My Lolo (Excerpts from his journal)
"He was taught to read and write by his aunt, Maria Dellosa, Pablo Deocarega, Porfirio Jimenez successfully. Later he was employed as ("title") Choir in The Church of Bacon, Sorsogon, until 1905 when he deserted the service due to the unbearable cruelities of Maestro Marcus Divina."
"In 1905 he began his studies in the public school in Bacon where he finished his primary course in 1907. Immediately after his graduation he was one of the two who were selected by the principal of the school, Mr. James C. Scott, to represent the school in the Normal Institute in the capital of Sorsogon. In 1910, he finished The Institute Course in the Sorsogon Provincial School."
The timeframe of this journal entry is very significant. Our Lolo was born during the height of the Propaganda Movement, 1880s-Early 1890s. Jose Rizal completed El Filbusterismo the year Justo was born in 1891. Four years earlier, Rizal wrote Noli Me Tangere (Latin for "Do not touch me"). Noli called for Spanish reform by describing the Filipino human condition at the time. Fili was a novel on revolution. Both writings were called subversive and heretical by Spain and was banned completely. However, these writings are credited for igniting the insurgency against Spain. Rizal was executed in December 30, 1896 having been found guilty of leading the propaganda movement and having started the Revolution that broke out in August of that year. Our Lolo was only 5 years of age.
Note that Lolo's school principal was most likely American, Mr. James C. Scott. Remember, the Spanish-American war had just ended in 1898 and the Philippine Insurrection had just officially ended in 1902 with the capture of Aguinaldo in 1901. These were the early years of the American Period and the United States was beginning to have a very strong foothold in the Philippines which would not end until after WWII. Having Americans at the very top of the school system would ensure "proper education" for the Filipino.
Note also the school our Lolo writes in his journal. Today, it's known as the Sorsogon National High School. It used to be known as the Sorsogon Provincial High School, "where most of Sorsogon’s prominent personalities studied and graduated. The old main building, which is located at the corner of the intersection going to Bacon District and to Gubat town, retains its original architectural design when it was constructed sometime in 1908. During the Japanese occupation of the Province, the building was used to incarcerate captured Filipino guerillas by the Japanese."
The name Sorsogon was originally spelled "solsogon" in most old Spanish maps. Solsogon is an old Bikol word, meaning, "to trace a river going upstream". The rootword "solsog" is Bikol for "going against the current". It is also variously pronounced and spelled as "sogsogon" or "sosogon", which all really mean the same thing - "to trace a river, a trail, or a pathway." As the old folks story goes, after establishing a settlement in Gibalong, in what is now the town of Magallanes, the Spaniards fanned out to explore the area and one group soon came upon a small river emptying itself into what is now Sorsogon Bay. Tired and lost and not knowing where they were, the Spaniards asked a native about the name of the place. Ignorant of the Iberian tongue, and fearful of the white men with the funny hats and bushy countenances, the native, thinking that the strangers were asking for directions, simply pointed at the river and said, "Solsogon", meaning, trace the river upstream to a native village beyond. And the name stuck.
Here's a court case involving my Lolo at http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:tDA2PlMzxeMJ:www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1925/oct1925/gr_l-24843_1925.html+justo+dellosa&hl=en
PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE - FULL TEXT
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
G.R. No. L-24843 October 30, 1925
CECILIO AYO vs. TOMAS FLORDELIZA, ET AL.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-24843 October 30, 1925
CECILIO AYO, petitioner,
vs.
Honorable TOMAS FLORDELIZA, Judge of First Instance of Sorsogon, JUSTO DELLOSA, JULIAN LACRE and VICENTE DICHOSO, respondents.
Pacifico F. Lim and Agustin Frivaldo for petitioner.
The respondent judge in his own behalf.
Francisco Arellano for the respondent Dellosa.
No appearance for the other respondents.
STREET, J.:
This is an application for the writ of mandamus by which the petitioner, Cecilio Ayo, seeks to compel the respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon to reinstate an election protest which said respondent had dismissed and to compel the same judge to issue a subpoena duces tecum to the municipal secretary of Bacon, Sorsogon, to produce in court the return of the municipal council as a board of canvassers showing the number of votes received by the several candidates for the office of president of the municipality of Bacon at the last general election. The cause is now before us upon the demurrers of the respondents.
It appears that the petitioner was a defeated candidate for the office of the municipal president of Bacon, Sorsogon, at the last election, the successful candidate being one Justo Dellosa. In due time thereafter the present petitioner instituted a contest over the office and made the said Dellosa, with two other defeated candidates, parties to the proceeding. In his motion of protest the petitioner asked for a recount of the votes in the fifth precinct. The successful candidate, Justo Dellosa, met the protest with the counter-protest, in which he asked for the recount of the votes in precincts Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6. One of the unsuccessful candidates, Vicente Dichoso, also came back with a counter-protest, in which he asked for a recount of the votes cast in all six of the election precincts of the municipality. In due course the recount was begun, but after the votes cast in the first precinct had been recounted by the commissioners, Dichoso, apparently finding no encouragement in the results, made a motion to withdraw effect of placing the votes of the third precinct out of the litigation; and in order to bring the votes to this precinct. back into the controversy the petitioner asked for leave to amend and to make the proper changes that would justify a recount of the votes of this precinct. This motion of the petitioner was denied by the court as having been presented out of time. The recount of the votes of the five precincts was continued, however, and concluded. The matter of the contest then came before the respondent judge for decision, but as the returns from only five of the precincts were before the court, and no evidence whatever to show the returns from the third precinct, his Honor, on August 1, 1925, dismissed the protest, with costs against the petitioner.
It is insisted for the petitioner that this action on the part of the respondent judge was unlawful, inasmuch as the law requires the judge in charge of a protest proceeding to make a finding as to who was elected, or whether no person was elected. It is true that the law so provides but the law contemplates that the proof upon which a lawful decision can be made shall be placed by the contending parties before the court; and in a case where a cause is submitted without sufficient proof to enable the court to determine the protest, it is not improper, indeed it is necessary, merely to dismiss the contest. 1awph!l.net
The principal contention presented in this petition arises over the responsibility for the situation which arose in the manner above stated; and the petitioner seeks to put the blame on the court for not having before it the return of the board of canvassers, which would have shown the result of the election in the uncontested precinct. In this connection it appears that in his original motion the petitioner asked the court to issue a subpoena duces tecum against the municipal secretary of Bacon, who is supposed to be the proper custodian of the report of the canvassing board. In acting upon the petition his Honor made a proper order upon the municipal treasurer to produce the boxes, lists of registered voters, and other papers and documents used in the general election, to the end that the contest could be proceeded with. His honor, however, either by oversight of believing that all of the necessary documents and papers would be produced by the treasurer, failed to make an order upon the municipal secretary to produce the return of the board of canvassers. It does not appear that the attention of his Honor was especially called to the request for a subpoena duces tecum to the municipal secretary, and the non-production of the evidence concerning the returns as to the third precinct was not noted until the cause was submitted.
In behalf of the respondents it is pointed out that it was the duty of the petitioner to produce the necessary evidence upon which a proper judgment could be made, and in particular it is insisted that the duty of issuing the subpoena duces tecum is a ministerial duty of the clerk of court, not requiring a special order of the court. This suggestion given is, we think, satisfactory; and in our opinion no one is chargeable with the oversight except the petitioner himself.
The petition is therefore, in our opinion, not well founded; and the demurrers to the petition will be sustained and the petition declared insufficient. It furthermore appearing that the petition suffers from a defect not curable by amendment, an order absolute will be entered, dismissing the same, with costs against the petitioner.
Avanceña, C. J., Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.
PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE - FULL TEXT
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
G.R. No. L-24843 October 30, 1925
CECILIO AYO vs. TOMAS FLORDELIZA, ET AL.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-24843 October 30, 1925
CECILIO AYO, petitioner,
vs.
Honorable TOMAS FLORDELIZA, Judge of First Instance of Sorsogon, JUSTO DELLOSA, JULIAN LACRE and VICENTE DICHOSO, respondents.
Pacifico F. Lim and Agustin Frivaldo for petitioner.
The respondent judge in his own behalf.
Francisco Arellano for the respondent Dellosa.
No appearance for the other respondents.
STREET, J.:
This is an application for the writ of mandamus by which the petitioner, Cecilio Ayo, seeks to compel the respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon to reinstate an election protest which said respondent had dismissed and to compel the same judge to issue a subpoena duces tecum to the municipal secretary of Bacon, Sorsogon, to produce in court the return of the municipal council as a board of canvassers showing the number of votes received by the several candidates for the office of president of the municipality of Bacon at the last general election. The cause is now before us upon the demurrers of the respondents.
It appears that the petitioner was a defeated candidate for the office of the municipal president of Bacon, Sorsogon, at the last election, the successful candidate being one Justo Dellosa. In due time thereafter the present petitioner instituted a contest over the office and made the said Dellosa, with two other defeated candidates, parties to the proceeding. In his motion of protest the petitioner asked for a recount of the votes in the fifth precinct. The successful candidate, Justo Dellosa, met the protest with the counter-protest, in which he asked for the recount of the votes in precincts Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6. One of the unsuccessful candidates, Vicente Dichoso, also came back with a counter-protest, in which he asked for a recount of the votes cast in all six of the election precincts of the municipality. In due course the recount was begun, but after the votes cast in the first precinct had been recounted by the commissioners, Dichoso, apparently finding no encouragement in the results, made a motion to withdraw effect of placing the votes of the third precinct out of the litigation; and in order to bring the votes to this precinct. back into the controversy the petitioner asked for leave to amend and to make the proper changes that would justify a recount of the votes of this precinct. This motion of the petitioner was denied by the court as having been presented out of time. The recount of the votes of the five precincts was continued, however, and concluded. The matter of the contest then came before the respondent judge for decision, but as the returns from only five of the precincts were before the court, and no evidence whatever to show the returns from the third precinct, his Honor, on August 1, 1925, dismissed the protest, with costs against the petitioner.
It is insisted for the petitioner that this action on the part of the respondent judge was unlawful, inasmuch as the law requires the judge in charge of a protest proceeding to make a finding as to who was elected, or whether no person was elected. It is true that the law so provides but the law contemplates that the proof upon which a lawful decision can be made shall be placed by the contending parties before the court; and in a case where a cause is submitted without sufficient proof to enable the court to determine the protest, it is not improper, indeed it is necessary, merely to dismiss the contest. 1awph!l.net
The principal contention presented in this petition arises over the responsibility for the situation which arose in the manner above stated; and the petitioner seeks to put the blame on the court for not having before it the return of the board of canvassers, which would have shown the result of the election in the uncontested precinct. In this connection it appears that in his original motion the petitioner asked the court to issue a subpoena duces tecum against the municipal secretary of Bacon, who is supposed to be the proper custodian of the report of the canvassing board. In acting upon the petition his Honor made a proper order upon the municipal treasurer to produce the boxes, lists of registered voters, and other papers and documents used in the general election, to the end that the contest could be proceeded with. His honor, however, either by oversight of believing that all of the necessary documents and papers would be produced by the treasurer, failed to make an order upon the municipal secretary to produce the return of the board of canvassers. It does not appear that the attention of his Honor was especially called to the request for a subpoena duces tecum to the municipal secretary, and the non-production of the evidence concerning the returns as to the third precinct was not noted until the cause was submitted.
In behalf of the respondents it is pointed out that it was the duty of the petitioner to produce the necessary evidence upon which a proper judgment could be made, and in particular it is insisted that the duty of issuing the subpoena duces tecum is a ministerial duty of the clerk of court, not requiring a special order of the court. This suggestion given is, we think, satisfactory; and in our opinion no one is chargeable with the oversight except the petitioner himself.
The petition is therefore, in our opinion, not well founded; and the demurrers to the petition will be sustained and the petition declared insufficient. It furthermore appearing that the petition suffers from a defect not curable by amendment, an order absolute will be entered, dismissing the same, with costs against the petitioner.
Avanceña, C. J., Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.
0 comments:
Post a Comment