G.R. No. 192221 - Dela Cruz vs. Commission on Elections

Case Summary (G.R. No. 192221)

Factual Background

Casimira S. Dela Cruz filed her certificate of candidacy for Vice-Mayor of Bugasong, Antique on November 28, 2009. Another aspirant, Aurelio N. Dela Cruz, filed a certificate of candidacy for the same position. On December 6, 2009 petitioner sought to have Aurelio declared a nuisance candidate on grounds of mockery of the election process and likely voter confusion due to similarity of surnames. On January 29, 2010 the COMELEC First Division issued a resolution declaring Aurelio a nuisance candidate and cancelling his certificate of candidacy. Despite that cancellation, Aurelio’s name remained printed on the certified list of candidates and on the Official Sample Ballot used in the May 10, 2010 automated elections. Petitioner moved the COMELEC to delete Aurelio’s name from election materials or, if deletion could not be effected before election day, to order that votes cast for Aurelio be credited to petitioner pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 4116. On May 1, 2010 the COMELEC En Banc promulgated COMELEC Resolution No. 8844, directing deletion of listed candidates from certified lists but stating that the votes of said candidates, if voted upon, were to be “considered stray.” On May 13, 2010 the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Bugasong canvassed the votes showing Aurelio with 532 votes, petitioner with 6,389 votes, and private respondent John Lloyd M. Pacete with 6,428 votes, whereupon Pacete was proclaimed Vice-Mayor. Petitioner thereafter filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court of Antique and a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in conjunction with Section 2, Rule 64 on May 31, 2010, seeking injunctive relief to enjoin the proclamation and assumption into office of John Lloyd M. Pacete, and asking the Court to declare void the portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 8844 that treated votes cast for cancelled or denied certificates of candidacy as stray, to order that the 532 votes cast for Aurelio be credited to petitioner under COMELEC Resolution No. 4116, and to direct the appropriate trial court to proclaim petitioner the winner. The petition proceeded to decision and the Court issued its judgment on November 13, 2012 granting the petition.

Issues Presented

The dispositive issue was whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing COMELEC Resolution No. 8844, insofar as it ordered that votes cast for candidates whose certificates of candidacy were cancelled or set aside, including nuisance candidates with surnames similar to those of bona fide candidates, be considered stray under Sec. 211(24) and Sec. 72 of the Omnibus Election Code, rather than be counted and tallied in favor of the bona fide candidate pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 4116 and controlling jurisprudence.

Petitioner's Contentions

Petitioner asserted that the 532 votes cast for Aurelio, if properly tallied for her, would have given her a clear plurality over John Lloyd M. Pacete. She maintained that COMELEC Resolution No. 8844 contravened settled administrative rules and jurisprudence embodied in COMELEC Resolution No. 4116, violated her rights to equal protection and due process, and ignored the practical reality that nuisance candidates with similar names defeat the elector’s will. Petitioner argued that the adoption of an automated voting system did not alter the principle that votes cast for a nuisance candidate declared in a final judgment and having a name similar to a bona fide candidate should not be treated as stray but credited to the latter.

Respondents' Contentions

The Commission on Elections defended its issuance of Resolution No. 8844 on the ground that the automated system materially changed the voting and counting process. COMELEC argued printed ballots with full names and the shading of ovals made voter intent clearer, thus distinguishing the automated polls from manual elections and justifying the treatment of votes for disqualified candidates as stray. COMELEC relied on Sec. 211(24) and Sec. 72 of the Omnibus Election Code and invoked a presumption of validity in its supervisory exercise. Private respondent John Lloyd M. Pacete argued that votes for a candidate declared disqualified by final judgment must be considered stray under the quoted statutory provisions and cited Kare v. COMELEC and other authorities, noting that COMELEC published Resolution No. 8844 before election day and that voters were constructively warned.

Court's Ruling

The petition was granted. The Court held that COMELEC Resolution No. 8844, insofar as it ordered that votes cast for candidates declared nuisance and whose certificates of candidacy had been cancelled or set aside be considered stray, contravened existing law and jurisprudence and amounted to grave abuse of discretion. The Court declared that the 532 votes cast for Aurelio N. Dela Cruz should have been counted in favor of Casimira S. Dela Cruz. The Court accordingly declared petitioner the duly elected Vice-Mayor of Bugasong, Antique, and ordered that its decision be immediately executory.

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied the narrow standard for certiorari under Section 2, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court and concluded that grave abuse of discretion existed because COMELEC Resolution No. 8844 contravened the law and controlling precedents. The Court distinguished petitions to disqualify under Sec. 68 of the Omnibus Election Code from petitions to cancel or deny due course to a certificate of candidacy under Sec. 69 and Sec. 78, emphasizing that a cancelled or denied certificate leaves the person “not treated as a candidate at all,” whereas a disqualified candidate remains a candidate until disqualification. The Court held that Sec. 72 and Sec. 211(24) govern disqualification cases and do not apply indiscriminately to cancellation or denial of certificates of candidacy resulting from nuisance petitions. The Court reaffirmed the rule in COMELEC Resolution No. 4116 and the jurisprudence in Bautista v. COMELEC and Martinez III v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, which require that votes for a nuisance candidate who has been declared such in a final judgment and who bears the same name or surname as a bona fide candidate be counted and tallied for the bona fide candidate when the voters had actual or constructive notice and when the will of the electorate is thereby determinable. The Court rejected COMELEC’s argument that automation eliminated the possibility of confusion, noting that automation does not guarantee elimination of name-related confusion and that COMELEC had sufficient time before election day to delete delisted names from official ballots. F

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 192221)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Casimira S. Dela Cruz filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in conjunction with Section 2, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court seeking injunctive relief against the Commission on Elections and private respondent John Lloyd M. Pacete.
The petition assailed COMELEC Resolution No. 8844 for directing that votes cast for certain disqualified or cancelled candidates be considered stray.
Petitioner sought a temporary restraining order, the nullification of the portion of Resolution No. 8844 treating votes for the nuisance candidate as stray, the application of COMELEC Resolution No. 4116 to credit such votes to petitioner, and her proclamation as Vice-Mayor.
The case arose from the May 10, 2010 automated national and local elections and subsequent municipal canvass and proclamation by the Municipal Board of Canvassers.

Key Factual Allegations

Petitioner filed her Certificate of Candidacy for Vice-Mayor of Bugasong, Antique on November 28, 2009.
Aurelio N. Dela Cruz filed a Certificate of Candidacy for the same position and was the subject of petition to declare him a nuisance candidate due to surname similarity and lack of bona fide intention.
The COMELEC First Division issued a resolution on January 29, 2010 cancelling Aurelio's COC as a nuisance candidate, but his name remained printed on the Official Ballot for the May 10, 2010 elections.
Petitioner filed an urgent motion to delete Aurelio's name or, if deletion were impracticable, to instruct that all votes cast for Aurelio be credited to petitioner pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 4116.
On May 1, 2010 the COMELEC En Banc promulgated Resolution No. 8844 directing deletion from the certified lists and that votes for listed candidates be considered stray if voted upon.
The official canvass showed Aurelio with 532 votes, petitioner with 6,389 votes and private respondent Pacete with 6,428 votes, and Pacete was proclaimed Vice-Mayor on May 13, 2010.

Issues Presented

Whether COMELEC Resolution No. 8844 constituted grave abuse of discretion in ordering that votes cast for certain disqualified or cancelled candidates be considered stray.
Whether votes cast for a nuisance candidate whose COC was cancelled before election day should be considered stray in the automated election system.
Whether votes cast for a nuisance candidate with the same surname as the bona fide candidate should be credited to the bona fide candidate under COMELEC Resolution No. 4116 and controlling jurisprudence.

Petitioner Contentions

Petitioner contended that the votes for Aurelio should have been counted for her under COMELEC Resolution No. 4116 and controlling precedents such as Bautista v. COMELEC and Martinez III v. HRET.
Petitioner argued that Resolution No. 8844 violated equal protection and due process because it failed to distinguish between disqualification and cancellation/denial of a COC and ignored the determinability of voters' intent.
Petitioner asserted that the change in rule by Resolution No. 8844 deprived her of legitimate votes and thus deprived her of the electoral victory she would have had if Aurelio's votes had been credited to her.

Respondents' Contentions

COMELEC defended Resolution No. 8844 as valid and justified by differences between manual and automated elections, asserting that printed candidate names and oval-shading in automated ballots made voter intent clear and supported treating such votes as stray.
COMELEC invoked the presumption of validity and argued that petitioner failed to show a constitutional violation or grave abuse of discretion.
Private respondent John Lloyd M. Pacete relied on Section 211(24), Article XVIII, Omnibus Election Code and Sec. 72, Article IX to argue that votes for any candidate finally declared disqualified must be considered stray.
Respondents emphasized that Resolution No. 8844 was published before election day and that voter educa