Bisnar v. Lapasa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the November 12, 1963 elections, Antonio K. Bisnar and Braulio Lapasa were candidates for vice-mayor of Inopacan, Leyte. Lapasa was initially proclaimed the winner by 32 votes. Bisnar filed an election protest, and the Court of First Instance of Leyte declared Bisnar the winner by 24 votes. Procedural History: The protestee, Braulio Lapasa, appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assailing the lower court's decision to nullify certain ballots. The Petition: The appellant alleged that the lower court erred in declaring null and void specific ballots based on the presence of nicknames or other markings, and in declaring fifty other ballots void on the ground that they were marked.
Issue(s)
Whether ballots containing only the nickname "Bala" for the protestee-appellant are valid. Whether certain ballots with extraneous writings or markings are valid or invalid. Whether the trial court erred in declaring certain ballots null and void.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, declaring Antonio K. Bisnar as the duly elected vice-mayor by a margin of nine (9) votes, with a modification regarding the adjudication of certain ballots.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of ballots with nicknames: The Court reiterated the rule that ballots containing only a nickname of a candidate are generally invalid unless accompanied by the candidate's name or surname, pursuant to Section 34 and Section 149, paragraph 9 of the Revised Election Code. The Court distinguished the present case from Abrea vs. Lloren, where ballots with only a nickname were admitted due to specific proven facts demonstrating the common usage of the nickname and its representation of a significant portion of the candidate's votes, which circumstances were absent in this case. Therefore, the eighteen ballots containing only the word "Bala" were correctly rejected by the trial court. On the validity of ballots with extraneous writings and markings: The Court meticulously reviewed each contested ballot. It found some ballots valid where the markings were considered stray votes or irrelevant expressions not intended to identify the ballot, such as "opalao" (Exhibit E, Precinct 6), a diagonal line indicating desistance (Exhibit F, Precinct 6), an erroneous initial with a correct surname (Exhibit B, Precinct 7), or words like "Mede" and "Daling" in the absence of evidence of intent to mark (Exhibits H and I, Precinct 12). However, other ballots were declared invalid due to impertinent and irrelevant expressions (e.g., "engat," "boy," "Have a good time Mr. Pacito," "I forgot his name," "Forget me not," "Rock Beloy," "Medi Hingasoko," "Tse na lang," "Ci na lang") or clear attempts to identify the ballots (e.g., "Menong/Minong" appearing uniformly, "R.L." initials in a conspicuous place, "shot" on the margin, "A.A.D." initials in multiple ballots, "Pausto" used successively before names). The Court applied its previous rulings in Lloren vs. Court of Appeals and Pacito Abrea to several of these ballots. On the overall count and declaration of winner: After re-evaluating the contested ballots, the Court found that fifteen (15) ballots previously declared invalid by the lower court should be adjudicated to the protestee-appellant. However, even with these additional votes, the protestee-appellant's total remained lower than that of the protestant-appellee. Consequently, the judgment of the lower court was affirmed with the modification that Antonio K. Bisnar was declared the winner by nine (9) votes.
Main Doctrine
Ballots containing only a nickname of a candidate are generally invalid unless the nickname is accompanied by the candidate's name or surname, or unless specific circumstances justify their admission to give effect to the will of the people, such as when the nickname is commonly known and used in campaign materials, and no other candidate shares the same nickname.