TEODORO JULIANO, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND DATU MANDO SINSUAT, RESPONDENTS.

Juliano versus Court of Appeals and Sinsuat

The Case

This is an election protest that became a question about how far an appellate court must go in counting ballots. Teodoro Juliano lost the race for City Mayor of Cotabato City to Datu Mando Sinsuat by a razor-thin margin, protested the result, won before the trial court, then lost before the Court of Appeals. He came to the Supreme Court insisting that the Court of Appeals wrongly closed its eyes to hundreds of ballots that were physically before it. The case matters for two reasons: it fixes the standard for treating ballots said to be written by one hand, and it announces that election contests involve public interest, so technical and procedural barriers must yield to the ascertainment of the true will of the electorate.

Procedural History

After the canvass, Juliano filed a protest in the Court of First Instance of Cotabato, and Sinsuat answered with a counter-protest. Both sides alleged frauds, coercions, and irregularities in specified precincts and impugned particular ballots. On February 5, 1966, the trial court rendered decision declaring Juliano the winner by a margin of 283 votes.

Sinsuat appealed to the Court of Appeals. On December 19, 1966, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and declared Sinsuat the winner by 17 votes. On motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals, on March 30, 1967, maintained its decision but reduced the winning margin from 17 to 13 votes.

Juliano then filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari by way of appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals, assigning six errors. The Supreme Court gave due course to the petition.

Facts

In the general elections of November 12, 1963, the City Board of Canvassers of Cotabato City, on November 22, 1963, certified the votes for City Mayor: Datu Mando Sinsuat with 4,002 votes, Teodoro Juliano with 3,972 votes, Japal Guiani with 1,767 votes, Balabagan Balilia with 362 votes, and Cecil Mangelen with 89 votes. Sinsuat was proclaimed elected with a plurality of 30 votes over Juliano.

Juliano protested, and the trial court, relying on its own examination of the ballots and on the testimony of the protestant's handwriting expert, Panfilo Lastimosa, invalidated 274 ballots grouped into 48 sets, on the ground that each set had been prepared by only one person. On that basis the trial court declared Juliano the winner by 283 votes.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals refused to disturb that finding of single-hand writing, noting that the only proof was the opinion of the protestant's questioned documents examiner, while the protestee presented the election officials, public school teachers, and inspectors of the opposing party, who testified that the elections in the questioned precincts had been orderly and regular. The Court of Appeals also refused to rule on 40 ballots claimed by Juliano for the first time in his motion for reconsideration, saying they had not been claimed in his brief.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that each of the 48 groups of ballots, totalling 274, had not been written by only one person.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to consider and rule on the 40 ballots claimed by the protestant in his motion for reconsideration as valid ballots for him.

Applicable Provisions

Section 175 of the Revised Election Code, as invoked in the Borja versus De Leon ruling quoted by the Court, provides:

But that ruling cannot be so interpreted as to deprive an appellate court of the right given to it by law to examine any ballot even motu proprio if that is necessary to arrive at a correct decision.

This provision is the source of the appellate court's power, and duty, to examine any ballot before it, even without an assignment of error, when needed to reach a correct decision.

Section 178 of the Revised Election Code, as quoted in the Roldan versus Monsanto ruling, provides:

We hold that the action of the Court of Appeals in reversing the action of the lower court on the 22 ballots and in counting them in favor of protestee-appellee is in accord with the provisions of Section 178 of the Revised Election Code which considers an election protest similar to a criminal case, wherein on appeal the case is tried de novo, and the appellate court may review a ruling of the court of first instance on any ballot motu proprio whether the ballot had been the object of appeal or not.

This provision makes an election appeal a trial de novo, so the appellate court may review any ballot on its own motion.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err. The only proof that each of the 48 groups had been prepared by one person was the opinion testimony of the protestant's questioned documents examiner, while the protestee presented election officials, public school teachers, and inspectors of the opposing party who testified to the regularity of the elections. The Court also held that the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals on the evidence aliunde, meaning evidence outside the ballots themselves, are no longer open for review; the function of the Supreme Court is limited to determining whether the appreciation of the ballots apart from the evidence was made in accordance with law.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to consider the 40 ballots. The Court stressed that election contests involve public interest, and technicalities and procedural barriers should not be allowed to stand if they constitute an obstacle to the determination of the true will of the electorate. It quoted with approval the rule that:

In an election case the court has an imperative duty to ascertain by all means within its command who is the real candidate elected by the electorate.

The Court explained that the decisive circumstance is that the ballot is before the court and is claimed or impugned by a party, whether in the trial court or the appellate court. The court cannot close its eyes to the realities presented by the ballots before it. A belated claim is no obstacle so long as it is presented before the decision becomes final and the ballots would be decisive, and the Court found nothing to show that the claim was frivolous or made for delay. The Court then examined the 40 ballots itself, ruling on each, and found several to be valid ballots for the protestant.

Doctrine

First, election contests involve public interest, and laws governing election contests must be liberally construed so that the will of the people in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by mere technical objections. Second, an appeal in an election contest proceeds as in a criminal case, and the appellate court may take notice of every error in fact or in law committed by the lower court, and may examine any ballot even on its own motion under Section 175 of the Revised Election Code. Third, the decisive circumstance that makes it mandatory for the court to rule on a ballot is that the ballot is before the court and is claimed or impugned by a party, even for the first time in a motion for reconsideration, provided the claim is made before the decision becomes final and is not frivolous or made for delay. Fourth, findings of fact of the Court of Appeals on evidence aliunde are not open for review; the Supreme Court limits itself to whether the appreciation of the ballots was in accordance with law.

Disposition

The Supreme Court gave due course to the petition, sustained the ruling of the Court of Appeals on the 274 ballots, but held that the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to consider the 40 ballots, which the Court then examined and ruled upon in favor of the protestant.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: election contests involve public interest, and the court has an imperative duty to ascertain by all means within its command who is the real candidate elected, so technicalities must not defeat the true will of the electorate. Examiners use this case to test the liberal construction of election laws, the trial de novo character of an election appeal, and the duty of the appellate court to examine ballots claimed even for the first time in a motion for reconsideration.