Petitioner: VICENTE SOTTO, petitioner

Respondents: THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

G.R. No. : L-329
Date: April 16, 1946

Facts: Section 9 of Commonwealth Act No. 657 provides: “Any decision, order, or ruling of the Commission on Elections
may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari in accordance with the Rules of Court or with such rules as
may be promulgated by the Supreme Court.”

Vicente Sotto filed a petition for review of the decision of the Commission on Elections which declared the respondent
Emilio M. Javier as the true and legitimate President of the Popular Front (Sumulong) Party. The petitioner Vicente Sotto
asserts in his petition that he is the President of the said Party, and prays that said decision be reviewed and reversed and
that petitioner be declared the legitimate President of the Party.

Respondent Emilio M. Javier was designated in November 1941, by the former president of the same party as his
substitute during the time of his illness in accord with section 13 of the third paragraph of the ‘’Rules and Regulations of
the Party”. February 1, 1946, the four members of the directorate questioned the name of the respondent in the letter of
his resignation as an acting president of the Popular Front (sumulong) notwithstanding the fact that they recognized the
respondent as an acting president of the party until the day they questioned his validity.

According to Mr. Javier, he was compelled to do the resignation paper because of the threat of being molested by the
Japanese who wanted to appoint him to some government position.

Issue #1: Whether or not the Supreme Court shall review the rulings or findings of facts by the Commission on Elections?

Held #1: NO. Under Section 2, Article VIII of the Constitution of the Philippines, as well as our Rules of Court, final
judgment and decrees of the inferior or lower courts may be reviewed by this Court by appeal, writ of error, or certiorari. .
Questions or findings of fact of the inferior tribunal, can not be reviewed on certiorari. “Evidence which is made a part of
the record can not be examined to determine whether or not it justifies the finding on which the decision or judgment was
made. (See the following rule.).

The general rule is that, in the absence of statue or local practice otherwise, questions or findings of fact, in the inferior
tribunal, are not reviewable on certiorari, and that evidence which is made a part of the record cannot be examined to
determine whether or not it justified the findings on which the decision or judgment was made; nor will rulings on questions
of fact, within the inferior tribunal’s jurisdiction, be reviewed. (14 Corpus Juris Secundum, pp. 311, 312.) (Emphasis
supplied.)

In accordance with the provision of section 9 of Commonwealth Act No. 657, this Court can not, therefore, review the
rulings or findings of fact of the Commission on Elections.

Issue #2: Should the Court pass upon a constitutional question not raised by the parties?

Held #2 : NO. It is a well-established rule that a court should not pass upon a constitutional question and decide a law to
be unconstitutional or invalid, unless such question is raised by the parties, and that when it is raised, if the record also
presents some other ground upon which the court may rest its judgment, that course will be adopted and the constitutional
will be left for consideration until a case arises in which a decision upon such question will be unavoidable . The
contention in the dissenting opinion that “whether the point (unconstitutionality) of the provision of section 9, Act No. 657,
is raised or not by either party, we can not close our eyes to the constitutional mandate,” is therefore evidently erroneous.

Issue #3: Whether or not the popular front party (sumulong) can split in two groups, one headed by the petitioner and one
headed by the respondent?

Held #3: NO. According to According to section 11 of the Rules and Regulations of the Popular Front Party (Sumulong),
"the President shall be the supreme representative of the Party." Respondent Javier, with the Directorate formed by the
majority of the members thereof who have remained loyal to the party and have sided with him, is the one who can act for
the party.

Doctrine: Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. express mention of one thing excludes all others. This is one of the rules
used in interpretation of statutes. The phrase indicates that items not on the list are assumed not to be covered by the
statute. When something is mentioned expressly in a statute it leads to the presumption that the things not mentioned are
excluded.
We believe that there is no discussion about the fact that during the illness of the deceased, Don
Juan Sumulong, and after his death, Dr. Emilio M. Javier acted and was recognized by the members of
the party as interim president of the Front Party Popular (Sumulong), at least, until February 1, 1946,
in which four members of the party's board took the resolution (Exhibit E) accepting the resignation
submitted by him on April 30, 1942, submitted to said members on February 1, 1946. The same, Mr.
Lorenzo Sumulong, lawyer of Mr. Vicente Sotto, admitted to the Commission that Dr. Javier was the
interim president of the party during that period of time, although he qualified as de facto interim
president.

Mr. Vicente Sotto argues that Dr. Javier ceased to be the interim president of the party by virtue of his
resignation letter (Exhibit F) (which was accepted on February 1, 1946. ...

The evidence does not show that an election has ever taken place to fill the vacancy caused by Mr.
Sumulong's death. On the contrary, it is clearly established that all the members of the Board of
Directors including those who are currently opponents of Dr. Javier and all the delegates who
attended the alleged convention held on January 27, 1946, recognized Dr. Javier as the president
Party interim.

The right that Mr. Sotto invokes to claim that he be recognized as the true and legitimate president of
the Popular Front Party (Sumulong) derives from the resolution adopted by four members of the
Board on February 1, 1946, accepting the resignation of Dr. Javier presented on April 30, 1942 by
virtue of his letter (Exhibit F).

However; Is the meeting of the Board of Directors of February 1, 1946 legal and valid and the
resolution adopted by four members of the Board of Directors and has produced the effect of
depriving Dr. Javier of the position of interim president of the Popular Front Party (Sumulong) ? .

We believe that the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Party convened on February 1, 1946 by
the secretary, Mr. Laude, and the resolution adopted by four members of said Board of Directors are
void and invalidated by the reason that said meeting has been convened by the secretary, Mr. Laude,
without knowledge or authorization of the president of the Party and the Resolution was adopted by
a minority of four members, according to the evidence, that the Board of the Party was eleven
members. In addition, this resolution is based on a resignation letter that, clearly, was not real and
effective, since it had been presented under the pressure of the prevailing circumstances then during
the Japanese regime, as Dr. Javier explained satisfactorily.

Having reached the conclusion that the meeting convened by the secretary, Mr. Laude, on February 1,
1946 and the resolution adopted at that meeting by four members of the Board of Directors who do
not form a majority are null and void, and deriving Mr. Sotto's right to be recognized as the true and
legitimate president of the Popular Front Party (Sumulong) of the aforementioned resolution in which
Dr. Javier's alleged resignation was accepted, is forced to conclude that the claims of Mr. Sotto have
absolutely no basis. "