Facts: The petitioner filed a motion of protest in the Court of First Instance of Albay contesting the election of one of the respondents, Francisco Perfecto. The respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Albay entered an order on which required the petitioner to give two kinds of bond in order that proper proceedings might be taken on his motion of protest. These two kinds of bond were personal bond for P3,000 and a cash bond of P2,000 to be deposited with the provincial treasurer of Albay within the time specified in the order. These sums were later changed so that the cash bond was for P1,500 and the personal bond for P3,500.
Issue: Whether or not the court has the right to choose in which form the petitioner would give his payment, through bond or through cash deposit
Held: Court will require a personal bond. Cash deposit on discretion of the petitioner
Ratio: Section 482 of the Election Law states that “Before the court shall entertain any such contest or counter-contest or admit an appeal, the party filing the contest, counter-contest, or appeal shall give bond in an amount fixed by the court with two sureties satisfactory to it, conditioned that he will pay all expenses and costs incident to such motion or appeal, or shall deposit cash in court in lieu of such bond.” The Supreme Court held that while the respondent judge holds that the court may require either a bond or a cash deposit, the petitioner maintains that it is to him alone the choice is given to file a personal bond or to make a cash deposit in lieu thereof. The Supreme Court ruled that the court may only require a personal bond, and that the contestant may make a cash deposit in lieu thereof.
StatCon maxim: The rule accepted by most of the authorities is that if the chapter or section heading has been inserted merely for convenience or reference, and not as integral part of the statute, it should not be allowed to control interpretation.
No comments:
Post a Comment