Zapanta vs. COMELEC

In a multi-slot office, votes cast for a nuisance candidate whose name is confusingly similar to a bona fide candidate are not automatically credited in the latter's favor through simple arithmetic addition; COMELEC must inspect the ballots and credit the nuisance candidate's votes to the bona fide candidate only where the ballot does not also contain a vote for the bona fide candidate, so as to prevent double counting.

For the May 9, 2016 national and local elections, multiple candidates filed Certificates of Candidacy for the position of city councilor of the Second District of Antipolo City, Rizal—a multi-slot office entitled to eight seats in the Sangguniang Panlungsod. Alfred J. Zapanta, an incumbent city councilor and nominee of Aksyon Demokratiko, filed his Certificate of Candidacy on October 16, 2015. Reynaldo S. Zapanta, a member and nominee of Lakas-CMD, filed his on December 10, 2015 as a substitute candidate. Both indicated the nickname "Alfred" in their Certificates of Candidacy, causing their names on the official ballots to appear as "ZAPANTA, ALFRED (AKSYON)" and "ZAPANTA, ALFRED (LAKAS)," distinguishable only by ballot number and party affiliation. Edilberto U. Lagasca also filed a Certificate of Candidacy for the same position on October 16, 2015.

For the May 9, 2016 national and local elections, Reynaldo S. Zapanta, Alfred J. Zapanta, and Edilberto U. Lagasca each filed a Certificate of Candidacy for city councilor of the Second District of Antipolo City, Rizal, a position entitling the district to eight seats in the Sangguniang Panlungsod. Alfred, an incumbent city councilor and nominee of political party Aksyon Demokratiko, and Lagasca both filed their Certificates of Candidacy on October 16, 2015. Reynaldo, a member and nominee of Lakas-CMD, filed his on December 10, 2015 as a substitute for another candidate, Rolando Z. Zonio. In his Certificate of Candidacy, Reynaldo indicated "Alfred" as his nickname—the same nickname Alfred used—such that both candidates' names would appear on the official ballots as "ZAPANTA, ALFRED (AKSYON)" for Alfred and "ZAPANTA, ALFRED (LAKAS)" for Reynaldo, distinguishable only by ballot number and party affiliation.

On December 14, 2015, Alfred filed before COMELEC a Verified Petition to Deny Due Course and/or Cancel Certificate of Candidacy of Reynaldo S. Zapanta as Nuisance Candidate, alleging that Reynaldo never identified himself as "Alfred" and that the use of that nickname was designed to mislead voters and steal votes intended for him. To support his claim, Alfred presented printed copies of Reynaldo's social media accounts showing that Reynaldo used the name "Rey Zapanta," along with screenshots of public conversations where people referred to the account holder as "Rey." Reynaldo filed his Answer on January 13, 2016, questioning the authenticity of the social media accounts and presenting two affidavits—one from his wife, Fe Zapanta, and another from former barangay official Armando G. Panganiban—both attesting that Reynaldo had long been known as "Alfred" by friends, relatives, and associates. Reynaldo also emphasized his nomination by Lakas-CMD as evidence of his bona fide intention to run and argued that no confusion would arise on election day since their ballot entries were different.

The COMELEC Second Division granted Alfred's petition on May 8, 2016, declaring Reynaldo a nuisance candidate and canceling his Certificate of Candidacy. It found that the nickname "Alfred" nowhere resembled Reynaldo's given name, that the affidavits were unpersuasive, and that the inclusion of another candidate with a strikingly similar name for the same position would sow confusion among voters, particularly since Alfred was the incumbent councilor known to the city as "Alfred Zapanta." The elections proceeded on May 9, 2016. Among the ten candidates who received the highest votes, Lagasca placed eighth with 63,724 votes, Alfred placed ninth with 45,210 votes, and Reynaldo placed tenth with 31,667 votes. Lagasca was proclaimed as one of the eight duly elected councilors.

Reynaldo moved for reconsideration, arguing that similar names do not necessarily make him a nuisance candidate, that the burden of proving his nickname's inauthenticity rested on Alfred, and that confusion could not arise in an automated election. The COMELEC En Banc denied the motion on August 8, 2017, holding that Reynaldo failed to provide credible proof that he was publicly known as "Alfred," that his nomination by Lakas-CMD did not mitigate the confusion, and that confusion may still arise in an automated election as voters who mistakenly shade the wrong oval can no longer request replacement ballots. Relying on Dela Cruz vs. COMELEC, the En Banc ordered that the votes in favor of Reynaldo be credited to Alfred, directed the constitution of a Special City Board of Canvassers to amend the Certificate of Canvass, and declared nullified the proclamation of any candidate not included in the amended certificate. On August 31, 2017, COMELEC issued a Writ of Execution directing the Special City Board of Canvassers to convene, credit Reynaldo's 31,667 votes to Alfred (giving Alfred a total of 76,877 votes and moving him to sixth place), and proclaim the revised set of eight winning councilors—a result that would unseat Lagasca. Reynaldo and Lagasca then filed the present petition before the Supreme Court.

• Nuisance Candidate Declaration: Petitioner maintained that having the same nickname as private respondent does not automatically translate to an insincere candidacy. He argued that the affidavits from his wife and a former barangay official proved he was known as "Alfred," and that his affiliation with Lakas-CMD demonstrated his bona fide intention to run. He contended that no confusion could arise in an automated election because private respondent actively campaigned as "21. ZAPANTA, ALFRED (AKSYON)" on the official ballots, making the electorate aware of his identity.
• Disenfranchisement of Voters: Petitioner argued that automatically adding his votes to private respondent's would disenfranchise the electorate and violate their right to suffrage, asserting that it was "preposterous, if not downright foolish" for COMELEC to assume that all 31,667 voters who voted for him were confused.
• Due Process of Petitioner-Intervenor: Petitioner claimed that COMELEC's rulings violated petitioner-intervenor Lagasca's right to due process, as he was never involved or heard in the proceedings before the Commission and was not impleaded in the Nuisance Petition.
• Injunctive Relief: Petitioner argued that the elements for a temporary restraining order were present, as his right to equal access to opportunities for public service and petitioner-intervenor's right to due process would be threatened by execution of the Resolutions, the invasion of rights was material and substantial, and irreparable damage was imminent given the executory nature of the Resolutions and the impending removal of petitioner-intervenor.

• Nuisance Candidate Declaration (Private Respondent): Private respondent Alfred J. Zapanta argued that COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in declaring petitioner a nuisance candidate. He averred that despite being given opportunities, petitioner failed to show that he had been using the nickname "Alfred." He claimed petitioner neither campaigned nor distributed campaign paraphernalia, and that petitioner's only campaign action was a text message stating "RE-ELECT ALFRED ZAPANTA No. 22"—which was malicious since petitioner was not an incumbent councilor and which used private respondent's campaign slogan without stating petitioner's political party.
• Vote Counting (Private Respondent): Private respondent argued that it would be more preposterous to claim that an unknown candidate who never campaigned, posted no campaign materials, distributed no sample ballots, and was not even known as a candidate in his own sitio would garner 31,667 votes. He maintained that the disenfranchised parties were his own voters, not petitioner's.
• Due Process (Private Respondent): Private respondent contended that COMELEC did not unseat petitioner-intervenor but merely corrected a wrongful proclamation, and that since petitioner-intervenor was never duly elected, his right to due process was not violated by non-impleader. He noted that no provision in COMELEC's Rules of Procedure required impleading elected officials who might be affected, and that petitioner-intervenor was accorded due process when he received a copy of the August 8, 2017 Resolution.
• Finality (Private Respondent): Private respondent argued that the August 8, 2017 Resolution became final and executory since no temporary restraining order was issued within five days from petitioner's receipt, and that injunctive relief was no longer possible because COMELEC had already issued a Certificate of Finality on August 18, 2017.
• Vote Crediting (Office of the Solicitor General): The OSG, as counsel for public respondent COMELEC, argued that while COMELEC correctly declared petitioner a nuisance candidate, the 31,667 votes should not be automatically credited to private respondent. Since voters can cast more than one vote for city councilor, both the nuisance and bona fide candidate may each receive a vote from a single voter, and adding the nuisance candidate's votes to the bona fide candidate's would result in the latter receiving two votes from the same voter. Only where the voter casts a vote for the nuisance candidate alone should that vote be credited to the bona fide candidate.
• Recounting (Public Respondent COMELEC): COMELEC stood by its ruling that petitioner was a nuisance candidate but agreed with the OSG that the votes should not be automatically credited to private respondent, citing this Court's ruling in Santos vs. Commission on Elections. It submitted that the Special Board of Canvassers should be reconvened for the recounting and recanvassing of votes.

• Nuisance Candidate Declaration: Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring petitioner Reynaldo S. Zapanta as a nuisance candidate.
• Vote Crediting: Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it ordered that the votes cast for petitioner be credited to the votes cast for private respondent Alfred J. Zapanta.
• Proclamation of Petitioner-Intervenor: Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it declared void the proclamation of petitioner-intervenor Edilberto U. Lagasca as the duly elected member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the Second District of Antipolo City.

• Nuisance Candidate Declaration: No. COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in declaring petitioner a nuisance candidate, the evidence being insufficient to show that petitioner was publicly known as "Alfred" or that he had a bona fide intention to run for office.
• Vote Crediting: No, but with modification. COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering that petitioner's votes be credited to private respondent, as it merely applied the prevailing doctrine in Dela Cruz vs. COMELEC. However, in light of the subsequently promulgated Santos vs. COMELEC, the votes must be counted according to the multi-slot office rule: only votes for the nuisance candidate alone—not votes where both candidates appear on the same ballot—may be credited to the bona fide candidate.
• Proclamation of Petitioner-Intervenor: No. Petitioner-intervenor Lagasca was not a real party in interest in the Nuisance Petition and was therefore not required to be impleaded; his right to due process was not violated.

• Nuisance Candidate Declaration: The Court examined the names as they appeared on the official ballots—"ZAPANTA, ALFRED (AKSYON)" for Alfred and "ZAPANTA, ALFRED (LAKAS)" for Reynaldo—and found that the only way to distinguish the two candidates was by ballot number and party affiliation. A voter who knew only the name "Alfred" or the surname "Zapanta" would be confused as to which oval to shade. No other candidate for the position had either the name "Alfred" or "Zapanta." Petitioner failed to sufficiently show that voters could clearly identify that his chosen nickname pertained only to him. The affidavits he presented—from his wife and a former barangay official—were not enough to establish that he had been using the name "Alfred" or was publicly known by it. Despite being given an opportunity, petitioner failed to deny that he had no campaign materials using the name "Alfred Zapanta" or to present evidence to the contrary. His mere membership in a political party did not necessarily equate to a bona fide intention to run; he needed to demonstrate that he was serious in running for office, which he failed to do. Moreover, private respondent was more recognized by constituents as "Alfred Zapanta" by virtue of being an incumbent city councilor seeking reelection. The rationale against nuisance candidates, as discussed in Martinez III vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Pamatong vs. Commission on Elections, is the avoidance of confusion and the frustration of the democratic process by preventing a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate.

• Vote Crediting: The Court found that COMELEC did not exercise its judgment in an arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical manner when it ordered the addition of petitioner's votes to private respondent's. At the time COMELEC decided, the prevailing doctrine was Dela Cruz vs. COMELEC, which held that votes for a nuisance candidate should be added to the votes for the bona fide candidate. There were then no rules or jurisprudence dealing with the votes of a nuisance candidate in a multi-slot office. Applying the definition of grave abuse of discretion from David vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal, the Court held that COMELEC merely applied the current state of the law and did not commit a glaring misinterpretation or misapplication of jurisprudence. However, with the subsequent promulgation of Santos vs. COMELEC, the Court clarified the proper treatment of votes for nuisance candidates in multi-slot offices. Because a registered voter may vote for more than one candidate in a multi-slot office such as membership in the Sangguniang Panlungsod, it is possible that both the nuisance candidate and the bona fide candidate receive votes in a single ballot. Simple arithmetic addition would result in double counting. A legitimate candidate could even exploit this by fielding a person with the same surname to file a candidacy and be declared a nuisance candidate, thereby receiving all of that candidate's votes and potentially double votes. Accordingly, COMELEC must inspect the ballots: where a ballot contains a vote for the nuisance candidate alone, that vote is credited to the bona fide candidate; where a ballot contains votes for both, only one vote is counted for the bona fide candidate. This approach both discourages nuisance candidates and prevents voter disenfranchisement.

• Proclamation of Petitioner-Intervenor: The Court applied the doctrine in Santos vs. COMELEC, which settled that in a petition for disqualification of a nuisance candidate, the only real parties in interest are the alleged nuisance candidate and the affected legitimate candidate whose name is confusingly similar. Other candidates whose names bear no similarity to the nuisance candidate are not real parties in interest; their votes remain completely unaffected regardless of the outcome of the nuisance case. They are mere silent observers. As a mere observer, petitioner-intervenor was not required to be impleaded in the Nuisance Petition, and his right to due process could not have been violated. Records further showed that petitioner-intervenor received a copy of COMELEC's August 8, 2017 Resolution but took no action to protect his interest.

• Nuisance Candidate Doctrine — A nuisance candidate is one who, based on the attendant circumstances, has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the Certificate of Candidacy has been filed, the sole purpose being to cause confusion among voters and reduce the votes of a strong candidate. The State has a compelling interest to ensure that electoral exercises are rational, objective, and orderly; the paramount concern in barring nuisance candidates is the avoidance of confusion and the frustration of the democratic process by preventing a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate. In this case, the Court applied the doctrine by examining whether petitioner sufficiently demonstrated that he was publicly known by the nickname "Alfred" and had a bona fide intention to run, finding that the affidavits presented and political party affiliation were insufficient.

• Vote Crediting for Nuisance Candidates in Multi-Slot Offices (Santos Doctrine) — In a multi-slot office where a voter may vote for more than one candidate, COMELEC must not apply a simple mathematical formula of adding the votes of the nuisance candidate to the legitimate candidate with the similar name, as this may lead to double counting of votes. COMELEC must inspect the ballots: (1) if a ballot contains one vote for the nuisance candidate and no vote for the bona fide candidate, that vote is counted in the latter's favor; (2) if the ballot contains votes for both the nuisance and bona fide candidate, only one vote is counted for the latter. This doctrine was applied to modify COMELEC's Writ of Execution, which had simply added Reynaldo's 31,667 votes to Alfred's 45,210 votes.

• Real Parties in Interest in Nuisance Petitions — In a petition for disqualification of a nuisance candidate, the only real parties in interest are the alleged nuisance candidate and the affected legitimate candidate whose name is confusingly similar. Other candidates whose names bear no similarity to the nuisance candidate are not real parties in interest and are mere silent observers; they are not required to be impleaded, and their right to due process is not violated by non-impleader. The Court applied this to reject petitioner-intervenor Lagasca's due process claim.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion — Grave abuse of discretion refers to such arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical exercise of judgment as is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse must be patent and gross—amounting to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. A glaring misinterpretation of constitutional or statutory provisions, or a misreading or misapplication of the current state of jurisprudence, also constitutes grave abuse of discretion. The Court applied this standard and found that COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion, as it merely applied the prevailing doctrine at the time of its decision.

• "In a multi-slot office, all votes cast in favor of the nuisance candidate whose name is confusingly similar to a bona fide candidate shall not be automatically credited in the latter's favor. If the ballot contains one (1) vote for the nuisance candidate and no vote for the bona fide candidate, that vote will be counted in the latter's favor. However, if the nuisance candidate and the bona fide candidate each gets a vote, only one (1) vote will be counted in the latter's favor." — This is the opening statement of the decision and articulates the controlling rule for vote crediting in multi-slot offices, establishing the ratio decidendi that modifies the prior Dela Cruz doctrine.

• "Association to a political party per se does not necessarily equate to a candidate's bona fide intent; instead, he or she must show that he or she is serious in running for office." — This passage defines the standard for evaluating a candidate's bona fide intention, clarifying that political party nomination alone is insufficient to rebut a nuisance candidate declaration.

• "To ascertain that the votes for the nuisance candidate is accurately credited in favor of the legitimate candidate with the similar name, the COMELEC must also inspect the ballots. In those ballots that contain both votes for nuisance and legitimate candidate, only one count of vote must be credited to the legitimate candidate." — This quotation from the Santos doctrine, as adopted and applied in this case, establishes the mandatory procedure for COMELEC in multi-slot office elections involving nuisance candidates.

• "The only real parties in interest are the alleged nuisance candidate, the affected legitimate candidate, whose names are similarly confusing." — This passage from Santos, as applied here, defines the scope of real parties in interest in nuisance candidate petitions and establishes that unaffected candidates are mere observers without standing or due process claims.

• Santos vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. Nos. 235058 & 235064, September 4, 2018 — Controlling precedent on the treatment of votes for nuisance candidates in multi-slot offices and on the identification of real parties in interest in nuisance petitions. The Court applied its doctrine to modify COMELEC's vote-crediting order and to reject petitioner-intervenor's due process claim.
• Dela Cruz vs. Commission on Elections, 698 Phil. 548 (2012) — The prior doctrine holding that votes for a nuisance candidate should be added to the votes for the bona fide candidate. COMELEC relied on this case in issuing its Resolutions. The Court found that COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in applying it, as it was the prevailing doctrine at the time, but the doctrine was subsequently clarified by Santos for multi-slot offices.
• Martinez III vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 624 Phil. 50 (2010) — Cited for its discussion of the rationale behind the prohibition against nuisance candidates, emphasizing the avoidance of confusion and the frustration of the democratic process.
• Pamatong vs. Commission on Elections — Cited within the Martinez III discussion for the principle that the State has a compelling interest to ensure that electoral exercises are rational, objective, and orderly, and that candidates with no serious intentions impair the electoral process.
• David vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal, 795 Phil. 529 (2016) — Cited for the definition of grave abuse of discretion as arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack of jurisdiction, including glaring misinterpretation of law or misapplication of jurisprudence.
• Timbol vs. COMELEC — Cited within the Santos discussion for the principle that COMELEC should balance its duty to ensure a clean electoral process with the right of an alleged nuisance candidate to explain his or her bona fide intention before being declared a nuisance candidate.

• Section 69, Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881) — While not explicitly cited by article number in the decision, the nuisance candidate provision is the statutory basis underlying the entire dispute. It authorizes COMELEC to deny due course to or cancel a Certificate of Candidacy when it is shown that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office and his sole purpose is to cause confusion among voters. The Court's analysis of whether petitioner had a bona fide intention to run directly applies this provision.

Bersamin, C.J., Carpio, Peralta, Del Castillo, Jardeleza, Caguioa, A. Reyes, Jr., Gesmundo, J. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, and Carandang, JJ., concurred. Perlas-Bernabe, J., was on official leave.