SULPICIO GADON, PROTESTANT AND APPELLANT, VS. PEDRO GADON, PROTESTEE AND APPELLANT.

This case refers to the election of November 10, 1959 for the
position of Mayor of Despujols, Romblon. Protestant Sulpicio Gadon and
protestee Pedro Gadon (both with Reyes as the middle name) were the
respective candidates of the Nationalista and Liberal parties. On
November 13, 1959 the municipal board of canvassers proclaimed Pedro
Mayor-elect with a plurality of three (3) votes, having obtained 642
votes as against 639 votes for Sulpicio.

On November 18, 1959 Sulpicio Gadon filed a petition of protest,
alleging fraud and irregularities in the counting of votes in precincts
2-A and 4. Pedro Gadon filed an answer and then an amended answer with
counter-protest, contesting the balloting and/or counting of votes in
precincts 1,2,3,3-A, 5 and 5-A. The amended answer was duly admitted by
the trial court. On December 15, 1959 the protestant filed, with leave
of court, an amended petition, including precinct 3-A among those
protested by him. This amended petition was admitted without objection
on the part of the protestee, who, for the first time during the trial,
objected to the opening of the ballot box for this particular precinct.
The court, however, overruled him.

After considering the ballots cast and uncontested, as well as those
claimed by either party and protested by the other, the trial court
adjudged protestant Sulpicio Gadon winner by eleven (11) votes over
protestee, with a total of 627 votes as against 616 votes for the
latter. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals, which in turn
certified the appeal to us in view of the question of jurisdiction
raised by the protestee, which question is the subject of the first two
errors assigned by him.

APPEAL OF THE PROTESTEE

The challenge to the trial court’s jurisdiction is primarily
directed against the admission of the amended petition of protest on
December 15, 1959—after the statutory period for filing a protest had
expired. It is true that the amendment consisted of the inclusion of a
precinct (3-A) not included in the original petition; but it is
likewise true that the said precinct was then already within the
jurisdiction and cognizance of the Court, being one of those made by
the protestee the subject of this counter-protest. Such
counter-protest, requiring as it did the opening of the ballot boxes
for the precincts involved therein and the examination and recounting
of the ballots they contained, threw all of those ballots open for the
court’s consideration and entitled the protestant! to claim all the
valid ones in his favor and to object to those which were not valid for
the protestee. (Cecillo vs. Tomacruz, 62 Phil. 689, 699-700).

There is a suggestion by the protestee that the original petition
itself does not contain sufficient allegation of jurisdictional facts
even with respect to the precincts (2-A and 4) referred to therein. The
suggestion is without basis, as paragraphs 7 and 8 clearly show. These
two paragraphs state that fraud and irregularities were committed in
the counting of votes in those two precincts and that if they were
recounted the protestant would appear to have received more votes than
the protestee. Such allegation is sufficient for jurisdictional
purposes.

We now proceed to review the decision appealed from with reference
to the ballots enumerated in the third, fourth, fifth and sixth errors
assigned by the protestee as appellant.

THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

I. Precinct No. 1

Exh. 3 was rejected below as invalid for the protestee on the ground
that the family name “Gadon” (which is the family name of both the
protestant and the protestee) is preceded only by the letter R, which
is the middle initial of both. The ruling is erroneous, because the
letter is not R at all but P, which stands for Pedro, the Christian
name of the protestee.

Exh. 4, rejected below on the same ground, should likewise be
considered valid and counted in favor of the protestee for the same
reason.

II. Precinct No. 2

Exh. 4, a ballot for the protestee, was not counted by the trial
court, which found that it was marked with the name “Pajo” written
below the last line for councilors. We agree with the protestee that
this circumstance does not necessarily reveal an intention to identify
the ballots. Pajo was a candidate for Senator and the placement of his
name might have been the result of mistake or inadvertence, rendering
the vote a stray one for him but valid as far as the protestee is
concerned.

Exh. ,18, discounted below, is valid for the protestee. The fact
that some space for senators were not filled is of no significance; and
the name “Eco Baranda” written on one of them (Eco was a candidate for
Senator; Baranda for Provincial Board) does not by itself alone
disclose a deliberate intention to mark the ballot.

Exh, 31, discounted below, is a clear vote for the protestee. The
name written on the space for Mayor is clearly “P.R. Gardon” and not
something else as held by the trial court.

III. Precinct No. 2-A

Exh. 2, a vote for the protestee, was rejected below on the ground
that it contains impertinent expressions, to wit: “manoy,” “mandoy” and
“pare enoy” before the names voted for Vice-Governor, Mayor and one of
the councilors, respectively. According to the protestee (and this
explanation is not disputed) the prefixes referred to are colloquial
expressions in Visayan which connote respect something equivalent to
the Tagalog “ka” or the English “Mr.” Exh. 2 is a valid vote for the
protestee.

Exh. 7 was rejected below on the ground that it cannot be determined
whether it is a vote for the protestant or the protestee. The name that
is written, however, is very clearly P. R. Gadon, which can mean only
Pedro R. Gadon, the protestee.

Exh. 9, rejected below, is valid for the protestee. The name written
for mayor is Pedro Gadon, and the scrawl just before it, which seems to
be an imperfect figure 8, may have been merely the result of the
voter’s inexperience in writing, as shown by the rest of the ballot.

Exh. 10 bears the name “Pedon” for mayor. The lower court read this
“Dedon” and so rejected it. We believe, however, that the first letter
appears clearly enough to be the capital P, which stands for the name
of the protestee, the name following being good under the rule of idem sonans.

IV. Precinct No. 3

Exh. 3 is claimed by the protestee. This was adjudicated by the
trial court in his favor, and consequently no error was committed by it.

Exh. 9 was held invalid below because the name “Gadon” on the space
for Mayor is prefixed with “Dr. P.P.P.” A close examination of the
ballot reveals that the name “Dr. Antonio Mayuga” was written first on
the same space. The voter, realizing his mistake because Dr. Mayuga was
a candidate for Governor, erased it and then wrote the name “P. Gadon”
instead, but the traces of the other name had not been thoroughly
obliterated. Nevertheless the clear intention was to vote for the
protestee, and hence this ballot should be counted in his favor.

Exh. 20 was rejected by the trial court on the ground that it is
marked with the letter O.P. after the name “Jose Yap,” one of those
voted for councilors. There is no explanation for t*he presence of
those letters, which are quite prominent and written with a remarkably
good hand. The rejection is justified.

Exh. 23 was held invalid for the protestee. The ruling is erroneous.
The name voted for Mayor is PR Gadon and not RR Gadon, as found by the
court below.

Exh. 40 was correctly rejected by the trial court on the ground that
the word “Daldo” written on the blank space opposite the printed word
“councilors” has no reasonable explanation for its presence and is
therefore impertinent and constitutes a distinguishing mark, the proper
spaces for the councilors’ positions being otherwise filled with the
corresponding names of the candidates.

V. Precinct No. 3-A

Exh. 3, discounted by the court below as invalid for the protestee,
is a good vote in his favor. The name that is written is not “C.R.
Gadon,” as found by the court but “P.R. Gadon.”

Exhs. 6, 18, 23, 24 and 30 were held invalid by the trial court on
the ground that some of the spaces for Senators were left blank. The
ruling is clearly erroneous. The fact that the voter desist from filing
all the spaces on the ballot does not necessarily betray an intention
to identify his vote. These ballots are good for the protestee.

Exh. 21 was correctly rejected because of the letters “op” written
after the name “Jose Yap” voted for as one of the councilors, in the
same manner that those letters appear after the same name in Exh. 20,
precinct No.3, supra.

VI. Precinct No. 4

Exh. 10, claimed by the protestee, was rejected by the trial court
on the ground that the letter before “R. Gadon” on the space for Mayor
may be read either as S, D. or A. We find, however, that its appears to
be P and not anything else, and so the ballot should be counted in
favor bf the protestee.

Exh. 12, rejected below, is also good for the protestee inasmuch as
the name written on the space for mayor appears tb be “P.R. Gadon.”

VII. Precinct No. 5.

Exh. 3. The name voted for Mayor is that of the protestee. The
ballot was rejected by the trial court because the name “Gaac,” a
candidate for Vice-Mayor, appears on one of the spaces for Senators.
This circumstance does not invalidate the bollot, but merely makes the
vote for Gaac stray, since he was not a senatorial candidate. There is
no clear showing, either by the face of the ballot itself or by
evidence aliunde, that the misplacement was deliberate.

Exh. 7 was correctly rejected for being hopelessly illegible, particularly the name written on the space for Mayor.

Exh. 10 and 14, wherein the protestee appears voted for as Mayor,
were held invalid by the trial court because some space were not filled
by the voter. As in the case of other similar ballots already
considered by us, these two ballots are good and should be counted.

Exh. 15 was correctly rejected on the ground that it bears an
impertinent unnecessary and identifying expression below the last line
for councilors, namely: “My vote is heartily dedicated.”

Exh. 21, rejected because s’ome spaces were left blank, should be
counted for the protestee as in the case of Exhibits 10 and 14.

VIII. Precinct No. 5-A

Exh. 21 was rejected by the trial court on the ground that the
capital letter written before the family name “Gadon” on the space for
Mayor is R and not P. Our appreciation of this ballot is to the
contrary. Although there is a short tail at the end of the terminal
loop of the said letter, it is still easily discernible as a P, which
stands for the Christian name of the protestee. This ballot should be
counted in his favor.

Exh. 27, held invalid below on the ground that some spaces were not
filled by the voter, should be counted for the protestee, whose name is
clearly written on the proper space.

FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Under this assignment of error the protestee as appellant questions
the admission of 44 ballots for the protestant, wherein the latter’s
name is preceded by varying prefixes, such as “Manong,” “Nong,” “Ping,”
“Don,” “Tio,” or “Datu.” We see no discernible pattern in the use of
such. prefixes which would reveal an intention to mark the ballots, and
consequently they fall under the general rule enunciated in Section
149, rule 5, of the Revised Election Code.

Of the ballots enumerated under this assignment by the protestee as
appellant, only one was incorrectly admitted. This is Exhibit II in
precinct No. 3-A, where a big figure or letter O is written before the
family name “Baranda” on the second space for members of the Provincial
Board. The facts that said letter is not the correct first initial of
the candidate voted for and that it appears to have been placed
deliberately and after the name itself had been written, judging from
its location outside the line and to the left of the numeral “2,”
reveal an intention of the voter to identify his ballot. This ballot
should therefore be discounted from those received by the protestant.

FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

The protestee makes reference here to 13 ballots counted by the
trial court as valid for the protestant, but which he maintains should
be considered stray. Of these ballots only one was incorrectly
admitted, namely, Exhibit O in precinct 5, where only the nickname
“Sulping” is written on the space for Mayor. A nickname alone,
unaccompanied by the name or surname of the candidate, is insufficient
(Sec. 149, Rule 9 of the Revised Election Code).

SIXTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Three ballots are involved here: Exhibit Z in precinct 2, Exhibit XY-1 in precinct 3-A and Exhibit XY-2 in precinct 4.

In Exhibit Z the name voted for Mayor is “Payorcio Gadon.” This was
counted by the trial court for protestant Sulpicio Gadon. Protestee
Pedro Gadon claims it as his, and contends that at most the ballot
should be considered stray. This last contention is well taken, since
it is really difficult, and would be nothing but guesswork, to say
which of the two parties is voted for.

Exhibit XY-1 was correctly considered by the trial court as a stray
vote for either party, the name written on the space for Mayor being
illegible.

Exhibit XY-2 was correctly considered as a valid vote for the
protestants. The name thereon for Mayor is M.R.S. Gadon, which must
have been intended as Mr. S. Gadon.

In resumé, as a result of the appeal of the protestee, twenty-five
(25) votes should be credited to him which were held invalid by the
trial court. These 25 votes, added the 616 counted by the said court in
his favor, makes a total of 641 votes. On the other hand three (3)
votes should be deducted from those adjudicated to the protestant in
the decision appealed from (Exh. II, precinct 3-A; Exh. O, precinct 5;
and Exh. Z, precinct 2).

APPEAL OF THE PROTESTANT

The protestant has assigned four errors in his appeal. The first
assignment refers to the adjudication of 105 ballots cast for the
protestee which the protestant contends are marked and therefore
invalid. The alleged mark consists of the fact that in these ballots
the names of A. Y. Mayuga and L. Romero, candidates for Governor and
member of the Provincial Board, respectively, are prefixed with the
title “Dr.,” while the name of Zoilo Anastacio, a candidate for the
office of councilor, is invariably written in full, in contrast to the
other candidates for the same office whose family names only are
written. The use of the prefix “Dr.” to the names of Mayuga and Romero
is justified, the first being a Doctor of Medicine and the second a
Doctor of Dentistry. And it is not true, as alleged by the protestant,
that in the ballots referred to only the name of Zoilo Anastacio is
invariably written in full. In some of them there are names voted for
councilors similarly written, while in others, where Mayuga and Romero
are voted for with the prefix “Dr.” only the family name ”Anastacio”
appears. We do not discern a pattern of voting for purposes of
identifying the ballots, especially considering that those ballots are
scattered in many different precincts. The so-called evidence aliunde
presented by the protestant to prove the existence of such a pattern is
weak and unconvincing, is contradicted by evidence for the protestee,
and cannot overcome the intendment of validity that the law affords to
every duly accomplished ballot. The disenfranchisement of electors is
not to be declared except upon the strongest evidence of an intention
to prostitute the purity of suffrage.

Under the second assignment of error, the protestant maintains that
Exhibit 25 in precinct 5, a ballot cast for the protestee, is marked.
The spaces for Senators, with the exception of the last, are blank; and
on the last space the name “Gregorio” is written. Gregorio was a
candidate for councilor, and his name is repeated on the first space
for that office, all the other spaces being unfilled. We do not think
this circumstance was intended to identify the ballot. The voter must
have wanted to vote for Gregorio alone as councilor, but was not sure
as to the proper place where to write his name, and so wrote it on a
space for Senator as well as on one for councilor. The first may only
be considered as stray, but does not invalidate the whole ballot.

The third assignment of error refers to six (6) ballots Exh. CC
(precinct 5) and Exhs. L, O, S, T and U (precint 5A). These ballots,
which carry the name of the protestant, were declared invalid by the
trial court on the ground that on each of them some spaces for Senators
and some for councilors were not filled by the voters. As in similar
cases we have already considered, the ruling is erroneous. A voter is
under no obligation to vote for all the positions in the ballots, and
his failure to do so does not constitute an identifying mark. These six
ballots, therefore, are valid for the protestant.

The protestant’s fourth assignment of error has to do with the
question of the sufficiency of the allegations in his protest with
respect to the 105 ballots subject of the first assignment. Our
resolution of the latter impliedly resolves the question presented.

Summarizing our conclusions in regard to the appeal of the
protestant, we hold that six (6) ballots declared invalid by the trial
court should be adjudicated to him. Added to the 627 votes credited to
him in the decision appealed from, the total is 633, from which should
be deducted the three (3) votes declared invalid as a result of the
protestee’s appeal, making a net total of 630 votes. This total is
eleven (11) votes less than the 641 valid votes received by the
protestee, supra.

In view of the foregoing, the judgment appealed
from is reversed, and protestee Pedro Gadon is declared winner by 11
votes over protestant Sulpicio Gadon. With costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and Regala, JJ., concur.