ROGELIO CORDERO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. BETHEL K. MOSCARDON, REGIONAL TRIAL JUDGE, 6TH JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH XXXV, ILOILO CITY AND CONRADO ORRICA, RESPONDENTS.

Cordero versus Moscardon

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed by Rogelio Cordero against Judge Bethel K. Moscardon of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City and against Conrado Orrica, his rival for the post of Barangay Captain of Barangay Gines Interior, Cabatuan, Iloilo. Cordero asks the Supreme Court to set aside the Regional Trial Court's ruling in an election protest and to reinstate the decision of the Municipal Circuit Court declaring him the winner. The case matters because it fixes the governing principle in the appreciation of ballots: election laws exist to give effect to the will of the voter, and the rule that a name written in the space for another office is a stray vote admits of exceptions where the voter's intention is unmistakable from the ballot itself.

Procedural History

Cordero filed an election protest before the Municipal Circuit Court of Cabatuan and Maasin, and Orrica filed a counter-protest. A Revision Committee appointed by that court submitted a report on the contested and stray ballots. After hearing, the Municipal Circuit Court credited the stray votes in favor of the respective candidates and declared Cordero the winner with 103 votes against 101 for Orrica.

Orrica appealed to the Regional Trial Court, Branch Thirty-Five, Iloilo City. On June 22, 1983, that court reversed the Municipal Circuit Court, treated all nine contested ballots as stray, and arrived at the same figures as the Revision Committee, leaving Orrica ahead with 99 votes against 96. Cordero moved for reconsideration, but the respondent judge denied the motion. Cordero then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari.

Facts

In the May 17, 1982 elections, Cordero and Orrica were the only candidates for Barangay Captain of Barangay Gines Interior, Cabatuan, Iloilo. The Barangay Board of Canvassers proclaimed Orrica the winner with 99 votes against 95 for Cordero. A total of 209 votes were cast, but five were admittedly no-bearing, leaving 204 votes, and nine were considered stray.

In the revision, seven ballots marked as Exhibits LL to RR bore the name of Cordero, and two ballots marked as Exhibits 36 and 37 bore the name of Orrica, but in each the name was written on the first space provided for councilmen, followed by the names of the councilmen of the voter's choice. The Municipal Circuit Court found that in all these nine ballots the voters intended to vote for their candidate for barangay captain, and that this intention must prevail over the failure to write the name on the space intended for that office.

The Regional Trial Court took the opposite view. Applying the 1978 Election Code and the Commission on Elections resolution, it held that where the name of a candidate appears on the space for an office for which he is not a candidate, the vote is stray, and it counted all nine ballots as stray. Hence the petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the Regional Trial Court erred in considering as stray the seven votes written on the first space provided for councilmen, contrary to the rules on the appreciation of ballots and in disregard of the true will of the electorate.
• Whether or not the Supreme Court may take cognizance of the petition by certiorari despite the statutory provision making the Regional Trial Court's decision final.

Applicable Provisions

Section 155, paragraph 5 of the 1978 Election Code provides:

When the name of a candidate appears in a space of the ballot for an office for which he is a candidate and in another space for which he is not a candidate, it shall be counted in his favor for the office for which he is a candidate and the vote for the office for which he is not a candidate shall be considered as stray except where it is used as a means to identify the voter, in which case the whole ballot shall be void.

This is the rule the Regional Trial Court applied in treating the contested ballots as stray, and which the Supreme Court holds admits of exceptions.

Section 155, paragraph 15 of the same Code 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.

This supplies the general treatment of a vote cast for a person outside the office he seeks, which the Court declines to apply mechanically against a clear voter intention.

Section 20, paragraph 2 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 222 provides:

A sworn petition contesting the election of any barangay official shall be filed with the city or municipal or metropolitan trial court, as the case may be, within ten days from the date of the proclamation of the winners. The trial court shall decide the election protest within fifteen days after the filing thereof. The decision of the municipal or city or metropolitan trial court may be appealed within ten days from receipt of a copy thereof to the Regional Trial Court which shall decide within thirty days from submission, and whose decision shall be final.

This is the finality clause that Cordero had to overcome, and which the Court construes as not barring certiorari in the interest of substantial justice.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in favor of Cordero and sustained the Municipal Circuit Court. Fundamentally, the purpose of election laws is to give effect rather than frustrate the will of the voter. No technical rule should be permitted to defeat the intention of the voter if that intention is discoverable from the ballot itself, not from evidence aliunde — that is, not from outside evidence. The Court held that the rule that a name written in the space reserved for another office cannot be counted admits of exceptions, where, as here, the intention of the voters to vote for Cordero and Orrica respectively is unmistakable and should not be frustrated.

On the second issue, the Court held that although the law provides that the decision of the Regional Trial Court shall be final, it may assume certiorari jurisdiction in the interest of substantial justice, consistent with the principle that the ballot should be liberally construed, and the intendment should be in favor of a reading that renders the ballot effective rather than one that renders it ineffective on technical grounds.

Doctrine

The purpose of election laws is to give effect rather than frustrate the will of the voter. No technical rule should defeat the voter's intention when that intention is discoverable from the ballot itself, not from evidence aliunde. The rule under Section 155, paragraphs 5 and 15 of the 1978 Election Code that a name written in the space for another office is a stray vote admits of exceptions where the voter's intention is unmistakable. Ballots are construed liberally in favor of effectiveness. And the finality of a Regional Trial Court decision in a barangay election protest does not bar certiorari in the interest of substantial justice.

Disposition

The Court reversed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court and reinstated that of the Municipal Circuit Court, declaring Rogelio Cordero the winner in the election for Barangay Captain of Barangay Gines Interior, Cabatuan, Iloilo, held on May 17, 1982, with no costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line: election laws are meant to give effect, not frustrate, the will of the voter, and the stray-vote rule yields where the ballot itself shows an unmistakable intention. Examiners use this case on ballot appreciation and on the liberal construction of ballots, and on certiorari as a remedy despite a statutory finality clause.