Republic
of the
SUPREME
COURT
EN BANC
|
ERNESTO BATALLA, Petitioner, -
versus - COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS and TEODORO BATALLER, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 184268 Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO,* CARPIO, CARPIO
MORALES, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, ABAD,
JJ. Promulgated: September
15, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The Case
In
a Petition for Certiorari under Rules 65 in Relation to Rule 64 of the Rules of
Court, petitioner assails the Order[1]
of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) First Division dated April 3, 2008
dismissing his appeal from the February 12, 2008 Decision[2]
of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Bacacay, Albay, in Election Case No. B-2007-2, and the Order[3]
of the Comelec En Banc dated
The Facts
Petitioner Ernesto Batalla (Batalla),
who was a former Punong Barangay, and private respondent Teodoro Bataller
(Bataller), then incumbent Punong Barangay, were candidates for the position of
Punong Barangay or Barangay Chairperson in Barangay Mapulang Daga, Bacacay,
Albay during the October 29, 2007 barangay
elections. During the count, Batalla
garnered 113 votes while Bataller garnered 108 votes. Consequently, Batalla was proclaimed the
Punong Barangay winner in Barangay Mapulang Daga, Bacacay, Albay.
On
The Ruling of the MCTC
On February 12, 2008, the trial court
rendered its Decision finding that Batalla and Bataller had garnered an equal
number of votes. The fallo reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
judgment is hereby rendered:
1.
Declaring
that the protestant [Bataller] and the protestee [Batalla] have received equal
number of votes for the position of Punong Barangay of Mapulang Daga, Bacacay,
Albay, in the
SO ORDERED.[5]
Section 240[6]
of Batas Pambansa Bilang 881, as amended, otherwise known as the Omnibus
Election Code, provides for the drawing of lots in case of a tie of two or more
electoral candidates garnering the same or equal highest number of votes, with
the proclamation as winner of the candidate favored by luck.
Of the seven ballots protested, the
trial court appreciated five of them in favor of Bataller by applying the
neighborhood and intent rules as enunciated in Ferrer v. Comelec[7]
and Velasco v. Commission on Elections,[8]
and the application of the doctrine of idem sonans. Consequently, the MCTC found both Batalla and
Bataller garnering an equal number of 113 votes each.
Aggrieved, Batalla timely filed his
Notice of Appeal[9] of
the trial court’s decision elevating the election protest before the Comelec,
docketed as EAC (BRGY.) No. 89-2008.
The Ruling of the Comelec First
Division
On
Pursuant to Sections 3 and 4, Rule 40
of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure which provide for the payment of appeal fee
in the amount of [P3,000.00] within the period to file the notice of appeal,
and Section 9 (a), Rule 22 of the same Rules which provides that failure to pay
the correct appeal fee is a ground for the dismissal of the appeal, the
Commission (First Division) RESOLVED as it here RESOLVES to DISMISS the instant
case for Protestee-Appellant’s [Batalla] failure to pay the appeal fee as
prescribed by the Comelec Rules of Procedure within the five-(5)-day
reglementary period.
SO ORDERED.
Aggrieved further, Batalla elevated
before the Comelec En Banc the above Order of the Comelec First Division
by filing on
The Ruling of the Comelec En Banc
On August 5, 2008, the Comelec En
Banc issued the second assailed Order affirming the Comelec First
Division’s earlier Order dismissing the appeal for Batalla’s failure to pay the
appeal fee and, moreover, denying his motion for reconsideration for his
failure to verify the motion. The second
assailed Order, in its entirety, reads:
Acting on the Motion for
Reconsideration filed via registered mail on April 11, 2008 by
protestee-appellant [Batalla], through counsel, seeking reconsideration of the
Order issued by the Commission (First Division) on April 3, 2008 dismissing the
herein appeal for protestee-appellant’s [Batalla] failure to pay the appeal fee
as prescribed by the Comelec Rules of Procedure within the five-day
reglementary period and the Manifestation filed via registered mail on April
23, 2008 by protestant-appellee [Bataller], through counsel, stating that the
Motion for Reconsideration was not verified and therefore inadmissible on
record and must be expunged therefrom, and praying that the Order of April 3,
2008 be declared as final, the Commission En Banc resolved to:
1. DENY the Motion for Reconsideration
for movant’s [Batalla] failure to VERIFY the same in accordance with Section 3,
Rule 19 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure, which states:
“Rule 19 – Motions for Reconsideration.
Section
3. Form and Contents of Motion for
Reconsideration – The motion shall be verified x x x”
2.
Declare the Order of
“Section 13. Finality of Decisions or
Resolutions.
x x x x
(c)
Unless a motion is seasonably filed, a decision or resolution of a Division
shall become final and executory after the lapse of five (5) days in Special
Actions and Special Cases and after fifteen (15) days in all other actions or
proceedings following its promulgation.”
ACCORDINGLY, the Clerk of the
Commission, Electoral Contests Adjudication Department, is hereby directed to
immediately issue an Entry of Judgment and the Chief, Judicial Records Division
of the same department, to remand the records of the case to the lower court
for its proper disposition.
Let copies of this Order and the Order
of April 3, 2008 be furnished to Her Excellency, President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo, the Secretary, Department of the Interior and Local
Government, the Chairman, Commission on Audit and the Secretary, Sangguniang
Barangay of Barangay Mapulang Daga, Bacacay, Albay, pursuant to Section 11 (b),
Rule 18 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure.
SO ORDERED.
Consequently,
on
The
Issues
Thus
the instant petition, with Batalla raising the following issues for our
consideration:
A. WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COMELEC
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION WHEN IT ISSUED THE ASSAILED RESOLUTION DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON
TWO GROUNDS OF TECHNICALITIES: A) FOR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE PETITIONER TO
PAY THE APPEAL FEE ON TIME; AND B) FAILURE TO VERIFY THE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION.
B. WHETHER OR NOT THE FIVE CONTESTED VOTES BE
DECLARED VOID AND THE HEREIN PETITIONER BE DECLARED AS THE WINNER IN THE
BARANGAY ELECTION LAST
The
foregoing issues can be summarized into two:
first, the procedural issue of whether Batalla’s appeal ought to
be given due course despite the procedural infirmities of belated payment of
the appeal fee and the non-verification of his motion for reconsideration; and second,
the corollary substantive issue—if the appeal is given due course—of whether
the appeal is meritorious.
The
Court’s Ruling
The
petition is meritorious.
Procedural
Issue: Appeal Already Perfected
Respondent
Comelec grievously erred and gravely abused its discretion when it dismissed and
denied petitioner’s appeal.
The
records show that Batalla received the February 12, 2008 MCTC Decision on
While
Batalla concedes that his motion for reconsideration of the April 3, 2008 Order
of the Comelec First Division was not verified, he submits that he cured the
omission by attaching to the instant petition his Verification[16]
as compliance for his motion. He begs our indulgence in light of the Court’s
ruling in Buenaflor v. Court of Appeals,[17]
which reiterated the liberal application of the rules in the perfection of an
appeal upon substantial justice and equity considerations.
Be
it noted that while the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) on behalf of
public respondent Comelec filed its Comment[18] on
the instant petition, respondent Bataller, despite notice,[19]
failed to register his comment.
Thereafter, Bataller was sent notice[20]
requiring him to show cause and to comply with the earlier notice to file his
comment. To date, Bataller has neither
filed his comment nor complied with the show-cause order. Thus, his opportunity to submit his comment
is dispensed with.
The
OSG argues that the instant petition is bereft of merit, since the Comelec did
not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing Batalla’s appeal. The Comelec cannot
be faulted for issuing the assailed orders, applying the clear provisions of
the Comelec Rules of Procedure, specifically Sec. 9(a) of Rule 22. Moreover, the OSG reasons out that Batalla’s
late payment of the additional appeal fee to the Comelec is fatal, since his
appeal was never perfected. The mere filing of a notice of appeal is not enough,
for the timely payment of the full appeal fee is an essential requirement for
the perfection of an appeal, based on Rodillas v. Comelec.[21] And finally, the OSG cites Loyola v.
Commission on Election[22]
and other cases,[23] which
consistently emphasized that non-payment of filing fees in election cases is no
longer excusable.
The
general rule is that payment of appellate docket fees within the prescribed
reglementary period for filing an appeal is mandatory for the perfection of an
appeal. Secs. 3[24] and 4[25]
of Rule 40 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure provide
for the payment of an additional appeal fee in the amount of PhP 3,200 within
the period to file the notice of appeal, i.e.,
within five days from receipt of the assailed decision of the trial court.[26] And an appellant’s failure to pay the said
appeal fee is a ground for the dismissal of the appeal by the
Comelec under the succeeding Sec. 9(a) of Rule 22.[27]
Payment of the two appeal fees perfects the appeal
In the instant case, however, we find that Batalla
already perfected his appeal by filing his Notice of Appeal and by paying the
PhP 1,000
appeal fee, pursuant to A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, within the five-day reglementary
period, to the MCTC; and by paying the additional appeal fee of PhP 3,200 to
the Comelec Cash Division on
The issue of the correct appeal fee to be paid for
the perfection of an appeal from the decision of the trial court in electoral
cases was clarified in very recent cases––Aguilar v. Commission on Elections[28]
and Divinagracia v. Commission on Elections.[29] In both cases, the Court clarified that the
appellant in an electoral protest case decided by the trial court must file his
notice of appeal and pay the PhP 1,000 appeal fee to the trial court that
rendered the decision, and must pay to the Comelec Cash Division
the required additional PhP 3,200 appeal fee.
In Aguilar, the earlier case decided on
In Divinagracia, decided on July 27, 2009,
the Court took a second look at the issue of an appellant’s compliance with the
payment of the required appeal fees (both to the trial court and to the
Comelec) in the backdrop of Comelec Resolution No. 8486 in relation to A.M. No.
07-4-15-SC. The Court ruled, thus:
Considering that a year has elapsed after the
issuance on July 15, 2008 of Comelec Resolution No. 8486, and to further affirm
the discretion granted to the Comelec which it precisely articulated through
the specific guidelines contained in said Resolution, the Court NOW
DECLARES, for the guidance of the Bench and Bar, that for notice of
appeal filed after the promulgation of this decision, errors in the
matter of non-payment or incomplete payment of the two appeal fees in election
cases are no longer excusable.
Comelec
Resolution No. 8486,[30]
issued on
Thus, in holding that Aguilar had not
diluted the force of Comelec Resolution No. 8486, the Court in Divinagracia
categorically ruled that for an appeal to be perfected in an election case from
the trial court, the appellant must: (1)
file his Notice of Appeal and pay the PhP 1,000 appeal fee within the five-day
reglementary period to the trial court that rendered the assailed decision,
pursuant to A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC; and (2) pay to the Comelec Cash Division the
additional PhP 3,200 appeal fee within 15 days from the time of the
filing of the Notice of Appeal with the lower court pursuant to Comelec
Resolution No. 8486. Thus, any error in the matter of nonpayment or
incomplete payment of the two appeal fees in election cases is no longer
excusable and is a cause for the outright dismissal of the appeal.
We, however, note that under the present Comelec
Rules of Procedure, Sec. 3, Rule 40 provides for the payment of the additional
PhP 3,200 appeal fee to the Comelec Cash Division. The period in which to pay such additional
appeal fee is provided under Sec. 4, Rule 40, thus:
Sec.
4. Where and When to Pay. - The fees prescribed in
Sections 1, 2 and 3 hereof shall be paid to, and deposited with, the Cash
Division of the Commission within a period to file the notice of appeal.
And the period to file the notice of appeal is
provided under Sec. 3 of Rule 22, thus:
Sec.
3. Notice of Appeal. - Within five (5) days after
promulgation of the decision of the court, the aggrieved party may file
with said court a notice of appeal, and serve a copy thereof upon the attorney
of record of the adverse party.
The promulgation of the decision is understood to
mean the receipt by a party of a copy of the decision. Thus, to recapitulate, under Sec. 4, Rule 40
in relation to Sec. 3, Rule 22 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure, an appellant
from a decision of a trial court in an election protest case is given a
reglementary period of five days from the receipt of a copy of the decision
within which to pay the PhP 3,200 additional appeal fee to the Comelec Cash
Division.
Considering that the Comelec En Banc issued
on July
15, 2008 Comelec Resolution No. 8486, which allowed the payment of the
additional appeal fee of PhP 3,200 to the Comelec Cash Division within 15
days from the filing of the notice of appeal, said Resolution, however, has
effectively amended Sec. 4, Rule 40 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure. Thus, the Comelec is advised to reflect such
amendment in their rules for the proper guidance of the Bench, the Bar, and
litigants.
In the instant case, it is undisputed that Batalla
had already perfected his appeal by paying the required appeal fees. He
paid the PhP 1,000 appeal fee to the trial court on February 22, 2008 within
the five-day period from receipt of the decision and the additional PhP 3,200 appeal
fee to the Comelec Cash Division on March 5, 2008 or within 15 days from the
filing of his notice of appeal. It is, thus, clear that Batalla had perfected
his appeal by complying with the appeal requirements.
It must be noted that the required payment of
separate and distinct appeal fees to the trial court under A.M.
No. 07-4-15-SC and to the Comelec under
its Rules of Procedure has caused much confusion to litigants. In fact, it became necessary for the Comelec
to clarify the procedural rules on the payment of these appeal fees, and for
this purpose issued Comelec Resolution No. 8486 on
While it seems that the Comelec First Division may
not be faulted for following the then prevailing Comelec Rules of Procedure,
still, it cannot close its eyes to the fact of the confusion in the payment of distinct
appeal fees, which many litigants––like petitioner Batalla––went through. It must be noted that Batalla complied in
good faith with the required payment of the additional appeal fee as soon as he
was able.
But what was worse was the Comelec En Banc’s
denial of Batalla’s motion for reconsideration on mere procedural grounds,
through the second assailed Order of August 5, 2008, after it had already issued
clarificatory Resolution No. 8486 on
Fairness
and prudence dictate that the Comelec En Banc should have recognized
Batalla’s compliance with clarificatory Resolution No. 8486 when it resolved his
motion for reconsideration and should not have merely denied it on the
procedural ground of non-verification. It
is true that the verification requirement was not complied with, but such
procedural lapse pales in the face of the manifest error in the dismissal of
Batalla’s appeal by the Comelec First Division when the Comelec En Banc had
already issued Resolution No. 8486, granting an appellant—in this case,
Batalla—15 days within which to pay the additional fee of PhP 3,200, with which
he had already complied.
Perforce,
then, the assailed Orders must be reversed and set aside for having been issued
with grave abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, the appeal of Batalla must be given due course.
Substantive
Issue: Petitioner Won in the Protested
Election
In the interest of expeditious
dispensation of justice, the Court will no longer remand Batalla’s appeal to
the Comelec and instead rule on the merits of the appeal in this petition. The core issue is whether the five protested
ballots were correctly appreciated by the MCTC as votes for Bataller, resulting
into a tie between the contenders.
Batalla’s arguments
Batalla vehemently disagrees with the
findings of the trial court in appreciating the five protested ballots in favor
of Bataller, specifically arguing that:
(a) Ballot
1: Exhibit “A”[31]
shows, contrary to the finding of the MCTC, the contested name written on the
line for Punong Barangay, but the surname is not discernable as it was written
in a way susceptible to different interpretations, i.e., it can be read either as Batalla or Bataller. Batalla thus contends that this is a case of
writing the first name of a candidate and the surname of the opposing
candidate, in which case the ballot ought to be considered a stray ballot under
Sec. 211(6)[32] of the
Omnibus Election Code.
(b) Ballot
2: Exhibit “B”[33]
shows that while the space for Punong Barangay is left blank, the first of the
names for kagawad is unreadable and does
not sufficiently identify Bataller, since the name written seems to be
“tododer” and as such cannot be equated to Teodoro (Bataller), much less,
credited to him pursuant to Sec. 211(14)[34]
of the Omnibus Election Code, for there is no way of determining the intention
of the voter as held in Bautista v. Comelec.[35] Moreover, Batalla maintains that “tododer”
cannot also be appreciated under the doctrine of idem
sonans in favor of his opponent, as the MCTC erroneously held, for Bataller
did not indicate or apply for “tododer” to be recognized as one of the names
for which he can be voted, and neither has it been shown that Bataller is known
in the barangay as such.
(c) Ballot
3: Exhibit “C,”[36]
similar to Exhibit “B,” should be deemed a stray ballot, for the real intention
of the voter cannot be determined.
(d) Ballot
4: Exhibit “E”[37]
shows the name of Teodoro Bataller written on the space for the candidates for kagawad, with that for Punong Barangay
left blank, and should be considered a stray vote pursuant to Sec. 211(8)[38]
of the Omnibus Election Code.
(e) Ballot
5: Exhibit “G”[39]
is not legible and does not sufficiently identify the candidate, and to
consider it a vote for Bataller is highly speculative and conjectural.
Only three ballots to
be credited to Bataller
After
a scrutiny of the five (5) contested ballots subject of Batalla’s instant
position, we rule that three (3) ballots marked as Exhibits “A,” “E,” and “G”
were properly appreciated and credited in favor of Bataller under the
neighborhood rule and intent rule. On
the other hand, the ballots marked as Exhibits “B” and “C” are stray
ballots.
We
explain our ruling this way:
(1) The above Exhibit “A” ballot clearly shows
the first name “Teodoro,” while the surname written is a bit confusing; still,
it certainly cannot be read as “Batalla” since the way it is written clearly
indicates eight characters. The first
six characters clearly make out “Batall,” and the last two characters are the
ones that are quite illegible. The name “Batalla”
consists of only seven characters, while “Bataller” consists of eight
characters. Thus, with the eight
characters of the surname and the first name properly made out as “Teodoro,”
the benefit of the doubt tilts in favor of Bataller. More so, if the first name alone of a
candidate (where no other candidate has a similar name)––in this case, for
example, Teodoro or Ernesto––is sufficient to appreciate the vote for that
candidate, with more reason should the first name of Teodoro and the surname
making out “Bataller” be appreciated in his favor. Evidently, the voter wanted to cast his
ballot in favor of Bataller as Punong Barangay.
The intent rule is well settled in this jurisdiction that in the
appreciation of the ballot, the objective should be to ascertain and carry into
effect the intention of the voter, if it could be determined with reasonable
certainty. Hence, the intention of the
voter to vote for Bataller is unequivocal from the face of the Exhibit “A” ballot.
The ballot in question should be liberally appreciated to effectuate the
voter’s choice of Bataller.
(2) The ballot marked as Exhibit “E” above was
properly credited in Bataller’s name under the neighborhood rule as applied in Ferrer[40] and, more recently, in Abad
v. Co[41]
where the Court
applied the same rule and credited to the candidates for Punong Barangay the
votes written on the first line for kagawad
with the spaces for Punong Barangay left vacant.
The
neighborhood rule is a settled rule stating that where
the name of a candidate is not written in the proper space in the ballot, but
is preceded by the name of the office for which he is a candidate, the vote
should be counted as valid for said candidate.[42]
Such rule is usually applied in
consonance with the intent rule which stems from the principle that in the
appreciation of the ballot, the object should be to ascertain and carry into
effect the intention of the voter, if it could be determined with reasonable
certainty.
In
Velasco, the Court explained the neighborhood
rule and its application in this wise:
The votes contested in this appeal are all misplaced
votes, i.e., votes cast for a candidate for the wrong or, in this case,
inexistent office. In appreciating such votes, the COMELEC applied the
“neighborhood rule.” As used by the
Court, this nomenclature, loosely based on a rule of the same name devised by
the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET), refers to an exception to
the rule on appreciation of misplaced votes under Section 211(19) of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code) which provides:
Any
vote in favor of a person who has not filed a
certificate of candidacy or in favor
of 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. (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 211(19) is meant to avoid confusion in the
minds of the election officials as to the candidates actually voted for and to
stave off any scheming design to identify the vote of the elector, thus
defeating the secrecy of the ballot which is a cardinal feature of our election
laws. Section 211(19) also enforces Section 195 of
the Omnibus Election Code which provides that in preparing the ballot, each
voter must “fill his ballot by writing in the proper place for each office the
name of the individual candidate for whom he desires to vote.”
Excepted from Section 211(19) are ballots with (1)
a general misplacement of an entire series of names intended to be voted for
the successive offices appearing in the ballot; (2) a single or double
misplacement of names where such names were preceded or followed by the title
of the contested office or where the voter wrote after the candidate’s name a
directional symbol indicating the correct office for which the misplaced name
was intended; and (3) a single misplacement of a name written (a) off-center
from the designated space, (b) slightly underneath the line for the contested
office, (c) immediately above the title for the contested office, or (d) in the
space for an office immediately following that for which the candidate
presented himself. In these instances,
the misplaced votes are nevertheless credited to the candidates for the office
for which they presented themselves because the voters’ intention to so vote is
clear from the face of the ballots. This
is in consonance with the settled doctrine that ballots should be appreciated
with liberality to give effect to the voters’ will.[43]
The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
(HRET) first
laid down the particulars of the above “neighborhood rule” in Nograles v. Dureza.[44]
Nograles and subsequent related
rulings were later codified in its “Rules and Rulings on Appreciation of
Ballots” (HRET Rules). We note that the HRET Rules[45]
provided for the “neighborhood rule” and the “intent rule,” and that the Senate
Electoral Tribunal’s Rules on Appreciation of Ballots has adopted the HRET’s
“neighborhood rule.”
Thus,
the MCTC is correct in appreciating name of Teodoro Bataller in the Exhibit “E”
ballot as a vote for Bataller although written on the space for Kagawad
pursuant to the neighborhood and intent doctrines.
(3) The ballot marked as Exhibit “G” above was
likewise properly credited in Bataller’s name under the neighborhood rule and
the intent rule, being similarly situated as the ballot marked as Exhibit “E.” Moreover, contrary to Batalla’s contention,
the name of Bataller, written in this ballot on the first line for kawagad, is quite distinct and legible.
(4) The Exhibit “B” ballot above is a stray
ballot and cannot be credited to Bataller.
We agree with Batalla that neither the neighborhood rule nor the
doctrine of idem
sonans apply to
this instance. First, the
neighborhood rule applies when the name for Punong Barangay is left vacant,
while the name of a candidate for Punong Barangay is clearly legible or
discernable. This particular ballot does
not clearly show the name of the candidate written on the first space for kagawad.
Second, the word “tododer” written on the first line for kagawad does not
necessarily refer to Teodoro Bataller.
The word “tododer” does not sound like Teodoro under the idem sonans (having the same sound)
rule. Said rule of law states that the
occurrence in a document of a spelling of a material word that is wrong but has
the sound of the word intended does not vitiate the instrument.[46] Neither was it shown that Bataller is known by that name in Barangay
Mapulang Daga in Bacacay, Albay. Third,
while it is paramount to give full expression to the voter’s will under the
intent rule as indicated in the ballots––thus, the liberality in ballot
appreciation––it is necessary that the voter’s intention be at least
discernable with certainty. It has not
been satisfactorily shown that “tododer” is used as a name of a person or the
nickname of a candidate. Absent any indication of such
discernable intent, we cannot appreciate this particular ballot in favor of
Bataller. Thus, the MCTC erroneously
credited this ballot to Bataller.
(5) Exhibit “C” ballot above is also a stray
vote, for Bataller’s name is not found on or near any of the lines
corresponding to the offices of Punong Barangay and kagawads, and, thus, does not relate to any office. The name of Bataller was written in the upper
portion of the ballot, above the instructions to the voter, but below the words
“Bacacay, Albay,” while the lines provided for the kagawads were properly filled up.
In
Velasco,[47] a
similar factual situation transpired in two protested ballots during the 2002 barangay elections. A particular ballot marked as Exhibit “13”
showed that the lines for kagawad
were properly filled up, but the line for Punong Barangay was left vacant and
therein private respondent’s name written above the instructions to the voter
and below the words “
x x x Section
211(19), which treats misplaced votes as stray, speaks of a vote for a
candidate “for an office for which he did not present himself.” Thus, there is more reason to apply this rule
here as the votes in Exhibits “9” and “13” do not even relate to any office.
Nor do
the votes in question fall under any of the exceptions to Section 211(19)
enumerated above. x x x Exhibits “9” and “13” present an unusual case
of extremes—while respondent’s name was written way off its proper place, the
names of persons who were presumably candidates for Sangguniang Barangay
Kagawad were properly placed, without the slightest deviation, in the first
of the seven lines for that office.
This
gives only two possible impressions. First,
that the voters in these two ballots knew in fact where to write the
candidates’ names, in which case the votes for respondent written way off its
proper place become stray votes. Second,
the voters’ manner of voting was a devise to identify the ballots, which
renders the ballots invalid. We adopt
the more liberal view—that the misplaced votes in Exhibits “9” and “13” are
stray votes under Section 211(19), thus, leaving the ballots valid.
Considering that the vote for Teodoro
in Exhibit “C” ballot does not even relate to any office, then said misplaced
vote is treated as stray.
Thus, to recapitulate, of the five
protested ballots, three are properly credited in favor of Bataller while the
other two ballots are declared stray votes for Punong Barangay. Consequently, Batalla having garnered a total
of 113 votes prevailed by two votes over Bataller, who only garnered an
adjusted total of 111 votes (less the two ballots with stray votes, i.e., ballots marked as Exhibits “B”
and “C”).
WHEREFORE, the
petition for certiorari is hereby GRANTED.
The assailed Orders of the Comelec First Division and Comelec En Banc,
dated April 3, 2008 and August 5, 2008, respectively, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The appeal of Ernesto Batalla is given DUE COURSE and the Decision of the MCTC
in Bacacay, Albay dated
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
(On official leave)
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN MARIANO C.
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice