Title
Moya vs. Del Fierro
Case
G.R. No. 46863
Decision Date
Nov 18, 1939
A 1937 mayoral election dispute in Paracale, Camarines Norte, hinged on contested ballots; Supreme Court upheld voter intent, affirming del Fierro's victory by one vote.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 46863)

Key Dates

  • December 14, 1937: General election for municipal offices.
  • December 27, 1937: Respondent filed election protest before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Camarines Norte.
  • December 7, 1938: CFI upheld Moya’s election with a 91-vote plurality.
  • July 13, 1939: Court of Appeals (COA) reversed and declared del Fierro elected by three votes.
  • November 18, 1939: Supreme Court rendered decision on petition for certiorari.

Applicable Law

  • 1935 Philippine Commonwealth Constitution (governing elections in 1937–1939).
  • Election Code, Commonwealth Act No. 357, Section 144 (liberal construction of ballots).
  • Rules on certiorari under the Judiciary Act.

Background of the Dispute

Following the December 14, 1937 election, the municipal council, acting as board of canvassers, declared Moya elected mayor by 102 votes. Del Fierro protested; the CFI sustained Moya by 91 votes. On appeal, the COA counted disputed ballots in favor of del Fierro and declared him elected by a margin of three votes. Moya’s petition for certiorari challenges the COA’s admission and counting of specific ballots.

Assignments of Error

Moya alleges four categories of error by the COA:

  1. Admission of eight ballots “inadvertently or contrary to controlling decisions.”
  2. Admission of three ballots marked “R. del Fierro.”
  3. Admission of seven ballots marked “Rufino del Fierro.”
  4. Admission of 72 ballots marked “P. del Fierro.”

Analysis of the Eight Ballots

  1. Exhibit F-175 (Precinct 2): Any inadvertent mix-up with F-175 (Precinct 1) is technical; the ballot for “Primo/Pimo del Fierro” is admissible for respondent.
  2. Exhibit F-26 (Precinct 3): Name written “G. T. Krandes”; voter intention is vague despite “Alcalde Pinong del Fierro” appearing elsewhere. Ballot improperly counted and must be rejected.
  3. Exhibit F-77 (Precinct 2): Bears mark “O.K.” after “M. Lopis” for vice-mayor; no clear indication of intention to vote for del Fierro as mayor. Must be rejected.
  4. Exhibit F-9 (Precinct 2): Voter wrote Regino Guinto for provincial board, then wrote del Fierro under mayoral space. Intention is clear; admissible.
  5. Exhibit F-131 (Precinct 1): Name placed on vice-mayor line with an arrow to “Alcalde” printed on the ballot. Clear indication of intent; admissible.
  6. Exhibit F-7 (Precinct 5): Del Fierro’s name appears among provincial board candidates preceded by “presidinti” and followed by “Bice Culastico Palma, consehal.” Voter clearly intended mayoral vote; admissible.
  7. Exhibit F-1 (Precinct 2): Christian name on provincial board line, surname on mayoral line; voter intention manifest; admissible.
  8. Exhibit F-44 (Precinct 2): Reads “Agripino F. Garcia.” The COA reasonably construed “F” as “Fierro” and “Garcia” as contraction “Ga.”; admissible.

Second Assignment: Initial “F” Ballots

Ballots F-119 (Precinct 1), F-24 (Precinct 2), F-6 (Precinct 4) were admitted by COA on the ground that “F” stands for “Pino del Fierro,” a name in respondent’s certificate of candidacy. Although Moya asserts the initial is “R,” the Supreme Court examined photostats and declines to disturb the COA’s finding. Assignment overruled.

Third Assignment: “Rufino del Fierro” Ballots

Seven ballots bearing the name “Rufino del Fierro” were admitted. No other mayoral candidate bore that name; surname clearly identifies respondent; voter intent is unmistakable. COA’s admission upheld.

Fourth Assignment: “P. del Fierro” Ballots

Seventy-two ballots marked “P. del Fierro” were credit

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.