Would acceptance of temporary employment a ground for the dismissal of an election protest?

As to the contention that by accepting such appointment as Technical Assistant, protestant has abandoned his protest, all that need be said is that once the court has acquired jurisdiction over an election contest, the public interest involved demands that the true winner be known without regard to the wishes or acts of the parties, so much so that there can be no default, compromise nor stipulation of facts in this kind of cases. In the same manner that the acceptance by the protestee of an appointment to another position is not a ground for dismissal of the protest like the resignation of the protestee from the contested office, simply because it is of public interest that the real winner be known, neither can the acceptance of a more or less temporary employment, such as that of a technical assistant of the Vice-Governor, which is a primarily confidential position, be considered as inconsistent with protestant's determination to protect and pursue the public interest involved in the matter of who is the real choice of the electorate. In such instances, the plight of protestant may be viewed in the same light as that of an employee who has been illegally dismissed and who, to find means to support himself and family while he prosecutes his case for reinstatement, accepts a temporary employment elsewhere. Such employee is not deemed to have abandoned the position he seeks to recover. Of course, the case of protestant who accepts a permanent appointment to a regular office could be different, but We are not ruling on it here. (Moraleja vs. Relova, G.R. No. L-30828, October 22, 1971)