Case Summary (G.R. No. 32910)
Parties and Setting, Certificates of Candidacy, and Election Result
Simeon Y. Abiera filed a certificate of candidacy for municipal president stating that he was a resident of Dao, a duly qualified elector, and eligible for the office. He also stated that he belonged to no party, and that his post-office address for electoral purposes was Dao, Antique. Crucially, he swore that he was generally known by the name of Simeon Y. Abiera or S. Y. Abiera and other variants, including Simeon Abiera Y. and Simeon Ysulat A., as well as “Maestro Simeon Abiera” and “Maestro Simeon.”
Simeon P. Abiera, the contestee and appellee, submitted a certificate of candidacy stating his age and similar eligibility facts, but also that he belonged to the Nacionalista Colectivista Party. He stated that he was generally known by the name of Simeon P. Abiera or S. P. Abiera, and he claimed all ballots containing the names “Simeon Abiera,” “S. Abiera,” and “C. Abiera.”
In the municipal canvass on June 7, 1928, the municipal board adjudicated 480 votes to Simeon P. Abiera and 446 votes to Simeon Y. Abiera. It then proclaimed Simeon P. Abiera municipal president-elect of Dao by a majority of thirty-six votes.
Trial Court Proceedings and Judgment on Protest
After the proclamation, Simeon Y. Abiera filed a motion of protest with the Court of First Instance of Antique. After due notice and the filing of an answer by Simeon P. Abiera, the Court of First Instance heard the evidence submitted by both parties.
The Court of First Instance rendered judgment dismissing the protest. It declared that Simeon P. Abiera had been lawfully elected municipal president of Dao with a majority of fifteen votes over Simeon Y. Abiera. It ordered dismissal of the protest with costs and incidental expenses charged to the contestant.
The Appeal and Assigned Errors
Simeon Y. Abiera appealed, assigning errors challenging the trial court’s appreciation of ballots bearing names or initials allegedly intended for the respective candidates. The assignments primarily questioned whether particular ballots were validly attributed to the contestee rather than the contestant, and whether certain ballots were erroneously excluded as invalid because of mistakes during canvassing or because of the spelling of the names written by electors.
The appeal relied substantially on the operation of the idem sonans rule and on the statutory instruction in Section 404 of the Election Law governing candidates who have the same name and surname and the obligation to state the second name or maternal family name in the certificate of candidacy.
Section 404 and the Claim to Votes Bearing “Simeon Abiera” or “S. Abiera”
On the first assignment of error, the Supreme Court considered Section 404 of the Election Law, which, in substance, permits a candidate who had previously been elected to continue using the same name and surname, while requiring other candidates presenting themselves for the same elective office to state in their certificates the second name or maternal family name.
The Court observed that Simeon P. Abiera had previously held the office of municipal president of Dao, having been elected in 1925. In his 1925 certificate of candidacy, Simeon P. Abiera stated that he was also known by the name of Simeon Abiera and Simeon O. Abiera. For the June 5, 1928 election, Simeon P. Abiera again presented a certificate asserting that he was known by Simeon P. Abiera and S. P. Abiera, and he claimed ballots containing “Simeon Abiera,” “S. Abiera,” and “C. Abiera.”
The Court contrasted this with Simeon Y. Abiera’s certificate for the June 5, 1928 election, which did not state that he was known by the names Simeon Abiera or S. Abiera, nor did it claim ballots cast under those names. From this omission, the Court held that Simeon Y. Abiera could not claim votes cast in those names. The Court ruled that such ballots could be claimed by Simeon P. Abiera, who had expressly stated those variants in his certificates of candidacy in both 1925 and 1928.
Idem Sonans and the Validity of Ballots Attributed to Simeon P. Abiera
On the second, third, and fourth assignments of error, the Court applied the idem sonans rule to determine whether the misspellings and variations written on ballots were sufficiently similar in sound to “Simeon Abiera” or “S. Abiera,” so as to reflect the voters’ intention.
As to ballots bearing names such as “Simon Abra,” “Simio Abera,” “Sinon Auira,” and “Simiun Abra,” the Court held that these names sounded sufficiently like Simeon Abiera or S. Abiera. The Court cited earlier decisions, including Cailles vs. Gomez and Barbaza, 42 Phil., 496 and Mandac vs. Samonte, 49 Phil., 284, to support the use of the idem sonans principle in election contests.
Similarly, the Court found no error in attributing ballots to Simeon P. Abiera where the names written—such as “Cemor Paura,” “Cumunon P. Abira,” “P. P. Abeire,” “P. A. Simon Abera,” “Simeon B. Abiera,” and “S. B. Abiera”—were sufficiently similar in sound to the contestee’s claimed names to fall within the idem sonans rule.
Finally, regarding ballots identified as “Simon F. Abiera,” “Semion J. Abiera,” and “S. F. Abiera,” the Court held that they likewise resembled Simeon P. Abiera and S. P. Abiera closely enough to be counted for the contestee under idem sonans. The Court therefore ruled these assignments groundless insofar as they challenged those specific ballot adjudications.
Partial Relief on the Contestant’s Claimed Votes (Assignments Five, Six, and Seven)
The Supreme Court treated the fifth assignment of error differently. It acknowledged that Simeon Y. Abiera did not state in his certificate that he was known by the additional names written in certain ballots. Nevertheless, the Court found that there appeared to be no one else who bore those names, and it also determined that the voters who wrote those names intended to vote for Simeon Y. Abiera. On that basis, it allowed the contestant to recover a portion of the ballots claimed under this assignment.
At the same time, the Court refused some ballots. It held that Ballot Exhibit B-l could not be adjudicated to Simeon Y. Abiera because the name in the space for municipal president was “S. O. Abiera,” not S. Y. Abiera. It also ruled that ballots bearing only the initials “S Y A,” “S A Abira,” “S A Abiera,” and “S1 A Abeyra” could not be attributed to Simeon Y. Abiera. The Court reasoned that mere initials were not enough for identification and that the capital A placed between S and “Abira” was neither identical with nor similar in sound to any initial of the contestant.
On the sixth assignment of error, the Court held that a ballot bearing “Y Ceneeon” (Exhibit H-13) could not be counted for the contestant. It explained that although the word “Ceneeon” sounded like “Simeon,” the initial Y, possibly standing for a maternal surname such as Ysulat, was not sufficient to identify the contestant with the required certainty. However, it allowed the contestant to recover ballots bearing “S. Y. Abiera” (Exhibit H-14), “S. A. Ysulat” (Exhibit H-15), and “Simeon Y. Abiera,” which the Court regarded as clearly indicating the electors’ intention to vote for the contestant.
Lastly, under the seventh assignment of error, the Court ruled that ballots bearing “Semeyon Sulat” (Exhibit 1-16) and “S. Y. Abiera” (Exhibits 1-17 and 1-18) must also be adjudicated to Simeon Y. Abiera because they clearly reflected the voters’ intended choice.
Recalculation of Votes and Disposition
After reviewing the challenged ballots and applying the foregoing rules, the Supreme Court summarized the quantitative effect of its rulings. It held that:
First, the Court ruled the first, second, third, and fourth assignments of error were groundless. Second, it held the contestant was entitled to seven votes under the fifth assignment. Third, it held he was entitled to four votes under the sixth assignment. Fourth, it held he was entitled to three votes under the seventh assignment.
Accordingly, the Court credited Simeon Y. Abiera with fourteen additional votes. It added these to the 474 votes adjudicated by the Court of First Instance to the contestant, resulting in 488 votes for Simeon Y. Abiera.
The Court noted that the Court of First Instance had adjudicated 489 votes to Sime
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 32910)
- The case arose from an election protest contesting the result of the general elections of June 5, 1928 held in the municipality of Dao, Province of Antique.
- The contestant-appellant was Simeon Y. Abiera, who sought the office of municipal president.
- The contestee-appellee was Simeon P. Abiera, who also sought the office of municipal president.
- The controversy centered on the proper appreciation of ballots bearing different names and initials, and the effect of candidacy declarations on which votes could be claimed.
Parties and Procedural Posture
- The municipal board of canvassers adjudicated 480 votes to Simeon P. Abiera and 446 votes to Simeon Y. Abiera, and proclaimed the former elected by a majority of 36 votes.
- Simeon Y. Abiera filed a motion of protest with the Court of First Instance of Antique.
- After the contestee Simeon P. Abiera filed his answer and the case was heard with evidence, the trial court dismissed the protest and held that Simeon P. Abiera was lawfully elected.
- The trial court dismissed the protest with costs and incidental expenses charged to Simeon Y. Abiera.
- Simeon Y. Abiera appealed to the Supreme Court and assigned multiple alleged errors mainly involving how specific ballots were counted or not counted.
Key Factual Allegations
- Both parties were candidates for municipal president of Dao, with competing certificates of candidacy and different claims as to how they were “generally known.”
- Simeon Y. Abiera filed a certificate of candidacy stating that he was a resident and qualified elector, and that he belonged to no party.
- Simeon Y. Abiera further declared he was generally known by the name “Simeon Y. Abiera or S. Y. Abiera or Simeon A. Ysulat or S. A. Ysulat or Simeon Abiera Y. or Simeon Ysulat A. or Maestro Simeon Abiera or Maestro Simeon.”
- Simeon P. Abiera filed a certificate of candidacy stating he belonged to the Nacionalista Colectivista Party and declared he was generally known by the name “Simeon P. Abiera or S. P. Abiera,” and that he claimed all ballots containing the names “Simeon Abiera, S. Abiera, and C. Abiera.”
- The case required determining whether ballots written with variant spellings, sounding names, or initials should be attributed to the contestant or contestee.
Statutory Framework
- The appeal invoked Section 404 of the Election Law, specifically its rule on candidates with the same name and surname and the mandatory disclosure of a second name or maternal family name.
- Section 404 provided that when two or more candidates for the same office share the same name and surname, the one previously elected may continue using the earlier name, while the others must state the second name or maternal family name in their certificates of candidacy.
- The Court treated the rule as controlling with respect to which votes could be claimed where candidates share the same or substantially similar names.
Election Records and Ballots
- The trial court initially counted ballots and adjudicated that Simeon P. Abiera retained the lead.
- Simeon Y. Abiera challenged the trial court’s adjudication of various ballots identified by precinct numbers and exhibit designations.
- The assignments of error grouped ballots in categories involving:
- Votes cast for the contestee under the “Abiera” name without the “Y” or “P” designation.
- Votes with names allegedly subject to the idem sonans rule.
- Votes allegedly written with names or initials that, according to the contestant, should have been credited to him.
- Votes allegedly misdeposited during canvassing into the red spoiled-ballot box instead of the white ballot-box.
Issues on Appeal
- The Supreme Court had to determine whether votes written as “Simeon Abiera” or “S. Abiera” should be counted for Simeon P. Abiera under Section 404 of the Election Law because the contestant allegedly did not declare he was known by those names.
- The Court had to decide whether several challenged ballot spellings were sufficiently similar to fall under the idem sonans doctrine.
- The Court had to evaluate whether ballots containing:
- Names written with variant spellings,
- Names with different middle initials or maternal surnames, or
- Mere initials
should be attributed to either candidate based on the voters’ apparent intent and the candidates’ declared identities.
- The Court also had to address whether certain ballots were wrongly treated as spoiled because they were deposited by mistake into the spoiled-ballot box.
Contestant’s Contentions
- The contestant argued that the trial court erred in counting votes written merely as “Simeon Abiera” or “S. Abiera” in favor of the contestee.
- He challenged the validity of multiple specific ballots adjudicated to the contestee, asserting that the names or initials did not correspond to the contestee.
- He claimed entitlement to ballots allegedly intended for him but not credited by the trial court, including ballots bearing variant spellings such as “Simeon Ysulat,” “Simeon A. Ysulat,” “SeY buira,” and similar forms.
- He maintained that ballots containing his name written in recognizable forms should have been counted even if the trial court treated them otherwise.
- He alleged that ballots in some precincts were mistakenly placed in the red spoiled-ballot box during the canvass and were therefore not counted as valid votes.
Contestee’s Position
- The contestee relied on Section 404 of the Election Law to justify counting votes written as “Simeon Abiera” or “S. Abiera” for him.
- He invoked