Quiem v. Seriña
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Primitivo P. Quiem and respondent Anastacio Abas were candidates for the position of City Secretary of Cagayan de Oro City. During an election held by the Municipal Board, the voting resulted in a tie, with three councilors voting for Quiem, three for Abas, and one councilor abstaining by casting a blank ballot. The Vice-Mayor, Jesus Seriña, who presided over the session, cast a vote for Quiem, leading to Quiem taking an oath of office. However, respondent Abas challenged the validity of Quiem's election, and City Mayor Justiniano R. Borja refused to recognize Quiem as the duly elected secretary, initiating a process to resolve Abas' protest. Procedural History: Following the disputed election and Abas' protest, Quiem filed a petition for prohibition with a preliminary injunction in the lower court to prevent further balloting. The court granted the injunction. Subsequently, the respondents filed their answers, and after a preliminary hearing, the court dissolved the injunction and dismissed Quiem's petition. Quiem then filed a petition for certiorari with this Court, which was dismissed, directing Quiem to pursue an appeal. Quiem filed a notice of appeal, and the lower court gave it due course. In the interim, the Municipal Board proceeded with another election for the secretary, where respondent Abas garnered five affirmative votes and was declared duly elected, subsequently performing the functions of the office. The Petition: Petitioner Quiem appeals to this Court, raising several arguments. Primarily, he contends that he was denied due process, asserting he was not given an opportunity to prove his allegations. He also argues that the Vice-Mayor is not a member of the Municipal Board and therefore should not have voted. Furthermore, Quiem claims that the blank ballot cast by one councilor should be counted as a vote in his favor, which would have given him the required majority. The core of the appeal revolves around the interpretation of election laws, the definition of due process in this context, the status of the Vice-Mayor, and the legal effect of a blank ballot in an election for a public office.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner was denied due process. Whether the Vice-Mayor is a member of the Municipal Board. Whether the Vice-Mayor, as presiding officer, may vote as a member of the Municipal Board. Whether a tie-breaking vote by the Vice-Mayor was validly cast. Whether a blank ballot should be counted as a vote for a candidate. Whether a majority vote of the elective members of the Municipal Board is required for the election of the City Secretary.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court dissolving the preliminary injunction and dismissing the petition. Anastacio Abas was declared the duly elected City Secretary.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of due process: The Court found that petitioner was not denied due process. The minutes of the trial did not indicate any offer by the petitioner to present evidence, despite being represented by counsel. The issues presented were primarily questions of law, which were discussed during a preliminary hearing. The Court emphasized that prohibition is summary in nature and that the petitioner was accorded the familiar safeguards of notice, hearing, and opportunity to present his side. On the membership of the Vice-Mayor in the Municipal Board: The Court held that the Vice-Mayor of Cagayan de Oro City is a member of the Municipal Board by express legal mandate. Both the original charter and subsequent amendments explicitly stated that the Vice-Mayor shall be a member of the Municipal Board. The Court found no inconsistency with later laws that designated the Vice-Mayor as the presiding officer, and no plain indication from Congress that the Vice-Mayor ceased to be a member. On the Vice-Mayor's right to vote as a member: The Court ruled that as a member of the Municipal Board, the Vice-Mayor is entitled to vote in the election of the City Secretary, just like other members. The Court distinguished this from the Manila charter, which explicitly limited the Vice-Mayor's vote to tie-breaking situations. Citing Bagaso, et al. vs. Tumangan, the Court held that limiting the Vice-Mayor's right to vote only in case of a tie would curtail his rights as a member, which is not authorized by the charter. On the validity of the Vice-Mayor's tie-breaking vote: The Court stated that the Vice-Mayor's vote for petitioner should be counted, regardless of whether his intention was to break a tie or otherwise, as voting was his right as a member. This would have resulted in a four-to-three vote in favor of the petitioner, had the blank ballot not been considered. On the treatment of a blank ballot: The Court definitively held that a blank ballot in a contested election is a nullity and cannot be counted for or against any candidate. The Court reasoned that an election implies a deliberate, positive act, and abstention, as expressed by a blank ballot, is an expression of lack of intention. The Court cited Dillon and other authorities to support the view that a blank ballot is a mere nullity and cannot be tallied. On the required majority for election: The Court clarified that the election of a City Secretary requires a majority vote of the elective members of the Municipal Board, as provided by law. In this case, the Municipal Board had eight elective members. Therefore, a majority of at least five votes was necessary to elect a secretary. The Court rejected the argument that a simple majority of a quorum was sufficient, emphasizing that the law intended for the secretary to enjoy the confidence of the entire body, not just a minority of those present. Since petitioner only garnered four votes (plus the Vice-Mayor's vote, making it five if the blank ballot was counted for him, but the blank ballot was a nullity), and respondent Abas received three votes, and a majority of five was required, there was a failure of election for the petitioner.
Main Doctrine
A blank ballot in an election is a nullity and cannot be counted for or against any candidate. The election of a city secretary requires a majority vote of the elective members of the municipal board, not merely a majority of a quorum. The Vice-Mayor, as a member of the municipal board, has the right to vote as a member, not just to break a tie.