BUENAVENTURA OBANDO, PETITIONER, VS. URBANO REGIS, RESPONDENT.

Direct appeal by Buenaventura Obando on
questions of law from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch I (judge Guillermo Villasor,
presiding) rendered in Election Case No. R-10360, resolving the protest filed
by Urbano Regis, candidate for Vice-Mayor, and
Segundo Canonigo, Gilbert Repunte,
Filemon Paunil, Demetrio Sayaang, Cornelio Patalinghug, Anastacio Cañalita, and Rodolfo Novales,
candidates for councilors of Naga, Cebu, in the elections of November 14, 1967, against those
proclaimed elected, appellants Buenaventura Urbano et
al., and declaring protestant Urbano Regis as elected
Vice-Mayor for having garnered 2,227 votes, against 2,051 for protestee Buenaventura Obando;
and declaring councilors protestees as having
obtained a majority against protestants.

In trying and deciding the protest, after the report of the
Commissioners on the uncontested and contested ballots, the court a quo,
adopted the procedure of requiring protestants and protestees to submit written statements enumerating the
ballots objected to and claimed by each party in each of the disputed
precincts, and the reply thereto.  After
the statements were submitted the Court proceeded to decide the case,
establishing in the decision the principles allegedly applicable and then
tabulated merely the number of con­tested ballots credited by it to each party
in each precinct, without specifying or detailing which ballots were rejected
or allowed, nor the reasons therefor.  Then, after adding the contested ballots
credited by it in each precinct to the number of uncontested ballots in the
corresponding precincts for each party, the trial Court pro­claimed as elected
those who obtained higher totals than their rivals.

To illustrate:  after
stating in his decision that there was “no sufficient showing to establish
the claim that the election held on November 14, 1967, in the municipality of Naga, Cebu, was not fair nor
honest, but the result of mass election frauds, cheating, illegal voting and
rampant terrorism”, nor that certain voters “were allowed to vote,
notwithstanding that their applications were yet unprocessed and unapproved and
unvalidated” (Record, pp. 204, 205), the trial
judge proceeded to lay down its criteria for the validity of the contested
ballots, saying:

“Regarding the charge of cheating supposedly com­mitted by the
protestees, the Court found no evidence to indicate a
pattern utilized as countersigns for mark­ing the
ballot, with the exception perhaps of numerous ballots containing figures
before or after the names of candidates for councilor voted upon.  In this last mentioned instance, it is
evident that the figures contained therein constituted as a distinguishing mark
and, there­fore, should invalidate said ballots (Cacho
vs. Abad, 62 Phil. 564; Rodriguez vs. Zambrano, 61 Phil. 77). 
However, those ballots wherein the candidates for councilor were voted
upon with initials preceding their surnames, while the rest contained surnames
only, do not necessarily indicate a pattern for mark­ing said ballots.  Finally, all those votes for “Repunte” alone in the space for councilor were counted
in favor of the protestant Gilbert Repunte, he being
the re-electionist candidate (Sec. 149, No. 16,
Revised Election Code).”

Thereafter, the decision merely summarized the result of applying
such rules to the contested ballots, by tabulating the votes credited to each
party, protestant and protestee, by precincts, thus:

“The votes garnered by the protestants
and protestees after the court passed upon the
ballots contested by both parties follow:

PRECINCT NUMBERS
AND NUMBER OF VOTES

PROTESTANT :      
 1 :   
3  :    4 
:    5  :   
6  :    7 
:    8  :   
9  :  10 
:  etc.

Urbano Regis   :       17 :  17 
:  13  : 
23  :  46 
:  17  : 
15  :  32 
:  51  :  etc.

x x x x

x x x x                :            :       
:        :        :       
:        :        :       
:        :

PROTESTEES:

Buenaventura

Obando   :       59 :  50  : 
70  :  33  :  36 
:  23  : 
23  :  33 
:  29  :  etc.

(See Decision, Record, page 256).

No specifications of ballots dealt with or reasons applied in
rejecting or crediting them were given.

Protestee-appellant Buenaventura Obando filed a motion for reconsidera­tion and new trial,
objecting to the method followed by the Court as not enabling an interested
party to identify the ballots objected to and to as­certain the correctness of
the number of votes allocated in each precinct to each protestant or protestee; but the lower Court denied reconsidera­tion,
stating that –

“It is not necessary to enumerate one by one the finding on
each ballot, for this will unnecessarily lengthen the decision.” (Order of 1 July 1970; Petition, Annex L).

Thereupon, defeated candidate Obando
resorted to this Court, reiterating his objections to the procedure followed by
the Court below and claiming that it was contrary to law and to Section 1 of
Rule 36 of the Revised Rules of Court, providing that:

“SECTION 1.  Rendition of judgments.  — All judgments determining the merits of
cases shall be in writing personally and directly prepared by the judge,
stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based, signed
by him, and filed with the clerk of court.”

We agree with protestee-appellant that the decision under appeal
fails to state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is
based, as required by the rules.  The
decision does not permit the identi­fication of the ballots admitted or
rejected for each of the parties, nor does it specify the reasons for admitting
or rejecting the particular ballots, for which reason the decision is
incomplete and, therefore, inoperative.

While the trial court was not required to deal separately with
each individual ballot of those offered and objected to, and could have grouped
those to which a common resolution could be or was applied, it was essential,
in justice to the parties, to specify the ballots to which a particular ruling
applied, and what such ruling was, in each case.  Otherwise, no party would be in a position to
determine whether or not the Court’s action thereon was correct, and
acceptable, or erroneous or inconsistent and, therefore, to be included in a
motion to reconsider the ruling or rulings; nor would an appellate court,
without other details than a numerical result, be in a position to judge
whether a particular ruling was conformable to law or jurisprudence, and should
be sustained, or whether the ruling was erroneous or inconsistent or contrary
to the law and should be set aside.  The
method followed in the appealed decision made it in effect unreviewable
by a higher tribunal.

The resulting delay in the disposition of the protest is regrettable,
but We would be laying a pernicious precedent were We
to stamp our approval on so deficient a decision.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from, being incomplete, is inoperative and should be returned to the
Court of First Instance of origin, with instructions to complete the same in
conformity with this opinion.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo,
Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

Ruiz Castro, J., took no part.