NELSON CUNDANGAN, PETITIONER, VS.THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND CELESTINO V. CHUA, RESPONDENTS.

Cundangan versus Commission on Elections and Chua

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Nelson Cundangan against the Commission on Elections and Celestino Chua, arising from a barangay election protest over the office of Punong Barangay of Barangay Sumilang, Pasig City. Cundangan had been proclaimed the winner; Chua protested; the trial court affirmed the proclamation; the Commission on Elections reversed and declared Chua the winner; and Cundangan came to the Supreme Court charging grave abuse of discretion. The case matters because it is the Court's clearest statement of the deference owed to the Commission on Elections in the appreciation of contested ballots, and of the standards for invalidating ballots as written by one person, written by two persons, or marked.

Procedural History

Chua filed an election protest with the trial court, impugning the results of the canvass in all nineteen precincts of the barangay. After revision proceedings were concluded, the trial court rendered its Decision dated September 26, 2003, affirming the proclamation of Cundangan. Chua appealed to the Commission on Elections First Division, which, in its Resolution dated October 25, 2005, reversed the trial court and declared Chua the duly elected Punong Barangay. Cundangan moved for reconsideration, but the Commission on Elections En Banc, in its Resolution dated August 18, 2006, denied the motion and affirmed the challenged Resolution with modification. Cundangan then filed the present petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, raising grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Facts

Cundangan and Chua were candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay Sumilang, Pasig City in the July 15, 2002 Synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections. After the canvass, Cundangan was proclaimed the duly elected Punong Barangay. On July 23, 2002, Chua filed an election protest impugning the results of the canvass in all nineteen precincts of the barangay.

After revision, the trial court affirmed Cundangan's proclamation. On appeal, the Commission on Elections First Division reversed, declaring Chua the winner, and the En Banc denied reconsideration.

Before the Supreme Court, Cundangan raised four grounds: that the number of uncontested ballots in the En Banc Resolution differed from that in the First Division Resolution and the trial court decision; that the Commission invalidated valid ballots in his favor, namely eighty-seven ballots said to be written by one person, nineteen said to be written by two persons, and four said to be marked; that the Commission validated invalid ballots in favor of Chua, namely eighty-nine ballots said to be written by one person, four said to be marked, and two claimed ballots; and that the Commission failed to rule squarely on the existence of spurious and fake ballots found during revision.

Issues

• Whether or not the Commission on Elections En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it affirmed the Resolution of the First Division.
• Whether or not the Commission on Elections erred in invalidating the contested ballots in favor of Cundangan as written by one person, written by two persons, and marked ballots.
• Whether or not the Commission on Elections erred in validating the contested ballots in favor of Chua as written by one person, marked ballots, and claimed ballots.
• Whether or not the Commission on Elections failed to rule squarely on the issue of spurious and fake ballots found during revision.

Applicable Provisions

Section 211, paragraph 22 of the Omnibus Election Code provides:

Unless it should clearly appear that they have been deliberately put by the voter to serve as identification marks, the use of two or more kinds of writing shall not invalidate the ballot.

This provision governs Cundangan's claim that the nineteen ballots were not written by two persons, since the use of print and script in one ballot does not by itself imply two writers.

Section 211, paragraph 23 of the Omnibus Election Code provides:

Any ballot which clearly appears to have been filled by two distinct persons before it was deposited in the ballot box during the voting is totally null and void.

This is the provision Chua invoked to sustain the invalidation of ballots written by two hands.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there was no error in the number of uncontested ballots stated in the En Banc Resolution. It accounted for only seventeen precincts, unlike the First Division Resolution and the trial court decision, which accounted for nineteen, because the En Banc excluded the ballots in two precincts after determining that a number of ballots therein were tampered.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Commission did not abuse its discretion in invalidating the contested ballots. Where the factual findings of a division of the Commission, as affirmed by the En Banc, are supported by substantial evidence, they are beyond the ken of review by the Court. The Court stressed that the appreciation of contested ballots and election documents involves a question of fact best left to the Commission, a specialized agency, and that absent grave abuse of discretion, jurisdictional infirmity, or error of law, its factual findings shall not be interfered with. The invalidation of the four marked ballots was in accord with the ruling that big bold letters occupying all the spaces for a specific position evince an evident intent to mark the ballot.

On the third issue, the Court upheld the validity of the questioned ballots. The eighty-nine contested ballots could not have been written by one person, considering the differences in how particular letters in each were written. The four ballots bearing the words papag, bangus, and kalabasa were not marked ballots, because for a ballot to be considered marked, it must clearly appear that the words were deliberately placed thereon to serve as identification marks, and no such malicious intent was shown. The two claimed ballots were correctly counted in favor of Chua by reason of the neighborhood rule, since Chua's name was written on the first space for Kagawads and the space for Punong Barangay was left blank.

On the final issue, the Court found Cundangan's allegation without basis, since the assailed En Banc Resolution explicitly stated which ballot boxes contained tampered ballots and which contained none.

Doctrine

The appreciation of contested ballots and election documents is a question of fact best left to the Commission on Elections, a specialized agency vested with exclusive original jurisdiction over election contests involving regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over election protests involving elective municipal and barangay officials. Absent grave abuse of discretion, jurisdictional infirmity, or error of law, its factual findings, conclusions, rulings, and decisions on matters within its competence shall not be interfered with by the Court.

A ballot is invalid as written by one person only where the writing clearly appears to have been done by a single hand; the mere use of two or more kinds of writing does not invalidate the ballot unless it clearly appears that they were deliberately put by the voter to serve as identification marks. A ballot is invalid as marked only where it clearly appears that the marks were deliberately placed to serve as identification marks; big bold letters occupying all the spaces for a position evince such intent, but irrelevant words placed amidst the names of candidates do not, absent a showing of malicious intent.

Disposition

The petition was denied for lack of merit, the assailed Resolutions of the Commission on Elections were affirmed, and costs were taxed against Cundangan.

Remember This

Remember the line that the appreciation of contested ballots is a question of fact best left to the Commission on Elections, and that its findings, affirmed by the En Banc and supported by substantial evidence, are beyond the ken of review by the Court. Examiners use this case to test the standard for invalidating ballots as written by one person, written by two persons, or marked, and the deference owed to the Commission on Elections in election protests.