NAZARIO NALOG, ET AL., PROTESTANTS, NAZARIO NALOG, PROTESTANT-APPELLEE, VS. NEMESIO DE GUZMAN, ET AL., PROTESTEES, NEMESIO DE GUZMAN, PROTESTEE-APPELLANT.

Nalog versus De Guzman

The Case

This is an election protest over the office of vice mayor of the municipality of Antipolo, in the province of Rizal. Nazario Nalog, the protestant, challenged the proclamation of Nemesio de Guzman, the protestee, after the general elections of November 1963. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons. First, it fixes the boundary between the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in election protests involving municipal offices, and second, it is a working lesson in the appreciation of contested ballots — stray votes, marked ballots, ballots written by two persons, and names written in the wrong space.

Procedural History

The municipal board of canvassers of Antipolo proclaimed De Guzman elected vice mayor with a plurality of five votes over Nalog. Nalog filed an election protest with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, which heard it jointly with a separate protest concerning the office of mayor. In a joint decision, the trial court found that Nalog obtained 2,048 votes against 2,038 for De Guzman, and proclaimed Nalog elected, with costs against De Guzman. De Guzman appealed to the Supreme Court. The losing party in the mayoral protest also appealed, but that appeal went to the Court of Appeals, to which the evidence was forwarded, so the Supreme Court could not examine the evidence until the Court of Appeals had rendered its decision. Nalog raised the threshold objection that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the appeal.

Facts

On November 12, 1963, Nalog and De Guzman were candidates for vice mayor of Antipolo. The next day, the municipal board of canvassers proclaimed De Guzman elected with a plurality of five votes. On November 26, 1963, Nalog, together with the councilor candidates of his party, filed an election protest.

After appropriate proceedings, the trial court credited Nalog with 2,048 votes and De Guzman with 2,038, a margin of ten votes, and proclaimed Nalog elected. De Guzman appealed, assigning several errors directed at particular ballots.

On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the contested ballots one by one. It found that several ballots cast for Nalog had been written on the space for councilor, that one ballot had been crossed out by the voter himself, that one ballot bore a sticker with the name Nalog, and that several ballots challenged as fingerprinted or as written in extraordinarily large letters were not in fact marked. After the corrections, Nalog's total dropped to 2,039, a plurality of one vote over De Guzman's 2,038.

Issues

• Whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review, on appeal, a final decision of the Court of First Instance in an election protest involving the office of vice mayor of a regular municipality.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in crediting to Nalog the eleven ballots objected to by De Guzman.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not annulling the ballots challenged as fingerprinted or as marked by extraordinarily large letters.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not invalidating ballots allegedly written by two distinct persons.
• Whether or not votes written on a space other than that for vice mayor should be counted for De Guzman.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in invalidating two ballots as marked.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in omitting one ballot from the computation of votes in favor of De Guzman.

Applicable Provisions

Section 178 of the Revised Election Code, as quoted in the decision, provides:

From any final decision rendered by the Court of First Instance in protests against the eligibility or the election of provincial governors, members of the provincial board, city councilors and mayors, the aggrieved party may appeal to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court, as the case may be.

This provision, according to Nalog, impliedly denies an appeal in protests involving the office of vice mayor or councilor of a regular municipality, and so bears directly on the threshold question of jurisdiction.

Section 149, paragraph 3, of the Revised Election Code, cited by the Court, governs stray votes and provides the rule applied to ballots written on the wrong space.

Section 149, paragraph 14, of the Revised Election Code, cited by the Court, governs marked ballots and provides the rule applied to the ballot bearing a sticker.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that it had jurisdiction. While Section 178 of the Revised Election Code allows appeals to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court only from decisions in protests involving provincial governors, members of the provincial board, city councilors and mayors, the Court held that whenever questions purely of law are raised, a review may be sought from the Supreme Court under Article Eight, Section 2, of the Constitution.

On the second issue, the Court ruled on the eleven ballots. Seven of them, where Nalog was voted on a space for councilor, were stray votes by express provision of law. One ballot, where the name written across the space for vice mayor was Jose Oliveros, could not be counted for Nalog. One ballot, where the name N. Nalog had been crossed out, seemingly by the voter himself, indicated a change of heart and was not counted. One ballot, where the voter wrote a name that could be read as Naro, was counted for Nalog because the name is idem sonams, that is, sounds the same, as Nalog. One ballot, where the first word appeared to be Walag but was really Nalag, was counted for Nalog because the voter's intent was manifest.

On the third issue, the Court held that the question whether ballots are marked is one of fact, beyond its power of review. It noted that some alleged fingerprints were mere smudges, that there was nothing to show the fingerprints belonged to the voters who filled the ballots, and that the marks were probably accidental. The letters in the second batch were not extraordinarily big. The objection to the other ballots on the ground of marking could not be entertained. However, the ballot with the name Nalog printed on a sticker pasted on the space for vice mayor was a marked ballot, null and void by specific provision of law, and was not counted.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the claim that ballots written by two persons should be invalidated raised a question of fact, which it could not review.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that votes written on a space other than that for vice mayor could not be counted for De Guzman, because the pretense contravened a positive statutory injunction.

On the sixth issue, the Court held that the invalidation of two ballots as marked raised questions of fact, which it could not review.

On the seventh issue, the Court held that the omitted ballot could not be counted for De Guzman, because his name was written not on the space for vice mayor but on the first space for councilors.

In sum, nine votes were deducted from Nalog, reducing his total from 2,048 to 2,039, a plurality of one vote over De Guzman's 2,038.

Doctrine

First, under Section 178 of the Revised Election Code, appeals in election protests involving provincial governors, members of the provincial board, city councilors and mayors lie to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, as the case may be. But whenever questions purely of law are raised, review may be sought from the Supreme Court under Article Eight, Section 2, of the Constitution.

Second, a vote written on a space other than that for the office contested is a stray vote and is not counted for the candidate whose name appears there.

Third, a ballot bearing a sticker with a candidate's name is a marked ballot, null and void by specific provision of law.

Fourth, a name crossed out by the voter himself indicates a change of heart, and the ballot is not counted for that candidate.

Fifth, a name that is idem sonams, that is, sounds the same, as the candidate's name, is counted in his favor.

Sixth, the question whether ballots are marked, or written by two persons, is a question of fact, beyond the Supreme Court's power of review in an election protest.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, declaring Nalog elected vice mayor with a plurality of one vote, with costs against De Guzman.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that questions purely of law in election protests may be reviewed by the Supreme Court under Article Eight, Section 2, of the Constitution, even where Section 178 of the Revised Election Code does not expressly allow an appeal. Examiners like to use this case to test the jurisdictional boundary between the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in election protests, and to test the rules on stray votes, marked ballots, and idem sonams names.