Moraleja v. Relova
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Cesar Mendoza filed an electoral protest against Gregorio Moraleja for the position of councilor of the Municipality of Batangas in the November 14, 1967 elections. Moraleja was proclaimed winner by a plurality of 27 votes. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Batangas declared Mendoza as the duly elected eighth councilor with a plurality of one vote. The Petition: Moraleja filed a petition for review, alleging several errors by the trial court, including the dismissal of the protest due to Mendoza's acceptance of a position as Technical Assistant to the Vice-Governor, the rejection of ballots favoring Moraleja, the validation of ballots favoring Mendoza despite being spoiled or marked, and the erroneous counting of certain ballots.
Issue(s)
Whether the acceptance of the position of Technical Assistant to the Vice-Governor by respondent Mendoza constitutes disqualification or abandonment of his electoral protest. Whether a ballot found in the red box for spoiled ballots can be considered valid. Whether certain ballots containing additional writings or marks are valid. Whether the conversion of the Municipality of Batangas into a city during the pendency of the case affects the appealability of the decision.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance. It declared the election as having ended in a tie and ordered the parties to draw lots to determine the winner. The decision was declared immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of abandonment or disqualification due to accepting a new position: The Court held that the acceptance of the position of Technical Assistant to the Vice-Governor by respondent Mendoza does not constitute abandonment of his electoral protest. The Court reasoned that public interest demands that the true winner be known, and once jurisdiction is acquired over an election contest, there can be no default, compromise, nor stipulation of facts. The Court likened the situation to an illegally dismissed employee accepting temporary employment while prosecuting their case for reinstatement, stating that such acceptance does not imply abandonment of the position they seek to recover. The Court clarified that this ruling does not extend to the acceptance of a permanent appointment to a regular office. On the validity of a ballot found in the spoiled ballots box: The Court ruled that the mere fact that a ballot is found in the red box for spoiled ballots does not preclude the court from determining its validity. If the ballot is otherwise valid and was mistakenly or inadvertently placed in the red box, it can still be counted. Since the trial court found the ballot in question to be valid as a matter of fact, the Supreme Court, as an appellate court, could not set aside this factual finding. On the validity of ballots with additional writings or marks: The Court unanimously held that two ballots (Exhibits CP-59 "A-3" and CP-98 "A-14") were validly counted. For Exhibit CP-59 "A-3", the word "Garapon" was considered a description personae. For Exhibit CP-98 "A-14", the word "Bomba" was deemed to refer to the popular name by which the candidate Roger Arienda was known. However, the Court unanimously agreed that the sentence "Pasensya na ang hindi kasama" in Exhibit CP-93 "A-25" constitutes an identifying mark, thus invalidating the ballot. The Court emphasized that any irrelevant remark on a ballot violates Section 135 of the Revised Election Code, as amended, which prohibits the use of any means to identify the voter's vote. On the appealability of the case due to conversion into a city: The Court reiterated its ruling in a similar case that the conversion of a municipality into a city after the election in dispute cannot alter the nature of the office involved in the protest. Therefore, the conversion of Batangas into a city did not make the decision of the Court of First Instance appealable on questions of fact.
Main Doctrine
The acceptance of a temporary or primarily confidential position by a protestant in an electoral case does not constitute abandonment of the protest, as public interest demands that the true winner be known. Furthermore, a ballot found in the box for spoiled ballots may still be considered valid if it is determined to be so, and the mere fact that a ballot contains an irrelevant remark does not automatically invalidate it unless it is proven to be an identifying mark.