You are on page 1of 2

REQUISITES OF DE FACTO OFFICERSHIPJOSE LINO LUNA vs.

EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ
and SERVANDO DE LOS ANGELESG.R. No. L-13744 November 29, 1918Ponente:
JOHNSON, J.I. Doctrine:

The rules and regulations, for the conduct of elections, are mandatory before the
election, butwhen it is sought to enforce them after the election they are held to be
directory only, if that ispossible, especially where, if they are held to be mandatory,
innocent voters will be deprived of their votes without any fault on their part.

When the Election Law does not provide that a departure from a prescribed form
will be fataland such departure has been due to an honest mistake or
misrepresentation of the ElectionLaw, and such departure has not been used as a
means for fraudulent practices and it is clearthat there has been a free and honest
expression of the popular will, the law will be held to bedirectory and such
departure will be considered a harmless irregularity.
II. Facts:

An election for the office of governor of the Province of Rizal was held on the 6th
day of June,1916. At said election Jose Lino Luna, Eulogio Rodriguez and Servando
de los Angeles werecandidates for said office.

The election was closed, the votes cast in the various municipalities were counted,
and a returnwas made by the inspectors of said municipalities to the provincial
board of canvassers, who,after a canvass of said returns, proclaimed the following
result:

That Eulogio Rodriguez received 4,321 votes; (b) Jose Lino Luna 4,157; (c) Servando
de losAngeles 3,576 votes; and (d) that Eulogio Rodriguez, having received a
plurality of said votes,was duly elected governor of said province.

Jose Lino Luna presented a protest in the Court of First Instance and a new trial was
ordered.Additional evidence was adduced.

By deducting the said votes in the municipality of Taytay and those cast after six
o'clock p.m. inthe municipality of Binangonan, Judge McMahon concluded that Jose
Lino Luna had received aplurality of the legal votes cast at said election and ordered
the provincial board of canvassers tocorrect its canvass accordingly.
III. Issue:

Whether or not the ballots cast after the hour fixed for closing were valid. if the voter is prevented. in the absence of some fraud. then. When the Election Law does not provide that a departure from a prescribed form will be fataland such departure has been due to an honest mistake or misrepresentation of the ElectionLaw. from voting. Voters who do not appear and offer to vote within the hoursdesignated by the law should not be permitted to vote if the time for closing the polls hasarrived. The ballots were valid. and such departure has not been used as a means for fraudulent practices and it is clea .and is not permitted to vote by reason of the failure of the inspectors to do their duty.” The polls should be open and closed in strict accord with said provisions. Upon the other hand. The law provides that “at al l elections. during the voting hours.certainly. Held/Ruling: YES. IV. neither such votes nor the entire vote of the precinctshould be annulled simply because some votes were cast after the regular hours. the polls shall be open from seven o’clock in the morning until six o’clock in the afternoon.