Santos vs. COMELEC

In a nuisance candidate case, the votes cast for the nuisance candidate must be credited to the legitimate candidate with a similar name as a necessary consequence of the final declaration of nuisance candidacy, regardless of whether the decision became final before or after the elections; however, in a multi-slot office, the COMELEC must inspect the ballots and credit only one vote to the legitimate candidate where a single ballot contains votes for both the nuisance and legitimate candidates, to prevent double counting.

Jennifer Antiquera Roxas (respondent) was a re-electionist candidate for member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod for the First District of Pasay City in the May 9, 2016 National and Local Elections. Rosalie Isles Roxas filed a certificate of candidacy for the same position, choosing the ballot name "Roxas Jenn-Rose," which was confusingly similar to respondent's ballot name "Roxas Jenny." The petitioners—Consertino C. Santos, Ricardo Escobar Santos, and Ma. Antonia Carballo Cuneta—were among the six candidates proclaimed as winning members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, while respondent placed seventh. The dispute arose from the COMELEC's belated resolution of respondent's nuisance candidate petition against Rosalie, which was not finally resolved until after the elections had been held and the winners proclaimed.

On October 14, 2015, Jennifer Antiquera Roxas filed a certificate of candidacy for the position of member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod for the First District of Pasay City for the May 9, 2016 National and Local Elections, using the ballot name "Roxas Jenny." One week later, on October 21, 2015, respondent filed a petition for disqualification before the COMELEC against Rosalie Isles Roxas, praying that the latter be declared a nuisance candidate. Respondent pointed out that Rosalie indicated her nickname as "Jenn-Rose" to appear on the official ballot as "Roxas Jenn-Rose," strikingly similar to respondent's "Roxas Jenny," even though Rosalie's real nickname was actually "Saleng." Respondent argued that Rosalie's candidacy was filed solely to cause confusion among voters and that Rosalie lacked the financial capacity to sustain a campaign.

The COMELEC Second Division, in its Resolution dated March 30, 2016, granted the petition and declared Rosalie a nuisance candidate, cancelling her certificate of candidacy. The COMELEC found that Rosalie suspiciously chose the ballot name "Roxas Jenn-Rose," which was strikingly similar to respondent's "Roxas Jenny," and that the nickname "Jenn-Rose" did not resemble Rosalie's actual nickname "Saleng." The COMELEC further observed that Rosalie was not financially capable of sustaining a campaign and concluded that her candidacy was clearly meant to cause confusion and demonstrated no bona fide intention to run for office. On April 18, 2016, Rosalie filed a motion for reconsideration consisting of three pages.

While the motion for reconsideration was pending, the elections proceeded on May 9, 2016. The City Board of Canvassers reported the following results: Mark Calixto (51,369 votes, 1st), Jerome Advincula (45,986, 2nd), Ma. Antonia Cuneta (41,835, 3rd), Alberto Alvina (36,994, 4th), Ricardo Santos (35,756, 5th), Consertino Santos (34,291, 6th), respondent Jennifer Roxas (33,738, 7th), and Rosalie Isles Roxas (13,328, 14th). The top six candidates were proclaimed as duly elected members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod. On May 20, 2016, respondent filed an Election Protest Ad Cautelam before the COMELEC, praying that the votes cast for Rosalie be credited to her, that the proclamation of Consertino Santos be annulled, and that she be proclaimed as the winning candidate. She later amended the protest to include Advincula, Alvina, Cuneta, and Ricardo Santos as additional parties.

On July 22, 2016, more than two months after the elections, the COMELEC En Banc denied Rosalie's motion for reconsideration and affirmed the Second Division's resolution. The COMELEC's process server attempted to personally serve the resolution on Rosalie's counsel on July 27 and August 18, 2016, but the office was always closed and the guard refused to receive it. On November 14, 2016, respondent filed a motion for execution. The COMELEC considered the resolution served and, on February 15, 2017, issued a Certificate of Finality declaring the resolutions final and executory. On March 31, 2017, Ricardo, who was not a party in the nuisance case, filed a Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion seeking to defer the writ of execution and limit its tenor. On April 4, 2017, the COMELEC issued the first writ of execution directing the Special City Board of Canvassers (SCBOC) to count the 13,328 votes cast for Rosalie in favor of respondent, amending respondent's total to 47,066. The SCBOC convened on April 20, 2017 and carried out the crediting.

Ricardo filed multiple motions and manifestations before the COMELEC opposing the crediting of votes. On November 8, 2017, the COMELEC En Banc denied Ricardo's motions for lack of merit and issued the second writ of execution—the assailed writ—directing the annulment of the proclamation of Advincula, Cuneta, Alvina, Ricardo Santos, and Consertino Santos as the 2nd through 6th winning members, and proclaiming respondent as the 2nd winning candidate with 47,066 votes. Petitioners were served with a copy of the second writ, prompting them to file the present petitions.

• Due Process: Petitioners maintained that they were deprived of due process when the COMELEC En Banc hastily issued the first and second writs of execution without any actual or constructive notice to them, in clear violation of their constitutional right to be heard.
• Immutability of Judgments: Petitioners argued that the writs of execution did not conform to the dispositive portion of the March 30, 2016 and July 22, 2016 COMELEC resolutions, which were silent as to the crediting of Rosalie's votes in favor of respondent. They contended that the directives in the challenged writ were not included in the original resolutions, violating the rule that a writ of execution must conform strictly to the judgment to be executed.
• Timing Under COMELEC Resolution No. 10083: Petitioners asserted that under Section 11 of COMELEC Resolution No. 10083, the votes of a nuisance candidate can only be credited to the legitimate candidate if the decision or resolution is final and executory before the proclamation of the winning candidate. Since the resolutions only became final after the proclamation, there must be a separate election protest or action to determine whether the votes for the nuisance candidate are stray votes or can be credited to the legitimate candidate.
• Need for Separate Proceeding: Petitioners contended that the March 30, 2016 and July 22, 2016 resolutions merely declared Rosalie a nuisance candidate and did not include any directive to credit votes; therefore, a separate proceeding was necessary to determine the disposition of Rosalie's votes, respecting petitioners' right to due process.
• Injunctive Relief: Petitioners argued that a TRO and/or status quo ante order and/or preliminary injunction must be issued to prevent serious and irreparable damage to petitioners and to the electorate of the First District of Pasay City.

• Due Process Not Violated: Respondent countered that petitioners were never denied due process because Ricardo was able to file several motions in the nuisance case and that they were notified during the implementation of the first and second writs of execution.
• Crediting as Legal Consequence: Respondent argued that the crediting of votes in her favor was purely a legal consequence of the declaration that Rosalie was a nuisance candidate, requiring no separate proceeding.
• Prejudice from Delay: Respondent maintained that she continues to suffer the consequences of the evil brought about by the nuisance candidate when the COMELEC belatedly ruled on her nuisance case and when the Court issued a TRO.

• Due Process: Whether the COMELEC En Banc acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed writ of execution without affording petitioners the opportunity to be heard, in violation of their constitutional right to due process.
• Conformity of Writ to Judgment: Whether the assailed writ of execution violated the rule on immutability of judgments, given that the directives therein—crediting of votes, annulment of proclamation, and proclamation of respondent—were not included in the March 30, 2016 and July 22, 2016 COMELEC resolutions.
• Timing of Finality: Whether the votes of a nuisance candidate may be credited to the legitimate candidate when the decision in the nuisance case became final and executory only after the elections.
• Multi-Slot Office Crediting: Whether the simple arithmetic formula of automatically adding the votes of a nuisance candidate to the legitimate candidate is proper in a multi-slot office where a voter may vote for more than one candidate.

• Due Process: No. Petitioners were not denied due process. Although they were not real parties-in-interest in the nuisance case, Ricardo was given sufficient opportunity to be heard during the execution proceedings, having filed multiple motions and manifestations that the COMELEC considered and denied on the merits.
• Conformity of Writ to Judgment: No violation. The crediting of votes is a necessary consequence of the declaration of nuisance candidacy, and a judgment extends not only to what appears on its face but also to those necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.
• Timing of Finality: No distinction. The votes of a nuisance candidate shall be credited to the legitimate candidate once the decision becomes final and executory, regardless of whether it became final before or after the elections. Section 11(K)(b) of COMELEC Resolution No. 10083 does not distinguish on the timing of finality for nuisance candidate cases.
• Multi-Slot Office Crediting: The simple arithmetic formula is improper. In a multi-slot office, the COMELEC must inspect the ballots and credit only one vote to the legitimate candidate where a single ballot contains votes for both the nuisance and legitimate candidates, to prevent double counting.

• Due Process: The Court found that in a petition for disqualification of a nuisance candidate, the only real parties-in-interest are the alleged nuisance candidate and the legitimate candidate whose names are confusingly similar. Other candidates whose names bear no similarity to the nuisance candidate are not real parties-in-interest because the outcome of the nuisance case does not affect their votes; they are mere silent observers. Nevertheless, the Court found that the COMELEC gave petitioners sufficient opportunity to be heard during the execution proceedings. Ricardo filed multiple motions from March 31, 2017 through November 3, 2017, including a Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion, an Extremely Urgent Motion to Set the Case for Hearing, a Manifestation with Omnibus Motion to quash the writ, and a Reiterative Omnibus Motion. The COMELEC considered these incidents on the merits and issued an order denying them on November 8, 2017. Petitioners were likewise served with a copy of the second writ, enabling them to institute the present petitions. The Court concluded that the COMELEC properly exercised its jurisdiction and gave petitioners the opportunity to ventilate their grievances, even though they were technically not real parties-in-interest.

• Conformity of Writ to Judgment: While the general rule is that a writ of execution must conform strictly to the dispositive portion of the judgment, the Court held that a judgment is not confined to what appears on its face but extends to those necessarily included therein or necessary thereto. The crediting of votes from the nuisance candidate to the legitimate candidate with a similar name is a necessary consequence of the declaration that Rosalie was a nuisance candidate. A cancelled certificate of candidacy cannot give rise to a valid candidacy, much less to valid votes; the nuisance candidate is treated as if she never filed a COC. The transfer of votes can therefore be validly accomplished in the execution proceedings of the nuisance case. Requiring a separate proceeding solely for crediting votes would be absurd and unjust, as the crediting is a logical consequence of the final decision in the nuisance case.

• Timing of Finality: The Court distinguished between Section 72 disqualification cases and Section 69 nuisance candidate cases. Under Section 11(K)(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 10083, which refers to Section 72 disqualifications, the decision must become final and executory before the elections for votes to be considered stray and the second-placer proclaimed. Under Section 11(K)(c), if the case becomes final after the elections, the rule on succession applies. However, Section 11(K)(b), which specifically governs nuisance candidates, states that votes cast for the nuisance candidate shall be added to the candidate sharing the same surname, without distinguishing whether the decision became final before or after the elections. The Court relied on Martinez III vs. HRET, which held that final judgments declaring a nuisance candidate should effectively cancel the COC as of election day, as if the nuisance candidate was never a candidate. The Court warned that requiring finality before the elections would incentivize political opponents to field nuisance candidates and deliberately delay resolution of nuisance cases until after the elections to prevent the proclamation of legitimate candidates. The legitimate candidate should not be prejudiced by the COMELEC's inefficiency and lethargy.

• Multi-Slot Office Crediting: The Court agreed with the Office of the Solicitor General that the simple arithmetic formula of adding all votes of the nuisance candidate to the legitimate candidate is inaccurate in a multi-slot office. In a multi-slot office such as membership in the Sangguniang Panlungsod, a voter may vote for more than one candidate, making it possible that both the legitimate and nuisance candidates receive votes on a single ballot. Automatically crediting all nuisance candidate votes to the legitimate candidate would result in double counting—giving the legitimate candidate two votes from one voter. The Court also noted the potential for exploitation: a legitimate candidate could recruit a person with the same surname to file a candidacy and opt to be declared a nuisance candidate, thereby harvesting all those votes and potentially receiving double votes. The Court directed the COMELEC to inspect the ballots: where a ballot contains votes for both the nuisance and legitimate candidates, only one vote shall be credited to the legitimate candidate. The Court further ordered the COMELEC to amend Resolution No. 10083 to reflect the proper counting of votes in a multi-slot office when there is a nuisance candidate.

• Nuisance Candidate Doctrine — Under Section 69 of B.P. Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code), the COMELEC may motu proprio or upon a verified petition refuse to give due course to or cancel a COC if it is shown that the certificate was filed to put the election process in mockery or disrepute, or to cause confusion among voters by similarity of names, or by other circumstances demonstrating that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run. The State has a compelling interest in ensuring rational, objective, and orderly electoral exercises. The rationale is to prevent confusion and frustration of the democratic process by ensuring a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate.

• Crediting of Votes from Nuisance Candidate to Legitimate Candidate — When a candidate is declared a nuisance candidate by final and executory judgment, the votes cast for the nuisance candidate must be credited to the legitimate candidate with a similar name. This is a necessary legal consequence of the declaration, as a cancelled COC cannot give rise to a valid candidacy or valid votes. No separate proceeding is required for the crediting of votes; it can be validly accomplished in the execution proceedings of the nuisance case. The crediting applies regardless of whether the decision became final before or after the elections, because a final judgment declaring a nuisance candidate effectively cancels the COC as of election day, as if the nuisance candidate was never a candidate.

• Real Parties-in-Interest in Nuisance Candidate Cases — In a petition for disqualification of a nuisance candidate, the only real parties-in-interest are the alleged nuisance candidate and the legitimate candidate whose names are confusingly similar. Other candidates whose names bear no similarity to the nuisance candidate are not real parties-in-interest and are mere silent observers, because the outcome of the nuisance case does not affect their votes.

• Multi-Slot Office Rule for Crediting Votes — In a multi-slot office where a voter may vote for more than one candidate, the COMELEC must not apply a simple arithmetic formula of adding all votes of the nuisance candidate to the legitimate candidate. The COMELEC must inspect the ballots: where a single ballot contains votes for both the nuisance and legitimate candidates, only one vote shall be credited to the legitimate candidate, to prevent double counting and potential exploitation of the system.

• "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." — This passage, quoted from Martinez III vs. HRET, articulates the doctrinal basis for treating a final nuisance candidate declaration as effective as of election day, preventing exploitation of procedural delays.

• "To subscribe to petitioners' argument – that there should be a separate proceeding solely for the purpose of crediting the votes in favor of the legitimate candidate – would be absurd. When a candidate is declared a nuisance candidate, it certainly follows that he or she cannot be voted for as he or she is not a candidate, consequently, the votes shall be credited to the legitimate candidate." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the necessity of a separate proceeding for crediting votes, holding that crediting is a logical consequence of the nuisance declaration requiring no independent action.

• "Therefore, in a multi-slot office, the COMELEC must not merely apply a simple mathematical formula of adding the votes of the nuisance candidate to the legitimate candidate with the similar name. To apply such simple arithmetic might lead to the double counting of votes because there may be ballots containing votes for both nuisance and legitimate candidates." — This passage establishes the new rule for multi-slot offices, requiring ballot inspection to prevent double counting when both the nuisance and legitimate candidates appear on the same ballot.

• Bautista vs. COMELEC, 359 Phil. 1 (1998) — Controlling precedent followed. The Court held that votes separately tallied for a nuisance candidate were not stray votes but should be credited to the legitimate candidate with a similar name, even though the disqualification was not yet final on election day. Technicalities should not defeat voter intention when it is discoverable from the ballot.

• Martinez III vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 624 Phil. 50 (2010) — Controlling precedent followed. The Court held that votes for a nuisance candidate should be counted in favor of the legitimate candidate because the candidacy of the nuisance candidate was meant to confuse the electorate. The legitimate candidate should not be prejudiced by the COMELEC's lethargy. Final judgments declaring a nuisance candidate should effectively cancel the COC as of election day.

• Dela Cruz vs. COMELEC, 698 Phil. 548 (2012) — Controlling precedent followed. The Court held that even in automated elections, votes for a nuisance candidate should be credited to the legitimate candidate. The Court distinguished Section 72 disqualification cases from Section 69 nuisance candidate cases, noting that the timing of finality is material only for the former.

• Timbol vs. COMELEC, 754 Phil. 578 (2015) — Cited for the proposition that in nuisance candidate petitions, the COMELEC should balance its duty to ensure clean elections with the right of the alleged nuisance candidate to explain his or her bona fide intention before being declared a nuisance candidate. Used to define the real parties-in-interest in nuisance cases.

• Pamatong vs. COMELEC, 470 Phil. 711 (2004) — Cited for the rationale behind the prohibition against nuisance candidates: the State's compelling interest in ensuring rational, objective, and orderly electoral exercises, and the practical considerations in conducting elections.

• Section 69, B.P. Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code) — Defines nuisance candidates and authorizes the COMELEC to refuse to give due course to or cancel a COC filed to put the election process in mockery or cause confusion among voters by similarity of names or by circumstances demonstrating lack of bona fide intention to run. Applied as the statutory basis for declaring Rosalie a nuisance candidate and for the crediting of votes doctrine.

• Section 72, B.P. Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code) — Governs disqualification cases and mandates priority disposition not later than seven days before the election. Distinguished from Section 69 nuisance candidate cases: under Section 72, votes for a disqualified candidate are considered stray and not counted, and the timing of finality (before or after elections) is material. This distinction is critical because it does not apply to nuisance candidate cases under Section 69.

• Section 11(K), COMELEC Resolution No. 10083 — Provides the rules for proclamation of winning candidates in cases involving cancelled COCs and nuisance candidates. Section 11(K)(a) governs Section 72 disqualifications and requires finality before elections for votes to be stray. Section 11(K)(b) governs nuisance candidates and states that votes for the nuisance candidate shall be added to the candidate sharing the same surname, without distinguishing on timing of finality. The Court found this provision insufficient for multi-slot offices and directed the COMELEC to amend it.

• Section 78, B.P. Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code) — Governs petitions to deny due course to or cancel a COC on the ground of false material representation. Cited in Dela Cruz for the analogy that a cancelled COC cannot give rise to a valid candidacy or valid votes, supporting the principle that a nuisance candidate's votes must be credited to the legitimate candidate.

Leonardo-De Castro, C.J., Carpio, Peralta, Bersamin, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza, Caguioa, Tijam, A. Reyes, Jr., Gesmundo, and J. Reyes, Jr., JJ. Del Castillo, J., was on official leave.