G.R. No. L-13242 - Reforma vs. De Luna

In the general elections held on November 8, 1955, the only candidates for Mayor of Catanauan, Quezon were Leon Reforma and Macario de Luna.
The board of canvassers initially tallied the votes as follows:

Based on the official canvass, Reforma was proclaimed mayor‐elect with a majority of 27 votes.

De Luna filed a protest in the Court of First Instance of Quezon, challenging the correctness of returns in several precincts (Nos. 7, 8, 10, 10A, 11, 11A, and 14).
In response, Reforma filed a counter-protest questioning the validity of returns from Precincts Nos. 6 and 8A.
The trial court appointed three commissioners to revise and recount the ballots.

The revision unearthed 33 ballots in which de Luna’s name was written not in the proper space for mayor but in spaces reserved for other offices (senator, governor, etc.).
Although these ballots were objected to by Reforma’s counsel and marked as exhibits, de Luna did not claim them as valid votes during the trial.

On August 13, 1956, during the trial’s continuation, Reforma’s counsel failed to appear, leading the court to declare the case submitted for decision based solely on the evidence of the protestant (de Luna).
Even though Reforma’s counsel later motioned for reconsideration by explaining his absence (attributed to a train derailment incident), the trial court ultimately rendered a decision on September 28, 1956, declaring Reforma as the mayor‐elect with a plurality of 30 votes.
It is noteworthy that the trial court did not count the 33 disputed ballots in favor of de Luna; rather, it disregarded them due to the absence of evidence justifying their inclusion.

The appellate court’s recount yielded different figures: Reforma with 1,604 votes and de Luna with 1,616 votes, giving de Luna a plurality of 12 votes.

On appeal, de Luna argued that even if the 33 ballots were irregular—since his name was not marked in the mayoral space—they should still count as votes for him because they had been found in the ballot boxes and were noted in the commissioners’ report.
Reforma countered this claim by objecting to the method of counting these disputed ballots, contending they were illegal under the Revised Election Code and should have been declared void.
The central point then became whether the 33 ballots, not formally presented as evidence during trial and having the candidate’s name placed in improper spaces, could be examined and counted by the court.

The procedure for examining ballots in contested elections is governed by Sections 175, 176, and 177 of the Revised Election Code.

Section 175 authorizes the court, motu proprio, to have the ballot boxes, registry lists, and other election documents produced for examination and recount.
The provisions emphasize summary, expedited proceedings in election contests to resolve disputes quickly in view of public interest.

The case also raised the issue of whether technicalities concerning the formal presentation of evidence (i.e., the 33 ballots) should prevent the court’s inquiry into their legality and proper designation for the contested office.

Whether the 33 ballots—where de Luna’s name appeared in spaces other than that reserved for mayor—are legally valid votes despite not being formally presented as evidence by petitioner during the trial.

Whether the court may, in the interest of justice and public policy in the summary nature of election contests, examine such ballots even if they were not formally objected to or introduced during the lower court proceedings.

Whether de Luna’s subsequent claim, on appeal, that these improperly marked ballots should count in his favor constitutes a reversible error given that they were not raised at trial and yet affected the final vote count.