Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1929 > March 1929 Decisions > G.R. No. 30282 March 1, 1929 - SERAPION ADESER v. MATEO TAGO

052 Phil 856:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 30282. March 1, 1929.]

SERAPION ADESER, protestant-appellee, v. MATEO TAGO, protestee-appellant.

Pablo D. Maceren for, Appellant.

No appearance, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. ELECTIONS, NICKNAME OF CANDIDATE ON BALLOT. — Inasmuch as among Filipinos of scant education it very frequently happens that a person is better known by his nickname than by his Christian name and surname, and as it does not appear that there is any other person with the nickname "Apieng Cerila" (except Serapion Adeser), the voters who wrote such nickname in the space for the office of municipal president could not have voted for any other than Serapion Adeser.

2. ID.; CHRISTIAN NAME AND INITIAL OF SURNAME OF CANDIDATE ON BALLOT. — While it is true that in the cases of Cailles v. Gomez and Barbaza (42 Phil., 496), and Lucero v. De Guzman (45 Phil., 852), it was held for the reasons stated therein, that the Christian name and the initial letter of the candidate’s surname alone are not sufficient to identify the person voted for, nevertheless, when there is no other candidate bearing the same name and surname and the same initials, the Christian name and the initial letter of the surname are sufficient to identify the candidate bearing said Christian name and said initial of surname.

3. ID.; CANDIDATE’S SURNAME WRITTEN UNDER HIS CHRISTIAN NAME. — The fact that in two of the ballots the candidate’s Christian name was written in the space for the municipal president and his surname between it and the space for vice-president, does not show that the voters meant to vote for the said candidate as municipal vice-president.

4. ID.; "IDEM SONANS." — Two ballots bearing the words "Siropio adise" and "Serafiur adisr," which, read by a Filipino who barely knows how to read and write, has a sound similar to Serapion Adeser, fall squarely within the rule of idem sonans, and are therefore valid and may be admitted in favor of Serapion Adeser.

5. ID.; BALLOT MARKED WITH A BURN. — With regard to ballot 5-X, contested by the protestee because it was marked with a burn on the upper right-hand corner, a careful examination clearly shows that said burn was accidental and not made for purposes of identification and, therefore, its admission was correct.

6. ID.; SURNAME NOT CLEARLY WRITTEN ON BALLOT. — With respect to ballot 6-X, in which the protestee’s surname was not clearly written, a careful examination leads to the conclusion, from the inartistic and defective manner in which his name and surname are written in the space for the municipal president, that the voter desired to write said protestee’s name, and therefore this ballot should be admitted as a vote in his favor.


D E C I S I O N


VILLA-REAL, J.:


This appeal is taken by the protestee Mateo Tago from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Bohol holding that the protestant Serapion Adeser obtained 216 votes for the office of municipal president of Dimiao, Province of Bohol, in the general elections held in said municipality on June 5, 1928, and the protestee 212 votes, thus giving the former a plurality of 3 votes over the latter.

In support of his appeal the appellant assigns the following errors as committed by the court below in its judgment, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. The lower court erred in appreciating in favor of the petitioner the following ballots; l-A (precinct No. l) and 3-A (precinct No. 4) both with ’Apiong Cerila’ for president; 2-A (precinct No. l) with ’Serapion A.?;’ l-A, 2-A (precinct No. 2) and 4-A (precinct No. 4) with ’Serapion A;’ l-A (precinct No. 3) and 5-A (precinct No. 4) with ’Serapion’ on the space for president and ’Adeser’ on that for vice-president; l-A and 2-A (precinct No. 4), illegible; and 5-X (precinct No. 1) which was burned.

"2. The lower court erred in not appreciating in favor of the respondent ballot 6-X in precinct No. 1, with the name ’Mateo’ and a not well written surname for president.

"3. The lower court erred in finding that the petitioner obtained more votes than the respondent and in declaring the former elected president of the municipality of Dimiao."cralaw virtua1aw library

The following pertinent facts are necessary for the solution of the questions raised in the instant appeal.

In the general elections held in the municipality of Dimiao, Bohol, on June 5, 1928, among the registered candidates voted for the office of municipal president of said municipality, were Mateo Tago, who obtained 213 votes, and Serapion Adeser, who obtained 212 votes, giving a plurality of only one vote in favor of the former as against the latter, according to the results of the canvass, made by the municipal board of canvassers of Dimiao. In pursuance whereof, on June 7, 1928, said board proclaimed Mateo Tago President elect of said municipality.

Dissatisfied with said result, Serapion Adeser on June 13, 1928, and in due time, filed a motion of protest in the Court of First Instance of Bohol against Mateo Tago, alleging as a cause of protest, certain irregularities committed in the appreciation of ballots in precincts Nos. 1 and 3 of the municipality of Dimiao. Mateo Tago also filed, in due time, an answer with a counter-protest, alleging that irregularities had been committed in the appreciation of the ballots in precincts Nos. 2 and 4 of the same municipality.

Having acquired jurisdiction to try the protest and counter-protest by virtue of said motion, the Court of First Instance of Bohol, upon petition of the parties, appointed three commissioners who took charge of the opening of the four valid-ballot boxes of the four precincts, and of recounting the ballots contained therein, later on submitting to the trial court a report of the result of their proceedings, stating that the protestee Mateo Tago obtained 209 votes and the protestant Serapion Adeser 204 votes, having rejected seven (7) contested ballots in favor of the former, and thirteen (13) likewise contested, in favor of the latter. The said 20 contested ballots having been submitted to the Court of First Instance of Bohol for decision, the latter adjudicated three (3) of them to Mateo Tago, and eleven (11) to Serapion Adeser, which, added to the votes obtained by said candidates, respectively, gave a total result of 215 votes in favor of Serapion Adeser, and 212 votes in favor of Mateo Tago.

From this judgment Mateo Tago appealed to this court.

With respect to ballots, l-A of precinct No. 1, and 3-A of precinct No. 4 of the municipality of Dimiao, contested by the appellant in his first assignment of error as erroneously admitted in favor of Serapion Adeser, the vote being written in favor of one "Apiong Cerila" for the office of municipal president, it appears from the record that Serapion Adeser stated in his certificate of candidacy that he was also and still is known by the nickname of "Apiong Cerila." Inasmuch as among Filipinos of scant education it very frequently happens that a person is better known by his nickname than by his Christian name and surname, and as it does not appear that there is any other person with the nickname "Apiong Cerila" (except Serapion Adeser), the voters who wrote such nickname in the space for the office of municipal president of Dimiao could not have voted for any other than Serapion Adeser. This being the will of the two voters who used such nickname in voting for him, we must give it effect and hold said two ballots valid and admissible in favor of Serapion Adeser.

As to ballots 2-A of precinct No. 1, l-A of precinct No. 2, and 4-A of precinct No. 4, contested by the protestee-appellant as erroneously admitted by the court below in favor of Serapion Adeser because in the space for the office of the municipal president in each of them is Written only "Serapion A," while it is true that in the cases of Cailles v. Gomez and Barbaza (42 Phil., 496), and Lucero v. De Guzman (45 Phil., 852), it was held for the reasons stated therein, that the Christian name and the initial letter of the candidate’s surname alone are not sufficient to identify the person voted for, nevertheless, we believe that when there is no other candidate bearing the same name and surname and the same initials, the Christian name and the initial letter of the surname are sufficient to identify the candidate bearing said Christian name and said initial of surname.

In the instant case, Serapion Adeser is the only candidate for municipal president of Dimiao, Bohol, with said name and surname, and when the four voters, respectively wrote in the four ballots the name of "Serapion A" in the space for the office of the municipal president, they could not have had the intention to vote for any other candidate than Serapion Adeser.

When they wrote only the initial A of Adeser’s surname, it cannot be said that said four voters desisted from voting for him, for if they had so intended, they would have erased his name and placed another instead, or asked for another ballot.

It appearing clearly, then, that the intention of the four voters, who wrote in their respective ballots the name of "Serapion A" for the office of the municipal president of Dimiao was to vote for Serapion Adeser, effect must be given to their will and said ballots must be admitted as valid in favor of the said Serapion Adeser.

With respect to ballots, l-A of precinct No. 3, and 5-A of precinct No. 4, contested by the protestee-appellant Mateo Tago as erroneously admitted in favor of Serapion Adeser because the Christian name Serapion is written in the space for the municipal president, and the surname Adeser between the space for municipal president, and that for municipal vice-president, a careful examination of said two ballots will show that there being no space left wherein to write the surname Adeser, after having written the Christian name Serapion, the voters were under the necessity of writing the surname below said Christian name, and this circumstance does not indicate that said voters desired to vote for Serapion Adeser for the office of municipal vice-president of Dimiao.

The admission of these two ballots as valid in favor of Serapion Adeser is not, therefore, erroneous. As to ballots l-A and 2-A of precinct No. 4, contested by the protestee-appellant as erroneously admitted by the trial court in favor of Serapion Adeser because the latter’s name and surname are illegible, there are written in the space for the office of municipal president in ballot l-A the words "Siropio adise," and in ballot 2-A, the words "Serafiur adisr," which, read by a Filipino who barely knows how to read and write, has a sound similar to Serapion Adeser, save that the voters who wrote them did not know how to spell correctly. These two ballots squarely come within the rule of idem sonans and, consequently, are valid and may be admitted in favor of Serapion Adeser.

Ballot 5-X of precinct No. 1, contested by the protesteeappellant as erroneously admitted in favor of Serapion Adeser, because it was marked with a burn on the upper right-hand corner, after being submitted to a careful examination clearly shows that said burn was accidental and not made for purposes of identification and, therefore, its admission was correct.

In the second assignment of error, the protestee-appellant claims ballot 6-X of precinct No. 1, because it clearly appears that he has been voted for therein for the municipal presidency, although his surname is not clearly written. A careful examination of said ballot leads to the conclusion, from the inartistic and defective manner in which his name and surname are written in the space for the municipal president, that the voter desired to write the name of Mateo Tago; therefore, this ballot should be admitted as a vote in his favor.

Summarizing the above, we find that the two ballots, l-A of precinct No. 1, and 3-A of precinct No. 4, contested by the protestee-appellant Mateo Tago as inadmissible because in the spaces for municipal president is written the nickname "Apiong Gerila" and not Serapion Adeser; the four ballots, 2-A of precinct No. 1, l-A and 2-A of precinct No. 2, and 4-A of precinct No. 4, also contested by Mateo Tago as inadmissible because in the space for municipal president is written only the Christian name Serapion, and the initial A of the surname; and not the whole surname Adeser; the two ballots, l-A of precinct No. 3, and 5-A of precinct No. 4, likewise contested by protestee-appellant as inadmissible because the Christian name Serapion is written in the space for municipal president and the surname Adeser between the space for municipal president and in that for municipal vice-president; and the two ballots l-A and 2-A of precinct No. 4, also contested as inadmissible because the names appearing in the spaces for municipal president are illegible; and the ballot 5-X of precinct No. 1, also contested by Mateo Tago as inadmissible because it is marked with a burn, are all valid and may be admitted in favor of Serapion Adeser; and that ballot 6-X claimed by Mateo Tago as a vote in his favor is also valid and admissible. From the 215 ballots adjudicated by the court below to Serapion Adeser, there is none, then, to be deducted; but one ballot must be added to the 212 adjudicated to Mateo Tago, making a total of 213, the former obtaining a plurality of 2 votes over the latter.

By virtue whereof, and with the aforementioned modification, the appealed judgment is affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Johnson, Malcolm, Ostrand and Romualdez, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


STREET, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I dissent from so much of this decision as holds that a ballot on which is written "Serapion A" can be read as a vote for Serapion Adeser, on the ground stated in my dissenting opinion in Namocatcat v. Adag, G. R. No. 30283. 1

Endnotes:



1. P. 794, ante.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1929 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 30282 March 1, 1929 - SERAPION ADESER v. MATEO TAGO

    052 Phil 856

  • G.R. No. 30019 March 2, 1929 - KUI PAI & CO. v. DOLLAR STEAMSHIP LINE

    052 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. 30491 March 2, 1929 - DONATO CRUZ, ET AL. v. TEOFILO DE JESUS, ET AL.

    052 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. 30981 March 2, 1929 - ESTEBAN MONTERAMOS, ET AL. v. ISIDRO PAREDES

    052 Phil 873

  • G.R. No. 28532 March 4, 1929 - JESUS R. ROA v. CONCEPCION ROA, ET AL.

    052 Phil 879

  • G.R. No. 30382 March 5, 1929 - CEBU AUTOBUS CO. v. ANDRES D. DAMIAN

    052 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. 30814 March 5, 1929 - ROSALIO GONZALES v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    052 Phil 895

  • G.R. No. 30896 March 5, 1929 - HIGINO ENAGE v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    052 Phil 896

  • G.R. No. 29462 March 7, 1929 - IGNACIO DEL PRADO v. MANILA ELECTRIC CO.

    052 Phil 900

  • G.R. Nos. 30012-15 March 7, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH L. WILSON, ET AL.

    052 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. 30953 March 7, 1929 - NARCISA JAVIER v. ISIDRO PAREDES

    052 Phil 910

  • G.R. Nos. 30012-30015 March 9, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH L. WILSON, ET AL.

    052 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. 30247 March 11, 1929 - HOSPICIO DE SAN JOSE v. FIDELITY AND SURETY COMPANY OF THE PHIL.

    052 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. 29752 March 12, 1929 - SOTERO IGNACIO v. SANTOS CHUA HONG

    052 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. 30264 March 12, 1929 - MANILA RALROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    052 Phil 950

  • G.R. No. 30460 March 12, 1929 - C. H. STEINBERG v. GREGORIO VELASCO, ET AL.

    052 Phil 953

  • G.R. No. 29292 March 13, 1929 - TOMASA C. VIUDA DE PAMINTUAN v. JUAN TIGLAO

    053 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 30393 March 14, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTANISLAO PERADILLA

    053 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. 29927 March 15, 1929 - PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO. v. MANILA ELECTRIC CO

    053 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. 30291 March 15, 1929 - CATALINO SEVILLA v. GAUDENCIO TOLENTINO

    053 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. 30035 March 18, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTASIA ABADILLA ET AL.

    053 Phil 23

  • G.R. No. 30780 March 18, 1929 - AURELIANO ROSANES v. AMADO PEJI

    053 Phil25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. 30513 March 19, 1929 - VICENTE ARDOSA v. ESTEBAN DE LA RAMA ET AL.

    053 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. 30601 March 21, 1929 - ANTONIO CHUA CHIACO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    053 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 32329 March 23, 1929 - In re LUIS B. TAGORDA

    053 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 29503 March 23, 1929 - AGRIPINA GALLION v. NARCISO L. GAYARES ET AL.

    053 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 30020 March 23, 1929 - ADELA ROMERO DE PRATTS v. MENZI & CO.

    053 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. 30067 March 23, 1929 - PAYATAS ESTATE IMPROVEMENT CO. v. MARIANO TUASON

    053 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 30266 March 25, 1929 - ASIA BANKING CORPORATION v. FRED J. ELSER

    054 Phil 994

  • G.R. No. 29832 March 25, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CANUTO ASINAS ET AL.

    053 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. 30074 March 25, 1929 - MARIANO CARAGAY v. FRANCISCO URQUIZA ET AL.

    053 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. 30242 March 25, 1929 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. ALVARA FAJARDO

    053 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. 30280 March 25, 1929 - NICANOR CARAG v. WARDEN OF THE PROVINCIAL JAIL

    053 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. 30305 March 25, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLANDINA ISTORIS

    053 Phil 91

  • G.R. No. 30600 March 25, 1929 - RAMON DELES v. ARELLANO ALKONGA

    053 Phil 93

  • G.R. No. 30705 March 25, 1929 - MACARIO E. CAESAR v. FILOMENO GARRIDO

    053 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 30289 March 26, 1929 - SERAPIA DE GALA v. APOLINARIO GONZALES

    053 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 30608 March 26, 1929 - RAFAEL CARANDANG v. GALICANO AFABLE

    053 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 28379 March 27, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. CONSORCIA CABANGIS ET AL.

    053 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. 29448 March 27, 1929 - JOSE CASTILLO v. ESTEBAN VALDEZ ET AL.

    053 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. 29721 March 27, 1929 - AMANDO MIRASOL v. ROBERT DOLLAR CO.

    053 Phil 124

  • G.R. No. 29967 March 27, 1929 - JOSE GASTON ET AL. v. TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO. ET AL.

    053 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 30490 March 27, 1929 - BANK OF THE PHIL. v. ALBALADEJO Y CIA.

    053 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 30514 March 27, 1929 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. CRISTOBAL ABAGAT ET AL.

    053 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 30837 March 27, 1929 - POLICARPO RADAZA v. FRANCISCO D. ENAJE

    053 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. 30431 March 30, 1929 - Intestacy of Angel Gustilo v. PERPETUA SIAN

    053 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. 30541 March 30, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JOSE BELLA BAUTISTA

    053 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 30610 March 30, 1929 - MANUEL SALAK v. LUIS ESPINOSA

    053 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. 30648 March 30, 1929 - RUFINO FAUSTO v. JOSE VILLARTA

    053 Phil 166

  • G.R. No. 30836 March 30, 1929 - VICENTE OLANO v. BERNARDINO TIBAYAN

    053 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. 31348 March 30, 1929 - TAN C. TEE & CO. v. BEN F. WRIGHT

    053 Phil 172