TOMAS DIZON, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. JUAN CAILLES, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.

At the general elections held on June 2, 1931 the candidates for the office
of provincial governor of Laguna were Juan Cailles, Tomas Dizon, Mariano
Calcetas, and Maximo Gutierrez.

On June 10, 1931, the provincial board of canvassers announced that Cailles
had obtained 14,006 votes, Dizon, 13,914, Calcetas, 1,083, and Gutierrez, 2,086;
and it therefore proclaimed Juan Cailles governor-elect.

Tomas Dizon contested the election of Juan Cailles in several precincts of
the municipalities of the province. Juan Cailles, in turn, filed a
counter-protest against Dizon challenging his election in all other precincts of
the province. The other two candidates did not appear or take part in the
election contest.

After the appointment of commissioners for review, and the examination of the
ballots questioned by the parties, the trial court rendered a carefully prepared
decision finding that Juan Cailles had obtained 14,033 votes and Tomas Dizon,
13,877; and therefore declared Juan Cailles governor-elect of the Province of
Laguna, with a plurality of 156 votes, according to the order of. January 19,
1932 modifying the result of the decision of December 29, 1931.

Dizon duly appealed from the decision of the lower court, assigning twenty
errors in his brief. For the purposes of this decision, those errors may be
based upon two grounds: the first covers assignments of error 1, 2, 3, 4, and
20, wherein the appellant contends that certain ballots cast for him were
rejected by the court, some through neglect, others because they were written by
the same hand, and the rest for other reasons. The second ground covers
assignments numbers 5 to 19, wherein the appellant, upon one ground or another,
impugns certain ballots of the appellee which were admitted by the court.

I

The appellant claims 16 ballots which, he alleges, were not included by the
trial court in the count of the unquestioned ballots. A comparison of the
commissioners’ report with the compilation made by the clerk of the court
discloses the following:

UNQUESTIONED BALLOTS OF DIZON

Municipality and number of precinct	Commissioners’ report	Courts’ compilation
Los Baños, precinct 3	93	99
Luisiana, precinct 2	105	164
Pagsanjan, precinct 7	32	32
San Pablo, precinct 1	99	41
San Pablo, precinct 7	154	190
San Pablo, precinct 20	99	147
San Pablo, precinct 27	88	105

A mere glance shows that there is a difference between the numbers given by
the commissioners and those given by the court. The explanation of said
difference may be found in that portion of the court’s decision which reads as
follows:

“The ballots objected to and claimed were examined by the parties and their
counsel. Later each party presented a list of his opponent’s ballots which he
desired to impugn and those which he claimed for himself, at the same time
answering his opponent’s objections. The ballots objected to by the
commissioners and not included among those objected to by counsel in their
respective lists were deemed to have been admitted without any objection, and
those claimed by the commissioners from among the ballots rejected by the
election inspectors, that the respective counsel did not include in their list
of ballots claimed, were deemed abandoned.”

The court then declares in its decision that the appellant obtained 13,046
unquestioned votes, and the appellee 13,300, but by its order of January 19,
1932, said court increased the number of unquestioned votes for the appellant to
13,146. We believe the appellant is entitled to the 16 votes he claims. (Error
1.)

The appellant asks that 10 of the 16 ballots impugned by the appellee on the
ground of their having been written by the same hand, be adjudicated to him.
(Error 2.) These ballots are classified into seven groups. The appellant admits
that the 3 ballots of the second group (C10, C29, and C56 from precinct 10 of
Nagcarlan) are written by one and the same hand and that the 16 others are by
different hands. The appellant has not shown in his brief that the ballots of
the second group belong to electors who were legally assisted by another. These
three ballots must be rejected because no voter has a right to prepare any but
his own ballot, except in the cases and under the conditions prescribed by
law.

With reference to the 16 ballots of groups 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (pp. 4 and 5,
appellant’s brief), we have examined the same and believe they have been written
by different hands and should be admitted in favor of the appellant, although he
only claims 10 ballots to have been erroneously rejected by the court,

The appellant also claimed 11 out of the 16 ballots rejected by the court as
written by the same hand. (Error 3.) In his brief, the appellant does not
question these ballots as having been written by the same hand, but he contends
that the voters’ list of 1931 was copied by mistake from that of 1928 with
regard to the qualification of eighteen voters. It is too late to assail the
voters’ list of 1931, and inasmuch as it has been finally corrected, the same is
conclusive with respect to those entitled to vote at that election.

Assuming that these 11 ballots were written by one and the same hand, in
order to sustain their validity it must be shown that they belong to voters who
were legally assisted by another person in the preparation of their ballots, and
this has not been done in the present case. The appellant’s petition, therefore,
cannot be granted.

As for the 5 ballots described in the fourth assignment of error judging by
the characteristics noted in the letters of ballots C16, C38, and C39 from
precinct No. 18 of San Pablo, we believe that they have been written by
different hands, and therefore these three ballots must be adjudicated to the
appellant.

With reference to the 22 ballots claimed by the appellant (error 20) and
which were rejected by the trial court either as being illegible or for some
other reason, we are of opinion that the following must be adjudicated to
him:

C-1, precinct 5 of Binan, “T. Disoen”
C3, precinct 5 of Los Baiios, “to na
diso”
C6, precinct 5 of Los Baiios, “Di Tuma”
C24,. precinct 4 of
Nagcarlan, “tomis dison Gobna” (governor?)
C29, precinct 4 of Nagcarlan,
“tonadicon” (Tomas Dizon)
C36, precinct 4 of Nagcarlan, “t Disino”
C16,
precinct 2 of Pagsanjan, “Dizon”
C-1, precinct 3 of Pangil, “T.
Dizon”
AA2, precinct 4 of San Pablo, “Tumas Dizon”
C14, precinct 9 of San
Pablo, “Tomades”
D, precinct 19 of San Pablo, “T. Dizon” and
C, precinct
26 of San Pablo, “Troms Dos.”

These make a total of 12 votes.

In the other 8 ballots, the names written on the line intended for the
candidate for the office of provincial governor really can not be made out, and
were rightly rejected by the court. There are two ballots, however, containing
the name of Tomas Dizon written in the space intended for members of the
provincial board, marked D-4, precinct 10 of Calamba, and D-2, precinct 21 of
San Pablo. These two ballots were properly rejected.

It should be borne in mind, before proceeding further, that in this
jurisdiction rules have been laid down for the reading and interpretation of
ballots incorrectly filled in and for the understanding of the rule known as
idem sonans, as well as for the appreciation of ballots with the initial of the
Christian name and the surname, with the surname alone, or the Christian name
alone, with the Christian name and the initial of the surname, or with the name
of a candidate voted for two different offices. We do not deem it necessary to
repeat these rules, which have been applied in the present case. (Cailles
vs. Gomez and Barbaza, 42 Phil., 496; Valenzuela vs. Carlos
and Lopez de Jesus, 42 Phil., 428; Lucero vs. De Guzman, 45 Phil., 852;
Mandac vs. Samonte, 49 Phil., 284; Bulan vs. Gaffud, 49 Phil.,
906; Echarri vs. Gomez, 50 Phil., 629; Ditching vs. Jalandoni,
52 Phil., 796; Penson vs. Parungao, 52 Phil., 718; Adeser vs.
Tago, 52 Phil., 856; Aviado vs. Talens, 52 Phil., 665; Namocatcat
vs. Adag, 52 Phil, 789.)

II

We now pass to the second ground of appeal, comprising the appellant’s fifth
to nineteenth assignments of error, regarding the 320 ballots of the appellee
impugned by the appellant upon different grounds.

There are 10 ballots of the appellee classified under three groups in the
appellant’s brief. (Error 5.) The court rejected 4 of them, and the appellant
now contends that the remaining 6 should also be rejected because they were
written by one and the same hand. These ballots of group 2 are D-21, D-22, D-26,
D-27, D-28, and D-29, precinct 3 of Bifian. These 6 ballots were written
according to the appellant, by Pedro Morales for five voters who, according to
the voters’ list, were qualified by education, and should therefore be rejected.
To which the appellee replies: “Exhibits CC-1 to CC-15 show that fifteen (15)
voters were assisted in the-preparation of their ballots. It does not matter
that according to the voters’ list, Exhibit K, there are only three (3)
illiterates, and that the rest of the voters who were assisted, were qualified
by education. The illiterates are not the only ones entitled to be helped. Any
voter suffering from some physical incapacity, may be assisted, even if he knows
how to read and write. Their very oath states that they were incapacitated to
fill out their ballots on the day of the election.”

If the 6 ballots here questioned belong to electors by education who were
assisted by another, after having sworn that they were unable to fill out their
ballots, there is no valid reason for deducting them from the candidate therein
voted for.

The appellant impugns (error 6) 52 ballots of Cailles, on the ground that the
initial of his Christian name is different. We have examined these ballots and
actually found that a great number of them contain only the initial of the
Christian name and the surname, but in such wise that said initials do not
correspond to the initial J, of the Christian name, Juan. Notwithstanding the
rule laid down in various decisions of this court, to the effect that a ballot
is valid when the candidate is voted for by his surname and the initial of his
given name, we believe that such a rule must be strictly applied so that the
initial must be identically the same as the initial of the Christian name of the
candidate voted for. Upon this ground, of the aforesaid 52 ballots, the
following must be rejected.

D-1, precinct 3 of Biiian, “F. Cailles”
D2, precinct 3 of Biiian, “G.
Cailles”
D4, precinct 8 of Biiian, “G. Cailles”
D19, precinct 2 of San
Pedro, “G. Cailles”
D1, precinct of Sta. Maria, “S. Kailles”
D4, precinct
2 of Sta. Rosa, “H. Cillis”
D36, precinct 1 of Calamba, “H.
Cailles.”

Ballot D2, precinct 1 of Lumban, contains the name “I. Kelles” between the
printed titles of provincial governor and members of the provincial board, and
this circumstance makes the voter’s will doubtful; for which reason the ballot
is rejected.

The appellant in his seventh assignment of error assails 102 ballots of the
appellee upon the ground that they are illegible. All these ballots were
admitted by the trial court. We have carefully examined said ballots and find
that they have been duly admitted by the court, with the exception of the
following 5:

D14, precinct 3 of Loiigos, “Jon Culles Enutil”
D9, precinct 1 of Lumban,
“Celeses J.”
D12, precinct 3 of Lumban, “J. Eeles”
D44, precinct 3 of
Pila, “C. Kallr” and
D37, precinct 4 of Pila, “hoan lies.”

Two ballots described in the eighth assignment of error are assailed by the
appellant on the ground that the name voted for governor is written on a space
that has been erased. Ballot D-11, precinct 2 of Bay, is really inadmissible,
because the name is erased, which would seem to indicate that the voter changed
his mind about his vote. The other ballot, D35, precinct 1 of Pila, has the
appellee’s name written over another name that has been erased; according to the
doctrine laid down in Cailles vs. Gomez and Barbaza; and Lucero
vs. De Guzman, supra, said ballot is admissible.

Two other ballots are impugned by the appellant in his ninth assignment of
error. The appellee is entitled to these two ballots. The surname “Hernandez”
written after “Cailles” in ballot D5, precinct 3 of Cabuyao, was by mistake
written, by the voter after “Cailles”, but there is no doubt that “Hernandez” is
the surname of “Demetrio” voted for the office of member of the provincial
board.

In the tenth assignment of error, the appellant impugns 10 ballots of the
appellee, on the ground that the surname of the appellee is only indicated with
the letters “C”, “Ce”, or “Ca.” We have examined these ballots and the Christian
name of the appellee with the initial of his surname, or the first syllable
thereof is written on the line intended for governor. According to the doctrines
laid down in the cases cited above with regard to the interpretation of ballots,
these ballots have been duly admitted for the appellee by the court a
quo.

The appellant impugns in his eleventh assignment of error, 57 ballots of the
appellee on the ground that they are marked or bear identification marks. The
alleged marks consist in the use of two kinds of letters in one and the same
ballot. After examining these ballots, we find that the following 17 ballots
must be deducted from the appellee:

D5, precinct 5 of Alaminos
D-10, precinct 1, D2, precinct 5, and D3,
precinct 7 of Bifian
D-1, precinct 6 of Cabuyao
D4, precinct 2 of
Calamba
D26 and D-40, precinct 1 of Calauan
D5, precinct 1 of
Lilio
D-15, precinct 1 of Loñgos
D3, precinct 1 of Los Baños
D22,
precinct 1, and D3, precinct 7 of Nagcarlan
D-18, precinct 4 of San Pedro

D6, precinct 1 of Sta. Cruz, and D3, precinct 7, same municipality
and
D7, precinct 6 of Sta. Rosa.

There is no plausible reason for using in one ballot two or more kinds of
letters, unless it be the intention of distinguishing them or making it easy to
identify the voter, and this is prohibited by the law.

The appellant also impugns in his twelfth assignment of error, 18 ballots of
the appellee as written in two kinds of letters. We have examined these ballots,
and find that they have been duly admitted by the court, except the 5
following:

D36, precinct 1 of Longos
D-1, precinct 5 of Majayjay
D2, precinct 3 of
San Pablo
D5 and D-13, precinct 3 of Sta. Rosa.

Again the appellant impugns 10 ballots of the appellee described in his brief
(error 13), as bearing a mark of identification, consisting in the name of a
person voted for an office for which he was not a candidate. After examining
said ballots, we are of opinion that the fact that a person has received votes
for an office for which he has not filed his certificate of candidacy does not
by itself constitute a sign of identification, nor does it annul the ballot.
(Mandac vs. Samonte, supra; Valenzuela vs. Carlos and
Lopez de Jesus, supra; Aviado vs. Talens, supra;
Namocatcat vs. Adag, supra.)

In the appellant’s fourteenth assignment of error, 18 ballots of the appellee
are also attacked as marked with unnecessary words. Examining these ballots we
are of the opinion that they have been duly admitted by the trial court, with
the exception of two of them, namely, those marked D5 and D9, precinct 4 of
Cabuyao: the former, because the word “Sakdal” appears on one of the lines for
councilor; and the latter, because on the last line for councilor the following
words are written: “Peo Rubina Concijal Manila.”

In the fifteenth assignment of error the appellant attacks 43 ballots of the
appellee as bearing marks of identification. These ballots have been duly
admitted by the court, with the exception of the 3 following:

D-1, precinct 4 of Alaminos, with the initials “E. R” on the last line for
councilors
D-1, precinct 3 of Sta. Rosa, with the letters “A. I” on the first
line for councilors and
D3, precinct 3 of Siniloan, because the letters of
five names are connected.

A ballot of the appellee’s contains his name in the space for governor and in
the first of the spaces for members of the provincial board. (Error 16.) This
ballot is valid for the office of governor, for which Cailles filed his
certificate of candidacy. (Cailles vs. Gomez and Barbaza,
supra; Valenzuela vs. Carlos and Lopez de Jesus,
supra.)

Three ballots of the appellee are assailed by the appellant in his
seventeenth assignment of error, as marked. We are of the opinion that ballot
D7, precinct 2 of Cavinti, must be rejected because the name “J. Kallis” appears
on the line for member of the provincial board, but the other ballots have been
properly admitted by the court.

One of the appellee’s ballots is assailed by the appellant in his eighteenth
assignment of error, on the ground that it was copied with carbon paper. An
examination of this ballot shows that the appellant’s contention is
unfounded.

Lastly, the appellant impugns a ballot of the appellee’s (D-3, precinct 3 of
San Pedro), on the ground that the same has been written through a perforated
sheet. (Error 19.) The shape of the letters used in writing the names on this
ballot is really odd, and we are inclined to believe that this ballot has been
prepared with the manifest intention of identifying the voter; for which reason
it must be rejected.

Summing up what has been stated with reference to the ballots claimed by the
appellant Dizon and to the ballots of Cailles questioned by said appellant, the
votes of the contending parties are as follows:

JUAN CAILLES:

Votes awarded by the court……………………………… 14,033
From
which must be deducted…………………………..………43

13,990

TOMAS DIZON:

Votes awarded by the court………………………………. 13,877
To
which must be
added…………………………………….…….47

13,924

Plurality of Juan
Cailles………………………………………………….……..66

Having arrived at this result, we deem it unnecessary to resolve the
questions raised by the appellee, who claims 21 ballots rejected by the court,
and attacks 170 ballots of the appellant admitted by the court; inasmuch as the
resolution of the appellee’s contentions, if it will ever affect such result,
would only tend to increase the plurality in favor of the
appellee.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is modified so far as it
is inconsistent herewith, and affirmed in other respects, and it is declared
that Juan Cailles is the governor elect of the Province of Laguna, with a
plurality of 66 votes. With costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Romualdez, Villa-Real,
and Imperial, JJ., concur.