CELESTINO A. MARTINEZ III vs. HRET and BENHUR SALIMBANGON

CELESTINO A. MARTINEZ III vs. HRET and BENHUR SALIMBANGON
G.R. No. 189034, January 11, 2010

Villarama, Jr., J.:

Facts: In the May 14, 2007 elections, petitioner Martinez and private respondent Salimbangon were among the candidates for Representative in the Fourth Legislative District of Cebu Province. On March 29, 2007, Edilito C. Martinez, a resident of Barangay Tambongon, Daan-Bantayan, Cebu, filed his certificate of candidacy for the same position.
On April 3, 2007, Martinez filed a petition to declare Edilito C. Martinez a nuisance candidate. However, the Commission on Elections Second Division issued its Resolution declaring Edilito C. Martinez a nuisance candidate only on June 12, 2007 or almost one (1) month after the elections.

On July 9, 2007, Salimbangon was proclaimed winner in the congressional elections for the Fourth Legislative District of Cebu on the basis of official results showing that he garnered sixty-seven thousand two hundred seventy-seven (67,277) votes as against Martinez who garnered sixty-seven thousand one hundred seventy-three (67,173) votes, or a difference of one hundred four (104) votes.

Martinez filed an election protest before the HRET based on the 300 ballots more or less with only “MARTINEZ” or “C. MARTINEZ” written on the line for Representative which the Board of Election Inspectors did not count for Martinez on the ground that there was another congressional candidate (Edilito C. Martinez) who had the same surname. In its decision dated May 28, 2009, the HRET sustained the BEI in considering the ballots as stray in accordance with Sec. 211 (1) of the Omnibus Election Code. Since the name of Edilito C. Martinez was still included in the official list of candidates on election day (May 14, 2007), the HRET held that five thousand four hundred one (5,401) ballots with "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" only written on the line for Representative were properly denied on the ground that there was no way of determining the real intention of the voter. The HRET dismissed the election protest, affirmed the proclamation of Salimbangon and declared him to be the duly elected Representative of the Fourth Legislative District of Cebu, having won by a plurality margin of 453 votes. Martinez moved for reconsideration of the Decision, but the HRET denied it by Resolution dated July 30, 2009. Hence, this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 which seeks to nullify the decision of HRET dismissing the election protest declaring private respondent as the duly elected Representative of the Fourth Legislative District of Cebu, and the Resolution dated July 30, 2009 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration thereof.

Issue:
1. What is the legal effect of declaring a nuisance candidate as such in a final judgment after the elections?
2. Should ballots containing only the similar surname of two (2) candidates be considered as stray votes or counted in favor of the bona fide candidate?

Held: The court finds the petition meritorious.
1. Ensconced in our jurisprudence is the well-founded rule that laws and statutes governing election contests especially appreciation of ballots must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the electorate in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by technical infirmities. An election protest is imbued with public interest so much so that the need to dispel uncertainties which becloud the real choice of the people is imperative. The prohibition against nuisance candidates is aimed precisely at preventing uncertainty and confusion in ascertaining the true will of the electorate. Thus, in certain situations as in the case at bar, final judgments declaring a nuisance candidate should effectively cancel the certificate of candidacy filed by such candidate as of election day. Otherwise, potential nuisance candidates will continue to put the electoral process into mockery by filing certificates of candidacy at the last minute and delaying resolution of any petition to declare them as nuisance candidates until elections are held and the votes counted and canvassed.

2. Ballots indicating only the similar surname of two (2) 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.

MATEO R. NOLLEN, Jr. vs. COMELEC and SUSANA M. CABALLES

MATEO R. NOLLEN, Jr. vs. COMELEC and SUSANA M. CABALLES
G.R. No. 187635, January 11, 2010

Velasco, Jr., J:

Facts: Respondent Susan M. Caballes and Mateo R. Nollen were candidates for punong barangay of Gibanga, Sariaya, Quezonin the October 29, 2007 barangay elections. Having garnered 456 votes as against the 448 votes Caballes obtained, Nollen was declared as the punong barangay-elect. Dissatisfied with the result, Caballes instituted an election protest with the MTC in Sariaya, Quezon. On June 3, 2008, the MTC rendered a decision declaring protestant Caballes as punong barangay-elect, having garnered 456 votes, or 5 votes more than the 451 votes of Nollen. Nollen filed his notice of appeal and paid the MTC the appeal fee of Php1000 on June 5, 2008. Following the elevation of the MTC’s records to the COMELEC, the First Division of the COMELECon September 22, 2008, dismissed Nollen’s appeal for his failure to pay the appeal fee of PhP3,000 prescribed by Section 3 and 4, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure within the reglementary period of 5 days. Nollen moved for reconsideration, praying for the liberal interpretation of the rules, but stating in the same breath that his PhP 1,000 appeal fee payment was sufficient to perfect his appeal. On October 6, 2008, Nollen paid the amount of PhP3,200 at the COMELEC Cash Division. The COMELEC en banc denied Nollen’s motion for reconsideration stating that, while he timely filed his Notice of Appeal and simultaneously paid the Php1000 appeal fee with the MTC, the appeal would be deemed registered and docketed only upon full payment of the filing fee to the COMELEC. Hence, this petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 seeking to nullify the order of the COMELEC en banc denying his motion for reconsideration.

Issue: Whether or not the appeal of Nollen was filed on time by paying the appeal fee in the MTC.

Held: The petition is meritorious.

Payment of appeal fees in appealed election protest cases is now separately required by the Rules of Court and Sec. 3, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended by Resolution No. 02-0130, Series of 2002, a situation not obtaining previously. The Court, thus, deems it right to put things in proper perspective.
As Aguilar stated and COMELEC Resolution No. 8654 reiterated, the payment of the PhP 1,000 appeal fee within five days from the promulgation of the Regional Trial Court or MTC decision technically “perfects” the appeal from the trial court’s decision. Such appeal is not dismissible as a matter of course on account alone of the inadequate payment or nonpayment of the filing fee of PhP 3,200. The legal situation, however, changes if the appellant, in the words of Resolution No. 8654, fails, as directed, to pay the amount within 15 days from receipt of notice from the COMELEC. In the instant case, albeit Nollen paid the PhP 3,200 only in October 2008, or long after his receipt of the June 2008 MTC decision, his appeal may validly be viewed as not fatally belated. COMELEC Resolution No. 8654 is applicable to his appeal, as the appeal was on June 5, 2008, or prior to July 24, 2008 when the more stringent Resolution No. 8486 took effect.

It cannot be overemphasized, however, that the warning given in Divinagracia is inapplicable to the case at bar, since the notice of appeal in the instant case was filed on June 5, 2008. In the strict legal viewpoint, Divinagracia contextually finds applicability only in cases where notices of appeal were filed at least after the promulgation of the Divinagracia decision on July 27, 2009. Since petitioner paid the appeal fee of PhP 1,000 simultaneously with his filing of his notice of appeal on June 5, 2008, the appeal is considered perfected pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 8654, taking it beyond the ambit of Divinagracia. Again, petitioner’s failure to pay the remaining PhP 3,200 within the prescribed period cannot be taken against him, since the COMELEC failed to notify him regarding the additional appeal fee, as provided by Resolution No. 8654. Although Nollen, following superseded jurisprudence, failed to pay the filing fee on time, he nonetheless voluntarily paid the remaining PhP 3,200 appeal fee on October 6, 2008. We, thus, credit him for remitting the amount of PhP 3,200, which, applying extant rules and prevailing jurisprudence, cannot be considered as having been belatedly paid. Hence, his petition should be given due course.