Martinez vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

Ballots indicating only the similar surname of two 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 only after the elections. 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 delaying resolution of petitions until after elections are held.

Celestino A. Martinez III and Benhur L. Salimbangon were rival candidates for Representative in the Fourth Legislative District of Cebu in the May 14, 2007 elections. Edilito C. Martinez, a resident of Barangay Tambongon, Daan-Bantayan, Cebu, filed his certificate of candidacy for the same position on March 29, 2007, sharing the surname "Martinez" with petitioner. The Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881) and Republic Act No. 6646 (The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987) govern the treatment of nuisance candidates, providing that a candidate may be declared a nuisance candidate when the certificate of candidacy has been filed to cause confusion among voters by the similarity of names. Section 211(1) of the Omnibus Election Code provides that where only the surname of a candidate is written, the vote is valid only if there is no other candidate with the same surname for the same office.

Celestino A. Martinez III and Benhur L. Salimbangon were candidates for Representative in the Fourth Legislative District of Cebu in the May 14, 2007 elections. 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, alleging that Edilito was a motorcycle-for-hire driver locally known as a "habal-habal," owned no real property, had not filed income tax returns, had no political machinery or supporters, and never campaigned. The COMELEC Second Division, however, issued its Resolution declaring Edilito a nuisance candidate only on June 12, 2007, almost one month after the elections. No motion for reconsideration was filed, and the decision became final and executory.

On July 9, 2007, Salimbangon was proclaimed winner on the basis of official results showing he garnered 67,277 votes against Martinez's 67,173 votes, a difference of 104 votes. Martinez filed an Election Protest Ad Cautelam on July 18, 2007, which the HRET converted into a Regular Protest of all 1,129 precincts. The protest was based on approximately 300 ballots with only "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" written on the line for Representative, which the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) did not count for Martinez because another congressional candidate shared the same surname. Martinez also alleged incorrect appreciation of ballots, ballots prepared by one or more persons, and fake and unofficial ballots counted in favor of Salimbangon. Salimbangon filed his Answer with Counter-Protest covering 954 precincts on grounds of coercion, vote-buying, misreading/miscounting of votes, and other electoral anomalies.

During revision, ballots with only "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" were not counted and temporarily classified as stray, comprising the majority of the 9,831 stray ballots claimed by Martinez. The HRET sustained the BEI in considering these ballots as stray under Section 211(1) of the Omnibus Election Code, holding that since Edilito C. Martinez's name was still on the official list of candidates on election day, there was no way of determining the real intention of the voter. The HRET denied 5,401 such ballots as votes for Martinez. The final overall results of the recount showed Martinez with 66,655 votes and Salimbangon with 67,108 votes, giving Salimbangon a plurality of 453 votes. The HRET dismissed the protest and affirmed Salimbangon's proclamation, expressing sympathy for Martinez as a victim of COMELEC's inaction but refusing to apply the ruling in Bautista vs. Commission on Elections on the ground that the factual circumstances differed.

• Failure to Credit "MARTINEZ" Votes: Petitioner alleged that the HRET gravely abused its discretion in failing to credit the "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" votes in his favor despite the finality of the COMELEC resolution declaring Edilito C. Martinez a nuisance candidate, arguing that the Decision disenfranchised 5,401 voters in utter disregard of Art. VIII, Sec. 14 of the Constitution.
• No Clear Reason for Rejection: Petitioner maintained that there was no clear and good reason to justify the rejection of the 5,401 ballots, pointing out that only 104 votes separated him from private respondent at the time of proclamation, while nuisance candidate Edilito C. Martinez got only 363 votes.
• Invalidation Without Legal Basis: Petitioner contended that the HRET invalidated ballots for him without stating the legal and factual bases therefor, and on grounds other than the objections raised by private respondent.
• Misapplication of Bautista: Petitioner argued that the HRET erred in concluding that the ruling in Bautista vs. Commission on Elections could not be applied, citing the dissenting opinion of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura who posited that the final declaration by COMELEC that Edilito was a nuisance candidate should be deemed effective as of the day of the election.

• No Review of Ballot Appreciation: Private respondent assailed petitioner's desire for the Court to review the physical appreciation of ballots conducted by the HRET, noting that petitioner assigned as issues the alleged erroneous invalidation of ballots ruled as written by two persons and even appreciated ballots declared by the HRET as marked ballots.
• Post-Election Anomalies: Private respondent detailed mostly post-election anomalies and irregularities, particularly in Bogo City, perpetrated by petitioner as found by the HRET, such as tampering of election returns and statement of votes and vote padding/tampering.
• Correct Refusal to Credit Votes: Private respondent asserted that the HRET correctly refused to credit petitioner with the "MARTINEZ" and "C. MARTINEZ" votes, stressing that there were admittedly three candidates for Representative as of May 14, 2007, and that no voter knew of any nuisance congressional candidate on election day.
• Inapplicability of Bautista: Private respondent argued that it would be illogical and most unfair to count the ballots in favor of petitioner since it is erroneous to base the voter's intent on a supervening circumstance inexistent on the date the ballot was accomplished and cast, and that the HRET did not err in holding Bautista inapplicable there being no announced declaration of a nuisance candidate when voters cast their ballots.

• Legal Effect of Post-Election Nuisance Declaration: Whether the final judgment declaring a nuisance candidate as such after the elections has the legal effect of canceling the certificate of candidacy as of election day.
• Appreciation of Similar-Surname Ballots: Whether ballots containing only the similar surname of two candidates should be considered stray votes or counted in favor of the bona fide candidate.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the HRET gravely abused its discretion in affirming Salimbangon's proclamation despite the 5,401 ballots with only "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" written on the line for Representative.

• Legal Effect of Post-Election Nuisance Declaration: Yes. Final judgments declaring a nuisance candidate should effectively cancel the certificate of candidacy filed by such candidate as of election day. The Court held that the prohibition against nuisance candidates is aimed precisely at preventing uncertainty and confusion in ascertaining the true will of the electorate.
• Appreciation of Similar-Surname Ballots: Yes, in appropriate cases. Ballots indicating only the similar surname of two candidates for the same position may 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.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Yes. The HRET gravely abused its discretion in affirming Salimbangon's proclamation despite the final outcome of revision showing 5,401 ballots with only "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" written on the line for Representative, votes which should have been properly counted in favor of petitioner after considering all relevant circumstances clearly establishing that such votes could not have been intended for Edilito C. Martinez.

• Legal Effect of Post-Election Nuisance Declaration: The Court reasoned that by their very nature, proceedings in cases of nuisance candidates require prompt disposition, and the law mandates the Commission and the courts to give priority to disqualification cases to the end that a final decision shall be rendered not later than seven days before the election. In many instances, however, proceedings against nuisance candidates remained pending and undecided until election day and even after canvassing. The Court noted that the COMELEC's Second Division granted the petition and declared Edilito a nuisance candidate, noting his failure to answer and deny accusations, and that no motion for reconsideration was filed, making the decision final and executory. The Court emphasized that petitioner should not be prejudiced by COMELEC's inefficiency and lethargy, and that the evidence clearly showed Edilito was an unknown in politics within the district, a "habal-habal" driver with neither financial resources nor political support. The Court cited COMELEC Resolution No. 4116, which provides that the decision or resolution of a Division on a nuisance candidate where the nuisance candidate has the same name as the bona fide candidate shall be immediately executory after the lapse of five days, and in which case, "the votes cast shall not be considered stray but shall be counted and tallied for the bona fide candidate."

• Appreciation of Similar-Surname Ballots: The Court distinguished Bautista from the present case, noting that in Bautista, the COMELEC resolution declaring Edwin Bautista a nuisance candidate was issued before the elections, with the electorate having been informed through newspaper releases. The Court acknowledged that the factual scenarios differ, but held that "the adverse effect on the voter's will was similarly present in this case, if not worse, considering the substantial number of ballots with only 'MARTINEZ' or 'C. MARTINEZ' written on the line for Representative — over five thousand — which have been declared as stray votes, the invalidated ballots being more than sufficient to overcome private respondent's lead of only 453 votes after the recount." The Court stressed that Bautista upheld the basic rule that the primordial objective of election laws is to give effect to, rather than frustrate, the will of the voter. The Court found that the HRET failed to give weight to relevant circumstances that make the will of the electorate determinable, including the findings of the Commission on Edilito's personal circumstances clearly indicating lack of serious intent to run, his sudden absence after filing, and the fact that he did not even campaign. The Court also noted the HRET's failure to mention the total number of votes actually cast for Edilito, which could support petitioner's contention that the "MARTINEZ" and "C. MARTINEZ" votes could not have been intended for him.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The Court reiterated that judgments of Electoral Tribunals are beyond judicial interference unless rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, which implies capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power. The Court found that the HRET gravely abused its discretion in affirming Salimbangon's proclamation despite the final outcome of revision showing 5,401 ballots that should have been counted in favor of petitioner. The Court held 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. Accordingly, the 5,401 votes for "MARTINEZ" or "C. MARTINEZ" were credited to petitioner, giving him a total of 72,056 votes against 67,108 votes for private respondent, a winning margin of 4,948 votes.

• Nuisance Candidate Doctrine — A nuisance candidate is one whose certificate of candidacy is presented and filed to cause confusion among the electorate by the similarity of names of the registered candidate or by other circumstances which demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that final judgments declaring a nuisance candidate should effectively cancel the certificate of candidacy as of election day, and that the prohibition against nuisance candidates is aimed precisely at preventing uncertainty and confusion in ascertaining the true will of the electorate.

• Doctrine of Liberal Construction of Election Laws — 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 Court applied this doctrine in crediting the 5,401 ballots to petitioner.

• Doctrine of Grave Abuse of Discretion — Grave abuse of discretion implies capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. The Court applied this doctrine in finding that the HRET gravely abused its discretion in affirming Salimbangon's proclamation despite the 5,401 ballots that should have been counted for petitioner.

• Primordial Objective of Election Laws — The primordial objective of election laws is to give effect to, rather than frustrate, the will of the voter. In the appreciation of ballots, doubts are resolved in favor of their validity. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that the inclusion of nuisance candidates turns the electoral exercise into an uneven playing field where the bona fide candidate is faced with the prospect of having a significant number of votes cast for him invalidated as stray votes by the mere presence of another candidate with a similar surname.

• "We therefore hold that 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." — This is the ratio decidendi of the case, establishing the rule that similar-surname ballots may be counted for the bona fide candidate even where the nuisance declaration came after the elections.

• "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." — This passage articulates the doctrinal basis for retroactive effect of nuisance candidate declarations to election day.

• "Respondent HRET gravely abused its discretion in affirming the proclamation of respondent Salimbangon as the duly elected Representative of the Fourth Legislative District of Cebu despite the final outcome of revision showing 5,401 ballots with only 'MARTINEZ' or 'C. MARTINEZ' written on the line for Representative, votes which should have been properly counted in favor of petitioner and not nullified as stray votes, after considering all relevant circumstances clearly establishing that such votes could not have been intended for 'Edilito C. Martinez' who was declared a nuisance candidate in a final judgment." — This passage states the Court's finding of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the HRET.

• "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." — This passage articulates the liberal construction doctrine applied in the case.

• Bautista vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 133840, November 13, 1998, 298 SCRA 480 — Controlling precedent followed by the Court. The case involved a mayoralty candidate declared a nuisance candidate before the elections, and the Court ruled that votes indicating only the surname of two candidates should not be considered stray but counted in favor of the bona fide candidate. The Court in the present case extended this ruling to situations where the nuisance declaration comes after the elections.

• Pamatong vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004, 427 SCRA 96 — Cited for the rationale behind the prohibition against nuisance candidates, emphasizing the State's compelling interest in ensuring that electoral exercises are rational, objective, and orderly, and the need to avoid confusion, deception, and frustration of the democratic process.

• Batul vs. Bayron, G.R. Nos. 157687 and 158959, February 26, 2004, 424 SCRA 26 — Cited for the proposition that election contests involve the adjudication not only of private and pecuniary interests of rival candidates, but also of paramount public interest considering the need to dispel uncertainty over the real choice of the electorate.

• Lazatin vs. House Electoral Tribunal, No. L-84297, December 8, 1988, 168 SCRA 391 — Cited for the rule that judgments of Electoral Tribunals are beyond judicial interference unless rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

• Robles vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 86647, February 5, 1990, 181 SCRA 780 — Cited for the proposition that judicial review may be invoked in exceptional cases upon a clear showing of arbitrary and improvident use by the Tribunal of its power as constitutes a clear denial of due process of law.

• Abubakar vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. Nos. 173310 & 173609, March 7, 2007, 517 SCRA 762 — Cited for the definition of grave abuse of discretion as capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

• Punzalan vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 126669, 127900, 128800 and 132435, April 27, 1998, 289 SCRA 702 — Cited for the rule that laws governing election contests must be liberally construed to defeat the will of the electorate.

• Section 69, Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881) — Defines nuisance candidates and authorizes the Commission to refuse to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy filed to put the election process in mockery or disrepute or to cause confusion among voters by the similarity of names. The Court applied this provision in determining that Edilito C. Martinez was properly declared a nuisance candidate.

• Section 5, Republic Act No. 6646 (The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987) — Prescribes the procedure in cases of nuisance candidates, including the requirement that the Commission render its decision within five days from receipt of the hearing officer's findings. The Court noted that the law mandates prompt disposition of nuisance candidate cases.

• Section 211(1), Omnibus Election Code — Provides that where only the first name of a candidate or only his surname is written, the vote is valid if there is no other candidate with the same first name or surname for the same office. The Court interpreted this provision in light of the nuisance candidate doctrine, holding that the 5,401 ballots should have been counted for petitioner.

• Section 211(4), Omnibus Election Code — Provides rules for appreciation of ballots where two or more words are written on the same line, all of which are surnames of two or more candidates. This provision was cited in the Bautista case and discussed in the present case.

• Section 72, Omnibus Election Code — Mandates that the Commission and the courts give priority to cases of disqualification to the end that a final decision shall be rendered not later than seven days before the election. The Court noted that in many instances, proceedings against nuisance candidates remained pending until after elections.

• Article VIII, Section 14, Constitution — Cited by petitioner in arguing that the HRET's decision disenfranchised 5,401 voters in disregard of the constitutional mandate.

• COMELEC Resolution No. 4116 (May 7, 2001) — Provides that the decision or resolution of a Division on a nuisance candidate where the nuisance candidate has the same name as the bona fide candidate shall be immediately executory after the lapse of five days, and in which case, "the votes cast shall not be considered stray but shall be counted and tallied for the bona fide candidate." The Court cited this resolution in support of its ruling.

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno; Associate Justices Antonio T. Carpio, Renato C. Corona, Conchita Carpio Morales, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad, Jose P. Perez, and Jose C. Mendoza.

• Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura — Cited by petitioner in his arguments, Justice Nachura dissented from the majority HRET ruling and posited that the final declaration by COMELEC that Edilito C. Martinez was a nuisance candidate and the cancellation of his certificate of candidacy should be deemed effective as of the day of the election. His dissenting position was adopted by the Supreme Court in its ruling.