Torres v. Mayo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: In the general elections of December 14, 1937, Pablo L. Torres and Esteban Mayo were candidates for mayor of Lipa. The municipal board of canvassers initially declared Torres the winner with 4,352 votes against Mayo's 4,345, a plurality of seven votes. 2. Procedural History: Esteban Mayo contested the results by filing a protest with the Court of First Instance of Batangas. This court, after proceedings and evidence, declared Pablo L. Torres the mayor-elect with 4,377 votes, a plurality of thirty-one over Mayo's 4,346. Mayo appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, on August 1, 1939, reversed the lower court's decision, declaring Esteban Mayo the mayor-elect with 4,368 votes against Pablo L. Torres's 4,366, a plurality of two votes. 3. The Petition: Pablo L. Torres, dissatisfied with the Court of Appeals' decision, filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the adjudication and rejection of certain ballots were contrary to law and established rules. Upon denial of this motion, Torres filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, challenging the Court of Appeals' rulings on the validity and admissibility of specific ballots, which ultimately determined the election outcome.
Issue(s)
Whether certain ballots, specifically Exhibits T-162, T-217, T-180, and T-143, claimed by the petitioner, should have been admitted. Whether certain ballots, specifically Exhibits M-133, M-12, M-134, M-16, M-160, M-99, M-3, J-6, M-117, M-100, M-126, M-122, M-6, M-40, M-46, M-140, M-72, M-51, T-2, T-181, T-120, T-86, T-92, T-136, T-151, T-228, T-140, T-130, T-161, T-175, T-178, T-186, T-207, T-215, T-219, T-176, T-115, T-118, T-96, claimed by the respondent, were validly admitted by the Court of Appeals. Whether certain ballots, specifically Exhibits M-61, M-58, and M-43, claimed by the respondent, were correctly rejected by the Court of Appeals. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its final tally of votes, leading to an incorrect declaration of the mayor-elect.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari, reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, and declared Pablo L. Torres the Mayor-elect of Lipa with a plurality of two (2) votes over Esteban Mayo.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of petitioner's ballots (Exhibits T-162, T-217, T-180, T-143): The Court found that ballot T-162, with "G. jorres," should be admitted, interpreting "G" as a Tagalog salutation equivalent to "Sr." Ballot T-217, with "P. Rongkillo," was admissible because "P. Rongkillo" was a candidate for councilor, and its inclusion did not violate secrecy. Ballot T-180, with "cab" after a name, was not a distinguishing mark, and the name could be considered a scattering vote. Ballot T-143, initially rejected for appearing to be written by two hands, was found by the Court to have been written by only one hand. These four ballots were ordered admitted. On the admissibility of respondent's ballots: The Court affirmed the CA's admission of several ballots based on established jurisprudence. Ballot M-133, with "Concordio Robles," was a valid scattering vote. Ballot M-12 was valid as the extraneous writing was by another person. Ballot M-134 was valid as "Bo Kopino Sayao" was idem sonans with "Rufino Sayas." Ballots M-160 and M-99, with "maximo kalao" and "macemo kalao," were considered scattering votes for Maximo Kalaw, not Moises Kalaw, and thus valid. Ballots M-3, J-6, and M-117, with "S. Mayo" and "I. Mayo," were valid as "S" and "I" could be confused with "E" when pronounced. Ballots M-100 and M-126, with "Estiban" and "Maio," were correctly admitted as votes for Esteban Mayo. Ballot M-122, where the name was written below the line, was valid due to manifest intent. Ballots M-6, M-40, and M-46, with printed or capitalized names, were valid as these were not considered marks. Ballot M-140, with an "X" mark added by another person, was valid. Ballot M-72, with "E. Miyo," was idem sonans with "E. Mayo." Ballot M-51, with "Mayon" and "Istiban Maio," was valid as "Mayon" was idem sonans with "Mayo." The Court also admitted numerous ballots for the petitioner where names were variations of "Pablo L. Torres" under the idem sonans rule (e.g., "Pablo Fores," "Pablo Tiñes," "Paloloris"). On the rejection of respondent's ballots: The Court upheld the CA's rejection of ballot M-61, finding "e Maoe" not idem sonans with Esteban Mayo. Ballot M-58, with "istiban Mayo" for provincial board member, was correctly rejected as a vote for mayor. Ballot M-43, not being before the Court, was presumed correctly rejected by the CA for being prepared by two hands. On the final tally: By admitting the four ballots (T-162, T-217, T-180, T-143) for the petitioner and adding them to the 4,366 valid votes found by the CA, the petitioner Pablo L. Torres obtained a total of 4,370 votes. The respondent Esteban Mayo had 4,368 votes as determined by the CA. Therefore, Torres had a plurality of two votes.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reviewed the validity of specific ballots in an election protest, applying rules on distinguishing marks, "idem sonans," and "scattering votes" to determine the true plurality of votes between candidates for mayor.