EN BANC
|
NILO L. DOJILLO, Petitioner, - versus - COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and RODRIGO N. VIDAL, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 166542 Present: PANGANIBAN, C.J., PUNO, QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, CALLEJO, SR., AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, GARCIA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ. Promulgated: |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This is a
petition for certiorari[1] of the Order dated
The trial
court proclaimed petitioner Nilo L. Dojillo (“petitioner”) the duly elected Punong
Barangay of Barangay Nibaliw Vidal, San Fabian, Pangasinan and nullified the previous proclamation of
respondent Rodrigo N. Vidal (“respondent”) by the Board of Election Tellers
(BET) of Nibaliw Vidal. The COMELEC En Banc’s
The Facts
Petitioner and
respondent were two of three candidates for Punong Barangay of Nibaliw Vidal, San
Fabian, Pangasinan in the
Petitioner
filed an election protest before the trial court on
In his
election protest, petitioner objected to 26 ballots[5] as marked ballots for respondent and claimed
two ballots[6]
as votes. For his part, respondent
objected to 36 ballots[7] as marked ballots for
petitioner and claimed five ballots[8] as votes.
The Ruling of the Trial Court
In its
decision dated
In Precinct 84-A:
Votes for [Petitioner] 48+1 = 49 votes
Votes for [Respondent] 54-3 = 51 votes
In Precinct 87A-1:
Votes for [Petitioner] = 28 votes
Votes for [Respondent] 77-3 = 74 votes
In Precinct 86A-1:
Votes for [Petitioner] = 48 votes
Votes for [Respondent] 63-5 = 58 votes
Thus the total votes garnered by each of the parties are as follows:
For [Petitioner] 371+1 = 372 total votes
For
[Respondent] 374-11 = 363
total votes[9]
The dispositive portion of the
trial court’s decision reads thus:
WHEREFORE, a Decision is hereby rendered declaring the protestant NILO L. DOJILLO, winner by nine (9) votes over protestee as Chairman or Punong Barangay of Nibaliw Vidal, San Fabian, Pangasinan and hereby proclaims the said NILO L. DOJILLO the duly elected Chairman/Punong Barangay of Barangay Nibaliw, Vidal, San Fabian, Pangasinan, and hereby declares the previous proclamation of protestee Rodrigo N. Vidal as the duly elected Chairman/Punong Barangay made by the Board of Election Tellers of Nibaliw Vidal nullified and of no effect.
Let [a] copy of this Decision be furnished:
The Comelec, the Department of [Interior and] Local Government and the Commission on Audit.
SO ORDERED.[10]
Respondent filed his notice of appeal
on
The Ruling of the COMELEC
The COMELEC
Second Division visually scrutinized all the questioned ballots and changed the
election results according to its findings.
The COMELEC Second Division tallied its findings as follows:
|
|
DOJILLO |
|
VIDAL |
|
Total votes per Election Returns |
371 |
|
374 |
|
Add valid claims |
1 |
|
3 |
|
Total |
372 |
|
377 |
|
Less invalid votes |
2 |
|
2 |
|
Total valid
votes |
370 |
|
375[11] |
In a Resolution dated
WHEREFORE, the decision of the 4th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of San Fabian, San Jacinto, Pangasinan rendered on August 3, 2002 in Election Protest No. 012 (SF-02) entitled “Nilo N. [sic] Dojillo, Protestant versus Rodrigo N. Nival [sic], Protestee” is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Protestee-Appellant Rodrigo N. Vidal is hereby declared as the duly elected Punong Barangay of Barangay Nibaliw Vidal, San Fabian, Pangasinan.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.[12]
Petitioner
filed his Motion for Reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc on
In the meantime, pending resolution of the instant motion, after due deliberation, and finding that there was no writ of execution of decision pending appeal issued by the lower court, this Commission hereby issues a STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER, which is the condition prevailing before the promulgation of the questioned decision of the court a quo dated August 8, 2002 in EP No. 012(SF-02) entitled Dojillo vs. Vidal, reinstating protestee-appellant Rodrigo N. Vidal to his position as Punong Barangay of Nibaliw [Vidal], Pangasinan, effective immediately and continuing until further orders from this Commission.
SO ORDERED.[13]
Respondent filed an Urgent Ex Parte Motion to have the Status Quo Ante Order personally
served by an officer of the COMELEC.
This motion was granted in an Order dated
Without
discussing the question raised by its issuance of the Status Quo Ante Order,
the COMELEC En Banc denied petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration in a Resolution dated
|
|
DOJILLO |
|
VIDAL |
|
Total votes per Election Returns |
371 |
|
374 |
|
Add valid claims |
1 |
|
3 |
|
Total |
372 |
|
377 |
|
Less invalid votes |
1 |
|
3 |
|
Total |
371 |
|
374 |
|
Add valid votes |
1 |
|
0 |
|
Total valid
votes |
372 |
|
374[14] |
The dispositive portion of the COMELEC En Banc’s
Resolution reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the summary of findings of the Second Division is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.[15]
The Issues
Petitioner
alleged that as the COMELEC’s Resolutions are not
supported by substantial evidence and are contrary to law and settled
jurisprudence, COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
or excess of jurisdiction. Petitioner
raised the following issues before this Court:
1. THE COMELEC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF AND/OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION IN ITS APPRECIATION OF BALLOTS PARTICULARLY IN EXHIBITS “1-J”, “A-5”, “B-1”, “B-2”, “3-8”, “C”, “C-1”, “C-3” TO “C-5”, WHICH SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED FOR VIDAL.
2. THE COMELEC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF AND/OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION IN ADDING THE DECLARED STRAY BALLOTS OF VIDAL PARTICULARLY EXHIBITS “2-F”, “A”, “A-1”, “A-3”, “B-3” “3-8” AND “C-10”, TO HIS VOTES WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED FROM HIS VOTES.
3. THE COMELEC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF AND/OR IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION WHEN THE COMELEC THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN BENJAMIN ABALOS ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY ISSUED THE 29 APRIL 2003 STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER “REINSTATING OR REINSTALLING” VIDAL TO THE POSITION HE NEVER OCCUPIED OR ASSUMED (Emphasis in the original).[16]
The Ruling of the Court
The petition
has partial merit.
The main issue
in this appeal is whether respondent is the duly elected Punong
Barangay of Barangay Nibaliw Vidal, San Fabian, Pangasinan. A
discussion on the issues of appreciation of ballots and of the propriety of the
issuance of the Status Quo Ante Order is necessary to resolve the main issue.
Appreciation of Ballots
A ballot
indicates the voter’s will. There is no requirement that the entries in the
ballot be written nicely or that the name of the
candidate be spelled accurately.[17] In the reading and appreciation of ballots,
every ballot is presumed valid unless there is a clear reason to justify its
rejection. The object in the
appreciation of ballots is to ascertain and carry into effect the intention of
the voter, if it can be determined with reasonable certainty.[18]
Petitioner
separates his question on appreciation of ballots into two. First is the appreciation of ballots which
petitioner previously objected to as marked ballots and which the COMELEC
should not have
counted in favor of respondent.
Second is the appreciation of ballots which are stray votes and which
the COMELEC should not have
counted in favor of respondent.
Petitioner
appeals the COMELEC’s ruling on the following ballots
for being marked ballots: Exhibits “1-J”, “A-5”, “B-1”, “B-2”, “3-8”, “C”,
“C-1”, “C-3” to “C-5.”[19]
We relied on
the descriptions of the ballots given by the parties, the trial court, and the
COMELEC, and weighed their assertions.
Based on jurisprudence, Section 211 of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 881, as amended (“Omnibus Election Code”), and
Section 49 of COMELEC Resolution No.
4846 (“Resolution 4846”), which enumerate the rules on appreciation of ballots,
we find that we have no reason to overturn the COMELEC’s
decision. We shall refer to the
pertinent rulings of the trial court and of the COMELEC Second Division and
COMELEC En Banc accordingly.
Respondent
objected to Exhibit “1-J” as a marked ballot for petitioner. The trial court ruled that this is a valid
vote for petitioner. The COMELEC Second
Division reversed the trial court and stated that Exhibit “1-J” is indeed a
marked ballot: “The distinctive use of,
and several impositions with blue ink on the name of Dojillo
with the rest of the votes written in black ink, indicates no other intention
than to identify the ballot.” The
COMELEC En Banc affirmed the COMELEC Second
Division’s finding. In affirming the
ruling against the validity of Exhibit “1-J”, we apply paragraph 22 of Section
211 of the Omnibus Election Code, the pertinent portion of which reads: “Unless it should clearly appear that they have
been deliberately put by the voter as identification marks, xxx the use of two
or more kinds of writing shall not invalidate the ballot.”
Petitioner
objected to Exhibit “A-5” as a marked ballot for respondent. The trial court ruled that this is a marked
ballot: “A big ‘X’ is written on the
space[s] 2 to 7 for kagawad after Pedeglorio
Victor L. x x x The voter
is quite intelligent as shown by the hand writing, but the big X can not be
considered as desistance, but to mark and identify his vote.” The COMELEC Second Division reversed the
trial court and ruled that the “X” mark merely indicates the voter’s desistance
from voting further. The COMELEC En
Banc affirmed the COMELEC Second Division’s finding. In affirming the ruling for the validity of
Exhibit “A-5”, we apply paragraph 21 of Section 211 of the Omnibus Election
Code, the pertinent portion of which reads:
“[C]rosses x x x put on the spaces on which the voter has not voted shall
be considered as signs to indicate his desistance from voting and shall not
invalidate the ballot.”
Petitioner
objected to Exhibit “B-1” as an invalid vote for respondent. The trial court stated: “What was written is neither
the name or surname of [respondent].
It can not even be considered under the rule on idem sonans, the writing seems to be in latin [sic] or greek
[sic] VIONI, VIOBI, IMBERRP, DUCA, SERONO.”
The COMELEC Second Division reversed the trial court and ruled that the
vote is valid under the intent and idem sonans rule. The voter intended to write “Vidal” but, due
to poor handwriting, only “Vida” was legible.
The COMELEC En Banc affirmed the COMELEC Second Division’s
finding. In affirming the ruling for the
validity of Exhibit “A-5”, we apply paragraph 7 of Section 211 of the Omnibus
Election Code, which reads: “A name or
surname incorrectly written which, when read, has a sound similar to the name
or surname of a candidate when correctly written shall be counted in his
favor.” The idem sonans rule does not require
exactitude nor perfection in the spelling of
names. The question whether a name
sounds the same as another is not one of spelling but of pronunciation.[20]
Petitioner
objected to Exhibit “B-2” as a marked ballot for respondent. The trial court agreed with
petitioner. However, the COMELEC Second
Division considered the sequence of votes written on Exhibit “B-2” and ruled
that Exhibit “B-2” is a valid vote for respondent under the intent rule. The
ballot contained two names on the space for Punong Barangay: “Vedal Jing” and “Vic Pedeglorio.” The COMELEC En Banc affirmed the
COMELEC Second Division’s finding. In
affirming the ruling for the validity of Exhibit “B-2”, we apply paragraph 19
of Section 211 of the Omnibus Elections Code, which states that “[a]ny vote in favor of x x x a candidate for an office for which he did not present
himself shall be considered as a stray vote but it shall not invalidate the
whole ballot.” Vic Pedeglorio
was not a candidate for Punong Barangay,
but for Kagawad.
Petitioner
objected to Exhibit “C” as a stray ballot that should not be counted for
respondent. The trial court’s
description of the ballot states that the entry in the space for Punong Barangay is “JINV Pedeglorio.” The
trial court decreed that Exhibit “C” is indeed a stray ballot. However, the COMELEC Second Division held
that Exhibit “C” is a valid vote for respondent. It saw that the name Jing Pedeglorio was written on
the space for Punong Barangay,
with the surname Vidal superimposed in capital letters over the surname Pedeglorio. The
ballot indicated the voter’s intention to correct his vote for respondent. The COMELEC En Banc affirmed the
COMELEC Second Division’s finding. In affirming the ruling for the validity of
Exhibit “C”, we apply paragraph 22 of Section 211 of the Omnibus Election Code,
the pertinent portion of which reads:
“Unless it should clearly appear that they have been deliberately put by
the voter as identification marks, x x x the use of two or more kinds of writing shall not
invalidate the ballot.”[21] We also apply paragraph 9 of the same
section, which reads: “When in a space
in the ballot there appears a name of a candidate that is erased and another
clearly written, the vote is valid for the latter.”
Petitioner
objected to Exhibit “C-1” as a marked ballot for respondent. The trial court agreed with petitioner
because respondent’s name is written in “big printed and bold capital letters”
unlike the rest of the entries. Again,
the COMELEC Second Division disagreed with the trial court and ruled that the
name “JING-VIDAL”, which was boldly written, does not nullify the ballot as
marked. The voter merely emphasized his
intent to vote for respondent. The
COMELEC En Banc affirmed the COMELEC Second Division’s finding. In affirming the ruling for the validity of
Exhibit “C-1”, we apply paragraph 22 of Section 211 of the Omnibus Election
Code, the pertinent portion of which reads:
“Unless it should clearly appear that they have been deliberately put by
the voter as identification marks, x x x hyphens between the first name and surname of a candidate
x x x, the use of two or
more kinds of writing shall not invalidate the ballot.”
Petitioner
objected to Exhibits “C-3” to “C-5” as marked ballots for respondent. The trial court agreed with petitioner’s
position. There was a star drawn on
Exhibit “C-3,” a human head was drawn after the entry of “Juvy
Vidal” for Kagawad on line 4 of Exhibit “C-4,” and a
drawing was made after the entry of “Rodrigo Vidal” for Punong
Barangay on Exhibit “C-5.” Both the COMELEC Second Division and the
COMELEC En Banc disagreed with the trial court and stated the figures or
symbols which appeared on Exhibits “C-3” to “C-5” were written by a person
other than the voter after the voting process.
The COMELEC Second Division and the COMELEC En Banc considered
the difference in the writing materials used in Exhibits “C-3” and “C-5” and
the color of the pen used in Exhibit “C-4.”
In affirming the ruling for the validity of Exhibits “C-3” to “C-5”, we apply jurisprudence[22] which ruled on marks made
after the ballot was cast. A ballot
should be counted if it is marked afterwards by some person or persons other
than the voter himself. Subsequent
changes in the ballot made by a person other than the voter should not be
permitted to affect the result of the election or destroy the will of the
voters.
Petitioner
appeals the COMELEC’s ruling on the following ballots
for being stray ballots: Exhibits “2-F”, “A”, “A-1”, “A-3”, “B-3”, “3-8” and
“C-10.”[23] As in the previous paragraphs, we shall refer
to the pertinent rulings of the trial court and of the COMELEC Second Division
and COMELEC En Banc accordingly.
Respondent
claimed that in Exhibit “2-F” the name “Jing Calong” is written in the space for Punong
Barangay. “Jing” is respondent’s nickname, while “Calong”
is petitioner’s nickname. The trial
court ruled that this is a stray ballot.
The COMELEC Second Division agreed with the trial court. The COMELEC En Banc was silent on
Exhibit “2-F.” In affirming the ruling
against the validity of Exhibit “2-F”, we apply paragraph 14 of Section 211 of
the Omnibus Election Code, the pertinent portion of which reads: “Any vote x x x which does not sufficiently identify the candidate for
whom it is intended shall be considered as a stray vote but shall not
invalidate the whole ballot.”[24]
Petitioner
objected to Exhibits “A”, “A-1”, “A-3”, “B-3” and “C-10” as stray ballots and should not
have been counted in favor of respondent.
These ballots had “J. Vidal” written on the space for Punong Barangay. The trial court considered these as valid
votes for respondent. The COMELEC Second
Division and COMELEC En Banc upheld the trial court and stated that “J”
in “J. Vidal” stands for the initial of “Jing,”
Vidal’s registered nickname. In
affirming the ruling for the validity of Exhibits “A”, “A-1”, “A-3”, “B-3”
and “C-10”, we apply the ruling in Gonzaga v. Seno[25] and Moya
v. Del Fierro:[26] the initial of the nickname of the candidate
may be used together with the surname of the candidate for the purpose of
identifying the candidate for whom the voter votes.
Propriety of the Issuance of the
Status Quo Ante Order
Petitioner
also questions the propriety of the Status Quo Ante Order as it reinstates
respondent to a position which he never assumed.
We agree with
petitioner that, as written, the Status Quo Ante Order raised more questions
than it solved the legal problems of the case.
The Status Quo Ante order had the nature of a temporary restraining
order. We agree with petitioner that the
Status Quo Ante Order had a life span of more than 20 days since the directive
was qualified by the phrase “until further orders from this Commission.” In line with Repol
v. Commission on
Elections,[27] the Status Quo Ante Order
automatically ceased to have effect on
However, in
contrast to Repol, no execution pending
appeal was ever issued to any party in the present case. Upon examination of
the events in this case, we find that respondent was proclaimed as the duly
elected Punong Barangay of Nibaliw Vidal, San Fabian, Pangasinan by the BET on
Nevertheless,
the COMELEC’s subsequent ruling in favor of
respondent and our succeeding affirmation of the COMELEC’s
ruling defeats the execution pending appeal and brings us to the present situation: notwithstanding the previous oaths of office
taken by both parties, respondent is the duly elected Punong
Barangay of Nibaliw Vidal,
San Fabian, Pangasinan.
WHEREFORE,
we PARTIALLY GRANT the
petition. We AFFIRM the Resolution
of the Commission on Elections En Banc dated
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ARTEMIO V.
PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Associate Justice |
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
|
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice
|
|
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate
Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate
Justice |
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
|
ADOLFO S.
AZCUNA Associate Justice |
DANTE O.
TINGA Associate Justice |
|
MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
CANCIO C.
GARCIA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Under Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
[2] Penned by Chairman Benjamin S. Abalos.
[3] Penned by Commissioner Rufino S.B. Javier, with Chairman Benjamin S. Abalos and Commissioners Mehol K. Sadain, Resurreccion Z. Borra, Florentino A. Tuason, Jr., Virgilio O. Garcillano, and Manuel A. Barcelona, concurring.
[4] Penned by Judge Aniceto L. Madronio.
[5] Precinct 84-A: Exhibits “A”, “A-1” to “A-6”; Precinct 87A-1: Exhibits “B”, “B-1” to “B-5”; and Precinct 86A-1: Exhibits “C”, “C-1” to “C-12.”
[6] Precinct 84-A: Exhibits “A-7” to “A-8.”
[7] Precinct 84-A: Exhibits “1”, “1-A” to “1-K”; Precinct 87A-1: Exhibits “2”, “2-A” to “2-E”; and Precinct 86A-1: Exhibits “3”, “3-A” to “3-Q.”
[8] Precinct 84-A: Exhibits “1-L” to “1-M”; Precinct 87A-1: Exhibit “2-F”; and Precinct 86A-1: Exhibit “3-R” to “3-S.”
[9] Rollo, p. 78.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] See Abrea v. Lloren, 81 Phil. 809 (1948); Mandac v. Samonte, 49 Phil. 284 (1926) .
[18] See Farin v. Gonzales, 152 Phil. 598 (1973).
[19] There is no Exhibit “3-8” mentioned in the decision of the trial court or in any of the resolutions of the COMELEC.
[20] See Cecilio v. Tomacruz, 62 Phil. 689 (1935).
[21] See also Torres v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 144491, 6 February 2001, 351 SCRA 312; Juliano v. Court of Appeals, 127 Phil. 207 (1967).
[22] See Valenzuela v. Carlos and Lopez de Jesus, 42 Phil. 428 (1921); Dayrit v. San Agustin and Valdez, 40 Phil. 782 (1920); Paulino v. Cailles, 37 Phil. 825 (1918); Hontiveros v. Altavas, 26 Phil. 213 (1913).
[23] See note 19.
[24] See also Garcia v. Court of Appeals, 146 Phil. 1065 (1970).
[25] No. L-20522,
[26] 69 Phil. 199 (1939).
[27] G.R. No. 161418,
[28] See