Abiera v. Abiera
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the general elections of June 5, 1928, Simeon Y. Abiera and Simeon P. Abiera were candidates for municipal president of Dao, Antique. Simeon P. Abiera was proclaimed the winner by the municipal board of canvassers with 480 votes against Simeon Y. Abiera's 446 votes. Procedural History: Simeon Y. Abiera filed an electoral protest with the Court of First Instance of Antique. The trial court decreed Simeon P. Abiera as the lawfully elected municipal president with a majority of 15 votes, dismissing the protest. Simeon Y. Abiera appealed. The Petition: The contestant-appellant, Simeon Y. Abiera, assigned several errors to the lower court, primarily concerning the adjudication of votes cast under names similar to the contestee-appellee, Simeon P. Abiera, and the failure to adjudicate certain votes to the contestant-appellant.
Issue(s)
Whether votes cast in the name of "Simeon Abiera" or "S. Abiera" should be counted in favor of Simeon P. Abiera. Whether certain ballots with names like "Simon Abra," "Simio Abera," "Sinon Auira," and "Simiun Abra" should be counted for Simeon P. Abiera. Whether certain ballots with names like "Cemor Paura," "C. P. Abrira," "Cumuñon P. Abira," "P. P. Abeire," "P. A. Simon Abera," "Simeon B. Abiera," and "S. B. Abiera" should be counted for Simeon P. Abiera. Whether certain ballots with names like "Simon F. Abiera," "Semion J. Abiera," and "S. F. Abiera" should be counted for Simeon P. Abiera and not for Simeon Y. Abiera. Whether certain ballots with names like "Simeon Ysulat," "Simeon A. Ysulat," "S. A. Ysulat," "S. Y. Abiera," "Se Y buira," and "Simen Abiera M" should be counted for Simeon Y. Abiera. Whether ballots with the initials "S Y A," "S A Abira," "S A Abiera," and "S A Abeyra" should be counted for Simeon Y. Abiera. Whether certain ballots found in the spoiled-ballot box should be counted for the respective candidates.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, with modifications regarding the number of votes to be adjudicated to the contestant-appellant. Simeon P. Abiera was ultimately declared the winner by a majority of one vote.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of votes cast as "Simeon Abiera" or "S. Abiera": The Court held that Simeon P. Abiera was entitled to these votes. Section 404 of the Election Law requires candidates with the same name and surname to state their second name or maternal family name in their certificate of candidacy, unless they have previously held office and used that name. Simeon P. Abiera had previously served as municipal president and had stated in his prior and current certificates of candidacy that he was known by "Simeon Abiera" and "S. Abiera." Simeon Y. Abiera, however, did not claim to be known by these names in his certificate, thus he could not claim votes cast under them. On the issue of names sounding similar to Simeon Abiera (e.g., "Simon Abra," "Simio Abera," "Sinon Auira," "Simiun Abra"): The Court applied the principle of idem sonans, stating that these names sounded sufficiently like "Simeon Abiera" to be counted in favor of Simeon P. Abiera. The idem sonans rule presumes that a variance in the spelling of a name is immaterial if the pronunciation is the same or very similar, indicating a clear intent to refer to the same person. On the issue of other similar names (e.g., "Cemor Paura," "C. P. Abrira," "Cumuñon P. Abira," "P. P. Abeire," "P. A. Simon Abera," "Simeon B. Abiera," "S. B. Abiera"): Similar to the previous issue, the Court found that these names also fell within the idem sonans rule. The Court cited previous jurisprudence (Cailles vs. Gomez and Barbaza; Mandac vs. Samonte) to support the application of this rule when the names, despite variations in spelling, are phonetically similar enough to indicate the same person was intended. On the issue of "Simon F. Abiera," "Semion J. Abiera," and "S. F. Abiera": The Court again applied the idem sonans rule, finding that these names sufficiently resembled "Simeon P. Abiera" and "S. P. Abiera" to be adjudicated to Simeon P. Abiera. The phonetic similarity was deemed sufficient to infer the voters' intent to cast their votes for him. On the issue of votes for Simeon Y. Abiera (e.g., "Simeon Ysulat," "Simeon A. Ysulat," "S. A. Ysulat," "S. Y. Abiera," "Se Y buira," "Simen Abiera M"): The Court found that Simeon Y. Abiera was entitled to these votes, even though he did not explicitly claim them in his certificate of candidacy. The Court reasoned that since there was no other candidate with these names and the intent to vote for Simeon Y. Abiera was clear, these votes should be counted in his favor. However, a ballot with "S. O. Abiera" could not be adjudicated to him as it did not match his name or initials. On the issue of ballots with initials "S Y A," "S A Abira," "S A Abiera," and "S A Abeyra": The Court ruled that these ballots could not be adjudicated to Simeon Y. Abiera. The Court stated that mere initials are not sufficient identification of a candidate. Furthermore, the capital "A" between "S" and "Abira" was neither identical nor similar in sound to any initial of the contestant, thus failing to clearly identify him. On the issue of ballots with "Y Ceneeon," "S. Y. Abiera," "S. A. Ysulat," "Simeon Y. Abiera," "Semeyon Sulat": The Court found that "Y Ceneeon" could not be counted for the contestant as the initial "Y" was not sufficient identification, despite "Ceneeon" sounding like "Simeon." However, ballots with "S. Y. Abiera," "S. A. Ysulat," "Simeon Y. Abiera," "Semeyon Sulat," and "S. Y. Abiera" were clearly indicative of the voters' intent to vote for Simeon Y. Abiera and were thus adjudicated to him. Ballots mistakenly placed in the spoiled-ballot box were ordered to be counted if they clearly indicated the voter's intent.
Main Doctrine
Votes cast for a candidate using names similar to their registered name, under the principle of idem sonans, shall be counted in their favor, provided such similarity clearly indicates the voter's intent to vote for that candidate. However, mere initials without further identifying marks are insufficient to identify a candidate.