JOSE E. GARCIA, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND ARMANDO JOSON, RESPONDENTS.

Garcia versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is the election protest of Jose Garcia against Armando Joson over the office of municipal mayor of Mallig, Isabela, following the general elections of November 1967. Garcia had been proclaimed mayor by the municipal board of canvassers with a plurality of one vote over Joson. Joson protested before the Court of First Instance of Isabela, and the case climbed through the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. The case matters because it fixes two enduring rules in election law: that the validity of a ballot is for the court alone to decide, not for the parties by admission or concession, and that a ballot is judged by what appears on its face.

Procedural History

The municipal board of canvassers of Mallig proclaimed Garcia the elected mayor. Joson filed a protest in the Court of First Instance of Isabela. Garcia answered and filed a counter-protest, and the third candidate, Jesus Baniguid, filed a protest in intervention. After trial, the Court of First Instance declared Joson the elected mayor with 678 votes against Garcia's 663 votes, a margin of fifteen votes, and credited Baniguid with 581 votes. Garcia appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Special Second Division of the Court of Appeals affirmed the declaration that Joson was the elected mayor, but found the margin to be only five votes. Garcia then filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, which gave the petition due course. Before the Supreme Court, Garcia assigned five errors and Joson assigned three errors, all turning on the appreciation of ballots.

Facts

In the elections of November 14, 1967, the municipal board of canvassers of Mallig, Isabela certified that Garcia obtained 679 votes, Joson 678 votes, Baniguid 588 votes, and Eduardo Siababa 568 votes. Garcia was proclaimed mayor with a plurality of one vote over Joson.

Joson protested, Garcia counter-protested, and Baniguid intervened. Each side alleged frauds, coercions, and irregularities in specified precincts and impugned the validity of ballots cast in favor of the others. The trial court declared Joson the winner by fifteen votes.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed Joson's election but reduced the margin to five votes. The errors raised before the Supreme Court involved twenty ballots assigned by Garcia and six ballots assigned by Joson, all properly marked as exhibits and examined by the Court. The only question was the appreciation of ballots.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the admission of Joson's counsel that three ballots were marked, and in ruling on the ballots on the basis of what appears on their faces.
• Whether or not the various ballots objected to by Garcia were correctly declared valid or invalid as marked ballots, as stray votes, or as votes for the wrong office.
• Whether or not the ballots objected to by Joson, particularly the ballot where two candidates were voted for the office of mayor, were correctly appreciated.

Applicable Provisions

Paragraph 9 of Section 149 of the Revised Election Code, on nicknames, provides:

For a nickname to be counted in favor of a candidate it must be accompanied by his correct Christian name or his surname.

This governs the ballots where only the word Joe was written on the line for mayor, which were not counted for Garcia.

Paragraph 11 of Section 149 of the Revised Election Code provides:

Where there are two or more candidates voted for an office for which the law authorizes the election of only one person, the ballot shall not be counted in favor of any of them, but this shall not affect the validity of the other votes contained therein.

This governs the ballot where both Sarangaya and Garcia were written on the line for mayor, so the vote was counted for neither.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court correctly disregarded the admission of Joson's counsel that the three ballots were marked, and the Court of Appeals committed no error in doing the same. An election protest involves public interest, and the determination of whether a ballot is valid or invalid belongs exclusively to the court or electoral tribunal. To hold otherwise would leave the result of the election to the parties or their counsel and open the door to collusion or compromise. Once a ballot is properly before the court, it must be decided on the basis of what appears on its face. The Court quoted its ruling in Manalo versus Sevilla:

The public has an interest in an election and as to who is elected. Its rights cannot be affected by the concessions of private individuals. The law provides the only way in which the election of a person can be proved. No concession among contestants for an office will be permitted to circumvent that provision.

On the ballots themselves, the Court examined each. Ballot Exhibit 40 was declared invalid as marked because the word Siababa was written twice on the lines for senator in a manner indicating an intention to identify the ballot. Ballot Exhibit 53 was declared valid, the word Cibaba being merely a stray vote for Siababa. Ballot Exhibit 67 was declared valid, the word Sarangaya being a stray vote. Ballots Exhibits EE and FF were declared invalid as marked because the name Joe Garcia was written twice on the line for mayor by a voter with good penmanship. Ballot Exhibit II was declared valid because the words written merely indicated desistance from voting for other candidates. Ballot Exhibit FFF was declared invalid as marked. Ballots Exhibits GGG, RRRR, DDDDD, and GGGG were declared invalid as marked, while ballot Exhibit TTTT was declared valid because the word yes was mistakenly written as an answer to plebiscite questions. Ballots Exhibits DD and 1 were not counted for Garcia because the nickname Joe was not accompanied by his Christian name or surname. Ballot Exhibit 14 was declared invalid as marked, and ballot Exhibit 24 was declared invalid because the word Yiba was a distinguishing mark. Ballots Exhibits 34, 35, and 36 were declared valid, the word Laurel being a stray vote.

On the ballots assigned by Joson, ballot Exhibit GG was not counted for either Sarangaya or Garcia because two candidates were voted for the office of mayor, applying paragraph 11 of Section 149. The Court quoted its ruling in Coscolluela versus Gaston:

In this ballot Emilio Rodriguez and Emilio Gaston were voted for governor. The same should not have been counted in favor of either of the two candidates voted for the said office.

Doctrine

An election protest involves public interest. The validity or invalidity of a ballot is for the court or electoral tribunal alone to determine, and it is not bound by the admissions or concessions of the parties or their counsel. Once a ballot is properly before the court, it must be decided on the basis of what appears on its face. A nickname is counted only when accompanied by the correct Christian name or surname. Where two or more candidates are voted for an office for which only one person may be elected, the ballot is not counted for any of them, but the other votes remain valid.

Disposition

The Supreme Court resolved the appreciation of the questioned ballots as set out above, and the result of the election stood as declared by the Court of Appeals, with Joson as the elected mayor.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing: in an election protest, the court decides the validity of a ballot on its face, and the concessions of the parties cannot bind it. Examiners use this case to test the public-interest character of election protests and the rule against deciding ballot validity by admission or compromise.