Martinez v. Salimbangon
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: In the May 14, 2007 elections for Representative of the Fourth Legislative District of Cebu, petitioner Celestino A. Martinez III and private respondent Benhur L. Salimbangon were candidates. On March 29, 2007, Edilito C. Martinez filed his certificate of candidacy for the same position. On April 3, 2007, petitioner filed a petition to declare Edilito C. Martinez a nuisance candidate. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Second Division declared Edilito C. Martinez a nuisance candidate only on June 12, 2007, almost a month after the elections. Salimbangon was proclaimed winner with 67,277 votes against Martinez's 67,173 votes, a difference of 104 votes. Procedural History: Petitioner filed an Election Protest Ad Cautelam, later converted into a Regular Protest. The protest was based on allegations of ballots with only "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" not being counted for petitioner due to the presence of Edilito C. Martinez, incorrect appreciation of ballots, and unlawful manipulation of votes in election returns. Salimbangon filed an Answer with Counter-Protest, alleging coercion, vote-buying, misreading of ballots, and other anomalies. During revision, ballots with only "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" were classified as stray. The Petition: Petitioner sought to nullify the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal's (HRET) Decision and Resolution, arguing that the HRET gravely abused its discretion by failing to credit the "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" votes to him, despite Edilito C. Martinez being declared a nuisance candidate. Petitioner contended that the HRET disenfranchised 5,401 voters and disregarded the mandate of the Constitution. He argued that the ruling in Bautista v. Commission on Elections should apply. Private respondent countered that the HRET correctly refused to credit these votes, as the COMELEC's declaration of Edilito C. Martinez as a nuisance candidate came after the election, and voters had no knowledge of this at the time of casting their ballots.
Issue(s)
Whether the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the election protest and declaring private respondent as the duly elected Representative. Whether ballots containing only the surname "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" should be considered stray votes or counted in favor of the bona fide candidate (petitioner) after the other candidate with the similar surname was declared a nuisance candidate. What is the legal effect of declaring a nuisance candidate as such in a final judgment after the elections? This includes the application of the ruling in Bautista v. Commission on Elections.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The Decision dated May 28, 2009, and Resolution dated July 30, 2009, of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) in HRET Case No. 07-035 are annulled and set aside. Petitioner Celestino A. Martinez III is declared the duly elected Representative of the Fourth Legislative District of Cebu in the May 14, 2007 elections. This decision is immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion: The Court found that the HRET gravely abused its discretion in affirming the proclamation of private respondent. The HRET failed to give weight to relevant circumstances that made the will of the electorate determinable, particularly the substantial number of ballots with only "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" which were declared stray. These votes, if credited to the petitioner, would have overcome the narrow margin of victory of the private respondent. The Court emphasized that election laws should be liberally construed to give effect to the will of the electorate, and technicalities should not defeat this purpose. On the issue of whether ballots containing only the surname "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" should be considered stray votes: The Court held that ballots indicating only the similar surname of two candidates for the same position may, in appropriate cases, be counted in favor of the bona fide candidate and not considered stray, even if the other candidate was declared a nuisance candidate by final judgment after the elections. This is particularly true when the COMELEC's delay in resolving the nuisance candidate petition caused prejudice to the bona fide candidate and led to the disenfranchisement of voters. The Court distinguished this case from Bautista v. Commission on Elections by noting that in Bautista, the nuisance candidate was declared as such before the election, and the electorate was informed, whereas in this case, the declaration came after the election, and there was no prior notification to the voters. However, the adverse effect on the voter's will was similarly present, if not worse, due to the substantial number of ballots declared stray. On the legal effect of declaring a nuisance candidate after the elections and the application of the ruling in Bautista v. Commission on Elections: The Court found the petitioner's invocation of the Bautista ruling meritorious, despite the HRET's distinction based on the timing of the nuisance candidate declaration. While the factual scenario in Bautista was not exactly the same, the adverse effect on the voter's will was similarly present in this case. The Court stressed that the primordial objective of election laws is to give effect to, rather than frustrate, the will of the voter. The inclusion of nuisance candidates and the delay in their disqualification expose the bona fide candidate to the risk of having votes invalidated as stray, thereby frustrating the electorate's choice. The Court noted that COMELEC Resolution No. 4116 provides that in cases where a nuisance candidate has the same name as a bona fide candidate, the decision of a Division on nuisance candidates shall be immediately executory after five days, and if a motion for reconsideration is filed, the votes cast shall not be considered stray but shall be counted and tallied for the bona fide candidate. This principle, the Court reasoned, should apply even if the declaration of nuisance came after the election due to COMELEC's delay, as it prevents the frustration of the electorate's will.
Main Doctrine
Ballots indicating only the surname of two candidates for the same position may be counted in favor of the bona fide candidate and not considered stray, even if the other candidate was declared a nuisance candidate by final judgment after the elections, especially when the COMELEC's delay in resolving the nuisance candidate petition caused prejudice.