[ G.R. No. 30283. February 15, 1929 ] 52 Phil. 789
[ G.R. No. 30283. February 15, 1929 ]
JUAN NAMOCATCAT, PROTESTANT AND APPELLEE, VS. VICTORINO ADAG, PROTESTEE AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
VILLA-REAL, J.:
This appeal is taken by the protestee Victorino Adag from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Bohol holding that the protestant Juan Namocatcat obtained 446 votes and Victorino Adag 435, resulting in a majority of 11 votes in favor of the former and against the latter, with costs against the protestee.
In support of his appeal the appellant assigns the following alleged errors as committed by the court a quo in its judgment, to wit:
“1. The trial court erred in adjudicating to the protestant-appellee ballot No. 4 of precinct No. 1; ballots Nos. 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13 of precinct No. 2; and ballots Nos. 4 and 8 of precinct No. 5, in all of which Juan N. was voted for the office of municipal president of Valencia, Bohol.
“2. The trial court erred in adjudicating to the protestant two ballots in precinct No. 2; two ballots in precinct No. 3; one ballot in precinct No. 4; and one ballot in precinct No. 5; in all of which Juan Gading was voted for the office of municipal president of Valencia, Bohol.
“3. The trial court erred in rejecting ballot No. 7 of precinct No. 1, because Pastor Boiser was voted for the office of representative.”
The pertinent facts necessary for the solution of the questions raised by the three assignments of error are as follows:
In the general elections held in the municipality of Valencia, Bohol, oh June 5,1928, Juan Namocatcat and Victorino Adag were, among others, registered candidates voted for the office of municipal president of said municipality. After the voting and the canvass of the votes by the municipal board of canvassers, it was found that Victcrino Adag obtained. 431 votes and Juan Namocatcat 426 votes, that is, a majority of 5 votes in favor of the former over the latter, and Victorino Adag was proclaimed elected to the office of municipal president of said municipality of Valencia, Bohol.
As Juan Namocatcat was not contented with said result, he filed in due time a motion of protest against Victorino Adag who filed an answer and a counter-protest within the period prescribed by law.
The Court of First Instance of Bohol having acquired jurisdiction over the content by virtue of said motion, upon petition of both parties, commissioners were appointed to recount and examine the valid ballots contained in the ballot boxes corresponding to precincts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the municipality of Valencia, Bohol. Having performed their task in accordance with the law, said commissioners submitted a report to the trial court to the effect that Juan Namocatcat obtained 437 votes, and Victorino Adag 435. Having considered the report and heard the parties upon the same and upon the contested ballots, the Court of First Instance of Bohol rendered the judgment referred to above.
In his first assignment of error, the protestee-appellant impugns the. validity and admissibility in favor of the protestant Juan Namocatcat of ballot No. 4 of precinct No. 1; ballots Nos. 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13 of precinct No. 2, and ballots Nos. 4 and 8 of precinct No. 5 because “Juan N” appears in the column for the office of municipal president and not Juan Namocatcat.
While it is true that in the cases of Cailles vs. Gomez and Barbaza (42 Phil., 496), and Lucero vs. De Guzman (45 Phil., 852), for the reasons therein stated, it was held that the Christian name and the initial of the surname alone are not sufficient to identify a candidate, nevertheless, when it appears that no other candidate for the same office has the same Christian name and surname, or the same initials, and the voter’s intention to vote for the candidate with the Christian name and the initial of the surname which he writes in his ballot is manifest, the will of said voter must be complied with. This is the most just and reasonable interpretation considering that in the Philippines, voters scarcely able to read and write know their candidates by their Christian names rather than by their surnames. Moreover, there are surnames hard to remember and harder still to write, and this is why it often happens that the voters write no more than the Christian name and the initial of the surname. This interpretation is also more in harmony with the legislator’s intention in extending the right of suffrage to those who do not know how to read and write save in their own dialect, the majority of whom are ignorant. If, in ascertaining the intention of the voter manifested in his ballot, the degree of education, his means of knowing the candidates’ names, and the local customs, were not taken into account, the ends of the law would be frustrated, and many legally qualified voters would be deprived of the right of suffrage.
From this point of view, the court a quo did not err in adjudicating to the protestant-appellee Juan Namocatcat the ten ballots the validity and admissibility of which are contested in the first assignment of error, because nothing is written in the space for the municipal president but the name “Juan N.”
As to the second assignment of error, referring to the six ballots with the name of Juan Gading voted for the office of municipal president, in the nineteen (19) contested ballots in precinct No. 2, only seven, that is, those bearing Nos. 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13, wherein appear the name of Juan N voted for the office of municipal president, which are the same ones mentioned in the first assignment of error, are the only ones that were adjudicated by tine court a quo to Juan Namocatcat, and none with the name of Juan Gading was adjudicated to the latter. Of the twenty (20) ballots contested in precinct No. 3, none was adjudicated either to the protestant or to the protestee, because neither of them was therein voted for the office of municipal president. Of the nine ballots contested in precinct No. 4, none was adjudicated either to the protestant or to the protestee, because neither of them was voted for therein for the office of municipal president and in none of them was Juan Gading voted for said office. Of the eight ballots contested in precinct No. 5, two only, that is, those bearing Nos. 4 and 8, were adjudicated to Juan Namocatcat, and they are the same ones mentioned in the said first assignment of error, not because they bear the name of Juan Gading, but that of Juan N. But even if the protestant- appellee had been adjudicated ballots in which appeared the name of Juan Gading, such adjudication would have been correct, because in his certificate of candidacy, Juan Namocatcat sets forth that he is also known by such name or nickname. In order to interpret the will of the Philippine voter of slight education, we cannot disregard the sociological fact that among the ignorant people, a person is better known, if not by his Christian name, then by his nickname alone.
It therefore appears that none of the alleged ballots bearing the name of Juan Gading were adjudicated to Juan Namocatcat.
The third assignment of error is well taken, and the court a quo erred in rejecting ballot No. 7 of precinct No. 1, simply because in the space for representative was written the name of Pastor Boiser, who is not a candidate for said office. Section 464 of the Election Law, as amended by Act No. 3210, which declared all ballots void wherein a person was voted for an office for which he was not a candidate, has been reamended by Act No. 3387, repealing such provision by implication in providing that such a vote is to be considered as a scattering vote.
Briefly, then, we have it that the adjudication by the lower court of ballots No. 4 in precinct No. 1, Nos. 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13, of precinct No. 2, and Nos. 4 and 8 in precinct No. 5, where the words “Juan N.” are written in the space for municipal president in favor of Juan Namocatcat, should be affirmed, and the judgment must be reversed in so far as it rejects ballot No. 7 in precinct No. 1, in favor of the protestee-appellant Victorino Adag, adjudicating said ballot to him, with the result that the protestant-appellee obtained 446 votes and the protestee-appellant 436, that is, a difference of 10 votes in favor of the former.
By virtue whereof and with the aforesaid modification, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.
Johnson, Malcolm, Johns, Ostrand, and Johnson, Malcolm, Johns, Ostrand., concur.