G.R. No. L-32683 May 31, 1971
BUENAVENTURA OBANDO,
petitioner,
vs.
URBANO REGIS, respondent.
Vicente M. Mendiola for petitioner.
Jose E. Fantonial for respondent.
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
Direct appeal by Buenaventura Obando on questions of law from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu Branch I (Judge Guillermo Villasor, presiding) rendered in Election Case No. R-10360, resolving the protest filed by Urbane Regis, candidate for Vice-Mayor, and Segundo Canonigo, Gilbert Repunte, Filemon Pauni, Demetrio Sayaang, Cornelio Patalinghug, Anastacio Canalita and Rodolfo Novales, candidates for councilors of Naga, Cebu in the elections of November 14, 1967, against those proclaimed elected, appellants Buenaventura Urbano et al., and declaring protestant Urbano Regis as elected Vice-Mayor for having garnered 2,227 votes against 2,051 for protestee Buenaventura Obando; and declaring councilors protest as having obtained a majority against protestants.
In trying and deciding the protest, after the report of the Commissioners on the uncontested and contested ballots the court a quo adopted the procedure of requiring protestants and protestees to submit written statement enumerating the ballot objected to and claimed by each party in each of the disputed precincts, and the reply thereto. After the statements were submitted the Court proceeded to decide the case, establishing in the decision the principles allegedly applicable and then tabulated merely the number of contested ballots credited by it to each party in each precinct, without specifying or detailing which ballots were rejected or allowed, nor the reasons therefor. Then, after adding the contested ballots credited by it in each precinct to the number of uncontested ballots in the corresponding precincts for each party, the trial Court proclaimed as elected those who obtained higher totals than their rivals.
To illustrate: after stating in his decision that there was "no sufficient showing to establish the claim that the election held on November 14, 1967, in the municipality of Naga, Cebu was not fair nor honest, but the result of mass election frauds, cheating, illegal voting and rampant terrorism", nor that certain voters "were allowed to vote, notwithstanding that their applications were yet processed and unapproved and unvalidated" (Record, pp. 204, 205), the trial Judge proceeded to lay down its criteria for the validity of the contested ballots, saying:
Regarding the charge of cheating supposedly committed by the protestees, the Court found no evidence to indicate a pattern utilized as countersigns for marking the ballot, with the exception perhaps of numerous ballots containing figures before or after the names of candidates for councilor voted upon. In this last mentioned instance, it is evident that the figures contained therein constituted as a distinguishing mark and, therefore, should invalidate said ballots (Cacho vs. Abad, 62 Phil. 564; Rodriguez vs. Zambrano, 61 Phil. 77).However, those ballots wherein the candidates for councilor were voted upon with initials preceding their surnames, while the rest contained surnames only, do not necessarily indicate a pattern for marking said ballots. Finally, all those votes for Reputante alone in the space for councilor were counted in favor of the protestant Gilbert Reputante, he being the reelectionist candidate (Sec. 149, No. 16, Revised Election Code).
Thereafter, the decision merely summarized the result of applying such rules to the contested ballots, by tabulating the votes credited to each party, protestant and protestees by precincts, thus:
The votes garnered by the protestant and protegees after the court passed upon the ballots contested by both parties follow:
PRECINCT NUMBERS AND NUMBER OF VOTES
PROTESTANTS: 1 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : 8 : 9 : 10 : etc.
Urbano regis: 17 : 17 : 13 : 23 : 46 : 17 : 15 : 32 : 51 : etc.
x x x x
x x x x x : : : : : : : : :
PROTESTEES :
Buenaventura
Obando 59 : 50 : 70 : 33 : 36 : 23 23 : 33 : 29 : etc.
(See Decision, Record, page 256)
No specifications of ballots dealt with or reasons applied in rejecting or crediting them were given.
Protegee appellant Buenaventura Obando filed a motion for reconsideration and new trial, objecting to the method followed by the Court as not enabling all interested party to identify the ballots objected to and to ascertain the correctness of the number of votes allocated in each precinct to each protestant or protestee; but the lower Court denied reconsideration, stating that —
It is not necessary to enumerate one by one the finding on each ballot, for this will unnecessarily lengthen the decision. (Order of 1 July 1970; Petition, Annex L).
Thereupon, defeated candidate Obando resorted to this Court, reiterating his objections to the procedure followed by the Court below and claiming that it was contrary to law and to Section I of Rule 36 of the Revised Rules of Court, providing that: .
SECTION 1. Rendition of judgments. — All judgments determining the merits of cases shall be in writing personally and directly prepared by the judge, stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based, signed by him, and filed with the clerk of court.
We agree with protestee-appellant that the decision under appeal fails to state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based, as required by the rules. The decision does not permit the identification of the ballots admitted or rejected for each of the parties, nor specify the reasons for admitting or rejecting the particular ballots for which reason the decision is incomplete and, therefore, inoperative.
While the trial court was not required to deal separately with each individual ballot of those offered and objected to, and could have grouped those to which a common resolution could be or was applied, it was essential, in justice to the parties, to specify the ballots to which a particular ruling was applied and was at each ruling was, in each case. Otherwise, no party would be in a position to determine whether or not the courts action thereon was correct, and acceptable or erroneous or inconsistent and, therefore, to be included in a motion to reconsider the ruling or rulings; nor would an appellate court without other details than a numerical result, be in a position to judge whether a particular ruling was conformable to law or jurisprudence, and should be sustained or whether the ruling to the ruling was erroneous or inconsistent or contra set aside. The method followed in the law and should be unreviewable by a higher tribunal.
The resulting delay in the disposition of the protest is regrettable, but We would be laying a pernicious precedent were We to stamp our approval on so deficient a decision.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from, being incomplete, is inoperative and should be returned to the Court of First instance of origin, with instructions to complete the same in conformity with, this opinion. No cost.
So ordered.
Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor and Makasiar, JJ., concur.
Castro, J., took no part.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
