the provincial board of canvassers
to correct its canvass accordingly. The protestee appealed.
The appellant now insists that the court erred: (1) In not declaring the appellee ineligible to be
elected to the office of provincial governor because his certificate of candidacy was not in
accordance with the law; (2) in not dismissing the protest upon the ground that the same
premature; (3) in not dismissing the protest because it was not presented within the time required
by law; (4) in not finding that the provincial board of canvassers issued its proclamation on July
12, 1912; (5) in holding that the document filed by the appellee on July 27 was sufficient to
constitute a protest; (6) in not requiring the appellee to make a prima facie showing of fraud or
irregularity in the manner of casting or counting the ballots before the ballot boxes were opened
on the hearing; (7) in denying his (appellants) request to intervene and select one of the
commissioners appointed by the court to examine and recount the ballots; (8) in refusing to allow
him or his counsel to be present at the opening of the ballots boxes and the examination and
counting of the ballots by the commissioners; and (9) in not permitting him to examine in court
the ballots rejected by the commissioners and present additional testimony with reference to the
validity of such rejected ballots. Questions relating to the eligibility of candidates to be elected to
or hold office cannot be drawn in question in these proceedings. (Topacio vs. Paredes, 23 Phil.
Rep., 238.) But if we were now called upon to determine the validity of the appellees certificate,
we would hold it sufficient for all purposes. The second, third, and fourth alleged errors may be
considered together. The facts are these: The ballots were deposited on June 4, and the counting
of the same commenced on the night of the 4th and continued until terminated. The first protest
was filed on June 18. In this protest it was alleged that up to the time the provincial board of
canvassers had not determined who had been elected provincial governor. No proceedings
pertinent to the questions here involved were taken in the Court of Instance until August 10. The
provincial board of canvassers met on July 12 and proceeded with a canvass of the returns from
the various voting precincts. On that date they completed the canvass of the returns in so far as
the offices of delegates to the Assembly and the provincial governor were concerned, and stated
that owing to the lateness of the hour they would adjourn until the following day, the 13th,
without having canvassed the returns for third member. On the 27th of that month the appellee
presented what he called an amended protest and asked permission of the court to substitute
this amended protest for the one filed on June 18. This permission was granted. The amended
protest is complete in every particular, and it is not necessary to take into consideration for any
purpose the protest filed on the 18th of June. In fact, this latter protest was never drawn in
question thereafter, or referred to for any material purpose during the trial of the cause in the
court below or in this court, except for the purpose of determining from what date the two weeks
within which the protest might be filed, as provided in section 27 of Act No. 1582 as amended,
should begin to run. Copies of the amended protest were served upon all the candidates voted
for on June 4. The word candidates as here used is restricted to those persons who had filed
certificates of candidacy with the authorities and who had not on June 4 withdrawn their
candidacy.

Issue: Whether the time within which the motion which introduces an election contest for a
provincial governorship expires two weeks after the day upon which the ballots are cast or two
weeks after the day upon which the provincial board of canvassers determines who has been
elected; and in computing the time, should the first or the last day be excluded from the
computation

Ruling: This is not the first time that this question has been under consideration by this court. It
was directly involved and after a thorough investigation and extended discussions, it was
answered in two cases. (Navarro vs. Veloso, 23 Phil. Rep., 625; Manalo vs. Sevilla, ante, 609.)
In these cases we held that the two weeks begin to run from the date of the proclamation of the
provincial board of canvassers and not from the day the ballots were cast. This question is no
longer an open one in this jurisdiction, and if our attention had not been called to a number of
adjudicated cases in the United States which it is claimed hold differently, we would say no more
upon the question. But in view of these citations, we deem it advisable to somewhat further
discuss the matter. Our further remarks, however, will be confined to an attempt to distinguish
between the cases relied upon and the law and the conditions in our own jurisdiction.
It is believed that no one will disagree with the statement that the Legislature is presumed to
have used words in their natural and commonly accepted meaning unless that meaning would
contravene the manifest intent of the enactment.

Hontiveros vs. Altavas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hontiveros vs. Altavas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hontiveros vs. Altavas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beltran, Roberto Francisco R.

Hontiveros vs. Altavas

You might also like