Adeser v. Tago
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the general elections of June 5, 1928, for municipal president of Dimiao, Bohol, Mateo Tago was initially declared to have obtained 213 votes and Serapion Adeser 212 votes, with Tago proclaimed as the winner by the municipal board of canvassers. Procedural History: Serapion Adeser filed a protest, alleging irregularities in the appreciation of ballots in precincts 1 and 3. Mateo Tago filed a counter-protest, alleging irregularities in precincts 2 and 4. Commissioners recounted the ballots, reporting Tago with 209 votes and Adeser with 204 votes after rejecting contested ballots. The Court of First Instance of Bohol, after adjudicating contested ballots, ultimately awarded 215 votes to Adeser and 212 to Tago, declaring Adeser the winner. The Petition: Mateo Tago appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance, assigning errors in the appreciation of specific ballots in favor of Serapion Adeser and the non-appreciation of a ballot in his own favor.
Issue(s)
Whether ballots containing the nickname "Apiong Cerila" should be counted for Serapion Adeser, who stated he was also known by that nickname. Whether ballots with only the Christian name and initial of the surname ("Serapion A") are valid for Serapion Adeser. Whether ballots with the Christian name for president and the surname between the president and vice-president spaces are valid for Serapion Adeser. Whether ballots with illegible names for municipal president are valid for Serapion Adeser. Whether a ballot with a burn mark on the corner is valid for Serapion Adeser. Whether a ballot with a poorly written name for municipal president should be counted for Mateo Tago.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance with a modification, increasing Mateo Tago's vote count by one, resulting in Serapion Adeser obtaining 215 votes and Mateo Tago obtaining 213 votes. Adeser was declared the duly elected municipal president.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of ballots with the nickname "Apiong Cerila": The Court held that these ballots were valid for Serapion Adeser. It reasoned that since Adeser stated in his certificate of candidacy that he was also known by the nickname "Apiong Cerila," and given the common practice among Filipinos of being better known by nicknames, voters using this nickname could only have intended to vote for Adeser, especially in the absence of any other person known by that nickname. The will of the voters must be given effect. On the issue of ballots with "Serapion A": The Court found these ballots valid for Serapion Adeser. While acknowledging previous rulings that a Christian name and surname initial alone might not suffice, it distinguished the present case by noting that Serapion Adeser was the sole candidate with that name and surname. Therefore, the voters' intention to vote for him was clear, and the use of only the initial "A" did not indicate an intent to desist from voting for him, as they did not erase the name or request a new ballot. On the issue of ballots with the Christian name and surname misplaced: The Court ruled these ballots valid for Serapion Adeser. It observed that in these ballots, the Christian name "Serapion" was written for the municipal president, and the surname "Adeser" was placed between the spaces for municipal president and vice-president. The Court concluded that this placement was due to a lack of space, not an intention to vote for the vice-presidency, and thus, the voters' intent to vote for Adeser as president was evident. On the issue of illegible ballots: The Court considered these ballots valid for Serapion Adeser. It applied the principle of idem sonans, stating that even if the names written were "Siropio adise" and "Serafiur adisr," their sound was similar enough to "Serapion Adeser" for a Filipino reader to ascertain the voter's intent. The Court held that these votes should be admitted in favor of Adeser. On the issue of the burned ballot: The Court found ballot 5-X of precinct No. 1 valid for Serapion Adeser. Upon examination, the burn mark on the upper right-hand corner was determined to be accidental and not made for the purpose of identifying the ballot. Therefore, its admission as a valid vote was deemed correct. On the issue of ballot 6-X for Mateo Tago: The Court agreed with the appellant that ballot 6-X should be admitted in favor of Mateo Tago. Despite the inartistic and defective manner in which his name and surname were written, a careful examination led the Court to conclude that the voter clearly intended to vote for Mateo Tago. This ballot was added to Tago's vote count.
Main Doctrine
Ballots containing a candidate's nickname, Christian name and initial of surname, or illegible names, may be considered valid if the voter's intent to vote for a specific candidate can be clearly ascertained. Accidental marks on ballots do not invalidate them.