GABRIEL ROLDAN, PETITIONER VS. PEDRO MONSANTO, RESPONDENT.

This is a petition for certiorari to review the decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. No. 28506-R, Gabriel Roldan,
protestant-appellant, vs. Pedro Monsanto, protestee-appellee.
The petitioner has waived his right to present a brief and relies upon
his petition to support the grounds for the petition.

In the general elections of November 10, 1959, in the municipality
of Catmon, province of Cebu, Gabriel Roldan and Pedro Monsanto were
both registered as candidates for the office of mayor and received
votes for said office. The board of canvassers of the municipality
proclaimed Pedro Monsanto elected to the office, with 1,766 votes as
against Gabriel Roldan with 1,704 votes, or a majority of 62 votes.
Thereupon Roldan presented a petition of protest in the court of first
instance. This court after a revision of the ballots in the contested
precincts found that the protestee Monsanto was elected with a
plurality of 26 votes. Protestant appealed the decision of the court of
first instance to the Court of Appeals, and this court affirmed the
judgment of the trial court, but reduced the majority of Monsanto from
26 votes to 10 votes. Petitioner now seeks a review of the decision of
the Court of Appeals.

Petitioner has not presented a formal “assignment of errors” at the
beginning of the petition but groups his objections to the decision of
the Court of Appeals; he has not asked for the review of the decision
upon specific ballots but upon groups of ballots. The questions
presented in the petition are discussed herein.

The first question raised, a legal one, is the consideration by the
Court of Appeals of 22 ballots for appellee Monsanto, rejected by the
court of first instance, notwithstanding the fact that Monsanto did not
appeal from the decision of the court of first instance, or cite this
as error in appellee’s brief. The Court of Appeals set aside the ruling
of the court of first instance on said ballots and admitted and counted
them for the appellee. 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 accordance 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 is based
on the provisions of Section 178 of the Revised Election Code and
supported by Our decisions in the cases of Ibasco vs. Ilao, et al., 110 Phil., 553, and Borja vs. De Leon, et al., G. R. No. L-20245, Sept. 30, 1963.

The same ruling applies to the adjudication by the Court of Appeals
of a ballot, Exhibit L-57, in favor of protestee-appellee, although its
rejection by the trial court was not expressly assigned as error by any
of the parties.

The third error alleged in the petition is that—

“* * * the Court of Appeals * * * adjudicated as
valid votes for the protestee-appellee sixty-seven (67) ballots, among
others, notwithstanding that in these ballots there are written names
which are not the true and real Christian name of protestee-appellee,
names of non-candidates, of conspicuous politicians or personages, or
voters in the district or precincts, or names which are not idem sonans
to protestee-appellee, or names not sufficient to identify the
protestee-appellee, or not in the proper space, and hence are stray
votes for protestee-appellee, and words, nicknames or appellations or
marks are written in the ballots which are written designedly for the
purpose of identifying the ballots because they are either irrelevant
and impertinent, with no indicia connected to it as to justify their existence in the ballot.”

As the petitioner has not designated the eleven ballots from the 67,
all supposedly erroneously counted by the Court of Appeals in favor of
the appellee and has not indicated the objection to each and everyone
thereof, it is impossible for Us to examine the individual ballots
alluded to and are unable to make a ruling on the alleged error or
errors. The general objection stated in the petition is not a
sufficient ground for rejecting the ballots. The Court of Appeals must
have considered each ballot according to the nature of the appellation,
prefix or suffix, and as these (prefix or suffix) involve generally
questions of fact and as the ballots themselves have not been expressly
pointed out, We do not feel justified, upon consideration of the mere
allegations of petitioner and after considering the appealed decision,
in disturbing the findings of the Court of Appeals with respect thereto.

The above reasoning is also applicable to the rest of the 56 ballots
mentioned in the petition, where according to the petitioner—

“* * * words, names, nicknames, appellations,
prefixes and suffixes are written in several places in the ballots,
designed to identify the ballots or the voters, most of them irrelevant
or impertinent, with no indicia connected to them to justify their existence in the ballots.”

The petitioner evidently misunderstood the nature of the proceeding which he filed in this Court, which is a petition for certiorari.
Notwithstanding the fact that this case is an election case the
procedure before this Court in a petition for review of the decision of
the Court of Appeals is one for certiorari and is not an ordinary appeal. The proceeding for certiorari
before Us does not have the effect of authorizing the review and
revision of all the ballots contained in the contested precincts
without specific allegations of the supposed errors committed by the
Court of Appeals. We are limited to examining these supposed errors in
the decision of the Court of Appeals that are expressly and
specifically pointed out. The petitioner in this case has made general
allegations of errors in his petition for review but he has not
elaborated on these alleged errors specifically with respect to each
ballot (he has waived the presentation of a brief). We are, therefore,
obliged to consider the merits of the supposed errors upon the
allegations of the petition itself or upon the findings of the Court of
Appeals in its decision. Hence, We have been forced to pass upon the
merits of the petition mainly upon petitioner’s own allegations and the
decision of the Court of Appeals, without consideration of the ballots
themselves.

The last error or discrepancy supposedly committed by the Court of Appeals is one of computation, i.e.,
that two ballots, L-57 and L-59, have or have not been included in the
totals in the recapitulation. Much as We have tried to understand what
the nature of the supposed error is, it is impossible for Us to rule on
the supposed error because the petition for review makes reference to
computation contained in the trial court’s decision, but which was not
attached to the petition or presented or caused to be elevated to Us.
In the same manner as it has been impossible for Us to consider the
petitioner’s objections to the rulings of the Court of Appeals on the
specific ballots because the ballots have not been pointed out and the
objections to each clearly specified, similarly We can not make a
finding or ruling on this supposed error of computation as the
computation in the court of first instance to which reference is made
has not been presented.

Wherefore, the petition should be as it hereby is denied, with costs against the petitioner.

So ordered.

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