Santos v. Commission on Elections
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Jennifer Antiquera Roxas (respondent) filed a certificate of candidacy (COC) for Member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Pasay City. Rosalie Isles Roxas also filed a COC, using the name "Roxas Jenn-Rose" on the ballot, which respondent argued was confusingly similar to her own name, "Roxas Jenny," and intended to cause confusion. Respondent filed a petition to declare Rosalie a nuisance candidate. Procedural History: The COMELEC Second Division declared Rosalie a nuisance candidate and cancelled her COC. Rosalie's motion for reconsideration was denied by the COMELEC En Banc. The elections proceeded, and the results showed Rosalie receiving 13,328 votes and respondent receiving 33,738 votes. The top six candidates, including Consertino C. Santos and Ricardo Escobar Santos, were proclaimed. Respondent filed an Election Protest Ad Cautelam, praying that Rosalie's votes be credited to her and that the proclamation of Santos be annulled. The COMELEC En Banc issued a Writ of Execution to implement its resolutions, directing the Special City Board of Canvassers (SCBOC) to count Rosalie's votes in favor of respondent and amend the total votes. Subsequently, the COMELEC En Banc issued a second Writ of Execution, directing the annulment of the proclamation of several candidates, including petitioners, and the proclamation of respondent. Petitioners filed these consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohibition, arguing grave abuse of discretion and violation of due process and immutability of judgment. The Petition: Petitioners Consertino C. Santos, Ricardo Escobar Santos, and Ma. Antonia Carballo Cuneta sought to annul the COMELEC En Banc's November 8, 2017 Writ of Execution, arguing they were denied due process and that the writ violated the rule on immutability of judgments by directing actions not included in the original resolutions.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC En Banc acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the November 8, 2017 Writ of Execution without affording petitioners the opportunity to be heard. Whether the COMELEC En Banc acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Writ of Execution in violation of the rule on immutability of judgments and COMELEC Resolution No. 10083. Whether the votes cast for a nuisance candidate should be credited to the legitimate candidate with a similar name, regardless of whether the declaration of nuisance becomes final and executory before or after the elections. Whether, in a multi-slot office, the votes of a nuisance candidate are automatically added to the legitimate candidate. On the COMELEC's delay and the modification of the writ.
Ruling
The Court affirmed with modification the November 8, 2017 Writ of Execution of the COMELEC En Banc. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Court was lifted, and the COMELEC was ordered to complete the implementation of the modified writ within thirty (30) days from receipt of the Decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and due process: The Court found that petitioners were not denied due process. While other candidates are not typically real parties-in-interest in a nuisance candidate petition, the COMELEC gave petitioners sufficient opportunity to be heard during the execution proceedings by filing multiple motions and manifestations. Ricardo, in particular, exhaustively exercised his right to be heard. The COMELEC considered these incidents on their merits and issued an order denying them. Petitioners were also served with a copy of the second writ of execution, enabling them to file the present petitions. On the issue of immutability of judgment and COMELEC Resolution No. 10083: The Court held that the crediting of votes from a nuisance candidate to a legitimate candidate with a similar name is a necessary consequence of the declaration of nuisance and can be accomplished during the execution proceedings. A cancelled certificate of candidacy means the candidate is treated as if they never filed one, making the votes for them invalid for that candidate. Thus, the crediting of votes is a logical consequence of the final decision in the nuisance case, not an act that violates the immutability of judgment. The Court also clarified that Section 11(K)(b) of COMELEC Resolution No. 10083, which pertains to nuisance candidates, does not distinguish whether the decision becomes final before or after the elections, unlike Section 11(K)(a) for disqualification cases. On whether votes of a nuisance candidate should be credited regardless of timing of finality: The Court reiterated that final judgments declaring a nuisance candidate should effectively cancel the COC as of election day. This prevents the evil of nuisance candidates causing confusion and frustrating the electorate's will due to delays in COMELEC proceedings. The Court cited Bautista, Martinez III, and Dela Cruz to support the principle that votes for a nuisance candidate must be credited to the legitimate candidate with a similar name, even if the declaration becomes final after the elections. This ensures the will of the electorate is respected and prevents exploitation of COMELEC's delays. On whether votes are automatically added in a multi-slot office: The Court agreed with the OSG that in a multi-slot office, the votes of a nuisance candidate are not automatically added to the legitimate candidate. This is because a voter might have voted for both the nuisance candidate and the legitimate candidate on the same ballot. To avoid double counting, the COMELEC must inspect the ballots. If a ballot contains votes for both, only one vote should be credited to the legitimate candidate. This prevents the legitimate candidate from receiving two votes from one voter and guards against potential exploitation of the system. On the COMELEC's delay and the modification of the writ: The Court noted the significant delays in the COMELEC's resolution of the nuisance case, which prejudiced the respondent and the electorate. The Court emphasized that such delays should not prejudice the legitimate candidate or frustrate the voter's will. Therefore, the COMELEC was ordered to execute the second writ of execution immediately, as modified, to properly count the votes in a multi-slot office.
Main Doctrine
In cases involving nuisance candidates, the votes cast for the nuisance candidate shall be credited to the legitimate candidate with a similar name, regardless of whether the declaration of nuisance becomes final and executory before or after the elections. However, in multi-slot offices, the COMELEC must inspect ballots to avoid double counting votes where both the nuisance and legitimate candidates are voted for on the same ballot.