EN BANC

[G.R. No. 133927. November 29, 1999]

MA. AMELITA C. VILLAROSA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, an ATT!.
"AN RESTOR, respondents.
RICAR"O #$INTOS, necessary respondent.
For the Courts resolution is the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing Resolution
dated May 11, 1998 of the Coission on Ele!tions "hereafter, #C$ME%EC& or #the Coission&'
[1]
on Ele!tion Matter No( 98)*++, disallo,ing the use by petitioner of the ni!-nae #./0& for the
purpose of her !andida!y in the May 11, 1998 ele!tions, and the C$ME%EC Resolution, dated May 11,
1998,
[2]
denying re!onsideration of the earlier Resolution(
2etitioner ,as a !andidate for Representati3e of the lone distri!t of $!!idental Mindoro in the
May 11, 1998 ele!tions and ,as pro!laied duly ele!ted thereto on May 45, 1998( $n Mar!h 45,
1998, she filed her !ertifi!ate of !andida!y in ,hi!h she stated, aong others, that her ni!-nae is
#./0&( $n April 4*, 1998, pri3ate respondent Restor filed a letter)petition
[3]
addressed to C$ME%EC
Chairan Bernardo 2ardo through Atty( .ose Balbuena, 6ire!tor of the C$ME%EC %a, 6epartent,
as-ing for the in3alidation or !an!ellation of #./0& as the offi!ial ni!-nae of petitioner as de!lared in
her !ertifi!ate of !andida!y, and the nullifi!ation of all 3otes !ast in the said ni!-nae, on the ground
that petitioner is not publi!ly -no,n by that nae( /he letter)petition further a3erred that petitioner is
publi!ly -no,n in $!!idental Mindoro as #7irlie& and that the appellation #./0& a!tually pertains to
the initials of her husband and forer Congressan of $!!idental Mindoro, .ose /apales 0illarosa(
$n ele!tion day, May 11, 1998, the Coission, sitting en banc, issued a Resolution granting
pri3ate respondent Restors letter)petition on the ground that the ni!-nae #./0& is not one by ,hi!h
petitioner is popularly -no,n(
[4]
2etitioner re!ei3ed a fa8 !opy of this Resolution at 9:14 in the
afternoon of May 11, 1998, at ,hi!h tie 3oting has !eased and !an3assing of 3otes in soe pre!in!ts
has already gone under,ay(
$n May 14, 1998, petitioner filed ,ith the Coission an ;rgent Manifestation and Motion to
re!onsider the aforesaid Resolution( Finding that no ne, atter has been raised therein, the
Coission en banc issued another Resolution the ne8t day, May 11, 1998, denying the abo3e otion(
/hus, this petition raises the <uestion of ,hether the Coission gra3ely abused its dis!retion
in: "1' ruling on pri3ate respondent Restors letter)petition ,ithout a!!ording noti!e and hearing to
petitioner= "4' ta-ing !ogni>an!e of the letter)petition ,hi!h ,as not filed by a real party in interest= "1'
resol3ing the letter)petition en banc, instead of first referring it to one of its 6i3isions= and finally, "+'
disallo,ing petitioners use of the ni!-nae #./0& and ordering the ele!tion offi!ers of $!!idental
Mindoro to !onsider in3alid all 3otes !ast in that appellation(
/he petition also ipleads as a ne!essary respondent Ri!ardo ?uintos, ,ho ran opposite
petitioner for the lone !ongressional post of $!!idental Mindoro in the May 11, 1998 ele!tions, in 3ie,
of #!onfired reports& that he ,ill file an ele!tion protest before the @ouse of Representati3es
Ele!toral /ribunal "#@RE/&' in3o-ing the <uestioned resolutions( 2ri3ate respondents 3alidated this
allegation ,hen they de!lared that pri3ate respondent ?uintos has in fa!t filed su!h an ele!tion protest
!ase, do!-eted as @RE/ Case No( 98)*1*(
[5]
An its Manifestation An %ieu of Coent, the $ffi!e of the Boli!itor 7eneral obser3ed that e3en if
the letter)petition ,as treated as an #ele!tion atter& ,hi!h ay be properly heard firsthand by the
Coission en banc, the Coission should ha3e gi3en noti!e to petitioner before resol3ing the issue
therein, espe!ially sin!e the petitioner stands to be ad3ersely affe!ted should the petition be
granted( $n the issue of the 3alidity of the use of #./0& as petitioners ni!-nae, it opined that
petitioner ay 3alidly use the sae as she is in fa!t Mrs( .ose /apales 0illarosa, and hen!e, there is no
isrepresentation( Moreo3er, no one aong the other !andidates had the sae initials as to be
preCudi!ed by her use of the sae(
/he petition is ipressed ,ith erit(
At stands un!ontested that petitioner !ae to -no, of the letter)petition lodged against her by
pri3ate respondent Restor only upon re!eipt of a !opy of the C$ME%EC Resolution issued on May 11,
1998, ,hi!h she re!ei3ed by fa8 at 9:14 in the afternoon of the sae day( ;nder these !ir!ustan!es,
it is !lear that the Coission passed upon the letter)petition ,ithout affording petitioner the
opportunity to e8plain her side and to !ounter the allegations of pri3ate respondent Restors letter)
petition( 6ue pro!ess di!tates that before any de!ision !an be 3alidly rendered in a !ase, the t,in
re<uireents of noti!e and hearing ust be obser3ed(
[6]
E3idently, the !on!lusion of the Coission in
the assailed Resolution dated May 11, 1998, that #./0& is not a ni!-nae by ,hi!h petitioner is
generally or popularly -no,n, ,as dra,n purely fro the allegations of the letter)petition and for this
reason, the Coission a!ted in e8!ess of its Curisdi!tion(
Anterinably, ,e ha3e de!lared that depri3ation of due pro!ess !annot be su!!essfully in3o-ed
,here a party ,as gi3en the !han!e to be heard on his otion for re!onsideration(
[7]
@o,e3er, ,e find
the foregoing rule inappli!able to the !ir!ustan!es of the !ase at ben!h(
As earlier narrated, petitioner filed an #;rgent Manifestation and Motion& ,ith the Coission
on May 14, 1998, ,hi!h the Coission proptly denied the follo,ing day( By its o,n designation,
the t,o)page pleading filed by petitioner is one part anifestation and one part otion( $n the ain, it
enters appearan!e of petitioner, ,ho ,as not ipleaded in pri3ate respondent Restors letter)petition,
and !ouni!ates re!eipt of the May 11, 1998 Resolution( E3en as it see-s re!onsideration of the said
resolution by in3o-ing due pro!ess, it does not purport to ebody petitioners grounds and arguents
for re!onsideration( Rather, it states that #"petitioner' reser3e"s' all rights and ,ai3e"s' none, in!luding
filing a suppleental otion for re!onsideration, pending retaining additional !ounsel& as the la,yer
representing petitioner at the tie ,as saddled ,ith other !oitents(
[8]
An filing this #;rgent
Manifestation and Motion& on the se!ond day of !an3assing of 3otes, and iediately after re!eipt of
the !ontested resolution, it is ob3ious that petitioners iediate !on!ern for doing so ,as not ainly
to e8er!ise her right to be heard, but to ha3e the Coission seasonably re!onsider the May 11, 1998
Resolution ,hile !an3assing ,as still at the pre!in!t or uni!ipal le3el(
Dhile the filing of a suppleental otion for re!onsideration is not a atter of right, it is
belie3ed that the Cudi!ious thing for the Coission to ha3e done, !onsidering the ob3ious due pro!ess
issues brought about by the May 11, 1998 Resolution, ,as to afford petitioner a !han!e to e8plain ,hy
she should be allo,ed to use the ni!-nae #./0&, su!h as by re<uiring her to subit a suppleental
otion for re!onsideration( De !onsider this ore in !onsonan!e ,ith our rulings
inSalonga and Rodriguez on opportunity to be heard on re!onsideration( /hus, ,e find that respondent
C$ME%EC a!ted iprudently and in e8!ess of its Curisdi!tion in treating the #;rgent Manifestation
and Motion& as petitioners otion for re!onsideration of the May 11, 1998 Resolution, and in
suarily disissing the sae(
Anent the se!ond issue, petitioner !ontends that the Coission gra3ely abused its dis!retion
,hen it too- !ogni>an!e of the petition belo,, there being no sho,ing that it ,as filed in the nae of a
real party in interest(
/he arguent is tenable( /he C$ME%EC Rules of 2ro!edure re<uire that all a!tions filed ,ith
the Coission be prose!uted and defended in the nae of the real party in interest(
[9]
/he letter)
petition does not allege that the protestant, herein pri3ate respondent Restor, is a !andidate for any
position in the May 11, 1998 ele!tions, or a representati3e of a registered politi!al party or !oalition, or
at the 3ery least, a registered 3oter in the lone distri!t of $!!idental Mindoro ))) as to stand to sustain
any for of inCury by petitioners use of the ni!-nae #./0&( Absent su!h essential allegation, the
letter)petition stood defe!ti3e and should ha3e been disissed outright for failure to state a !ause of
a!tion(
/he <uestion of ,hether the Coission ay de!ide !ases en banc ,ithout first referring the to
any of its di3isions has been !onsistently ans,ered in the negati3e sin!e Bariento 3s( C$ME%EC
[10]
,
,hi!h interpreted Be!tion 1, Arti!le AE"C' of the Constitution
[11]
as re<uiring all ele!tion !ases to be
first heard and de!ided by a di3ision of the Coission, before being brought to the Coission en
banc on re!onsideration( Conforably, ,e hold that the Coission e8!eeded the bounds of its
Curisdi!tion ,hen it too- !ogni>an!e of pri3ate respondent Restors letter)petition at the first instan!e,
thus rendering its May 11, 1998 Resolution 3oid(
/o the abo3e rule, pri3ate respondents ta-e e8!eption by stating that the subCe!t letter)petition
posed issues ,hi!h ,ere adinistrati3e in !hara!ter, and, thus, not subCe!t to the re<uireent of
referral to di3ision ,hi!h applies only in the Coissions e8er!ise of its adCudi!atory or <uasi)
Cudi!ial fun!tions(
An the !on!urring opinion of .usti!e Antonio in University of Nueva Caceres vs. Martinez, 9F
BCRA 1+8, he noted that
"t'he ter #adinistrati3e& !onnotes, or pertains, to #adinistration, espe!ially anageent,
as by anaging or !ondu!ting, dire!ting or superintending, the e8e!ution, appli!ation, or
!ondu!t of persons or things(& At does not entail an opportunity to be heard, the produ!tion
and ,eighing of e3iden!e, and a de!ision or resolution thereon(
Dhile a #<uasi)Cudi!ial fun!tion& is
a ter ,hi!h applies to the a!tion, dis!retion, et!(, of publi! adinistrati3e offi!ers or bodies,
,ho are re<uired to in3estigate fa!ts, or as!ertain the e8isten!e of fa!ts, hold hearings, and
dra, !on!lusions fro the, as a basis for their offi!ial a!tion and to e8er!ise dis!retion of a
Cudi!ial nature(
[12]
/hus, in Vigan Electric Light Co., nc. vs. !ublic Service Co""ission, 1* BCRA +F,
[13]
,e held
that ,here the fi8ing of po,er rates, ,hi!h are to apply e8!lusi3ely to a parti!ular party, is based upon
a report of the 7eneral Auditing $ffi!e, and ,hi!h fa!t is denied by the affe!ted party, the a-ing of
su!h finding of fa!t by respondent adinistrati3e agen!y is a fun!tion parta-ing of a <uasi)Cudi!ial
!hara!ter(
A dire!ti3e by the Coission to disallo, petitioners use of the ni!-nae #./0& for purposes of
her !andida!y, on the basis of Resolution No( 4955
[14]
, !learly ne!essitates a deterination of ,hether
petitioner is in fa!t not generally or popularly -no,n as su!h in the lo!ality of $!!idental
Mindoro( Andubitably, sin!e it in3ol3ed the appli!ation of la, or rules to an as!ertained set of fa!ts, it
!alled for the Coissions e8er!ise of its adCudi!atory po,ers and falls ,ithin the !on!ept of an
#ele!tion !ontest& in the sense !onteplated by Be!tion 1, Arti!le AE"C' of the Constitution(
De !annot agree ,ith the 3ie, ad3an!ed by pri3ate respondents that be!ause the petition belo,
!annot be !lassified as a !ase falling under Rules 4* to 11 of the C$ME%EC Rules of 2ro!edure
[15]
, it is
not a <uasi)Cudi!ial atter and ay thus be dealt ,ith firsthand by the Coission en banc( 2ri3ate
respondent Restors letter)petition !learly as-s, not only for the in3alidation of #./0& as petitioners
authori>ed ni!-nae, but also the nullifi!ation of all 3otes !ast in that nae(
[16]
De are hard put to treat
the issue as adinistrati3e ,hen petitioner stands to be so ad3ersely affe!ted by the relief as-ed
for( /hat the petition belo, ,as in the for of a letter does not a-e the issues posed therein less
substantial( As opined by the $ffi!e of the Boli!itor 7eneral in its Manifestation in %ieu of Coent,
#"t'o sustain the ruling of the C$ME%EC is to open 3enues for !oission of fraud, as one siply
needs to ,rite a letter to the C$ME%EC as-ing that 3otes for a !andidate be nullified on the ground
that the ni!-nae used is inappropriate or not 3alid(&
/he reaining issue pertains to the 3alidity of 3otes !ast in the nae #./0&( An 3ie, of the fa!t
that the ele!tion protest of pri3ate respondent ?uintos is presently pending in the @ouse of
Representati3es Ele!toral /ribunal, ,e resol3e to lea3e this atter to the resolution of the said body as
the sole Cudge of all !ontests respe!ting the ele!tion, returns and <ualifi!ations of its ebers(
[17]
%&ERE'ORE, the petition is 7RAN/E6 and the C$ME%EC Resolutions dated May 11, 1998
and May 11, 1998, respe!ti3ely, are hereby RE0ERBE6 and BE/ ABA6E( No pronoun!eent as to
!osts(
SO OR"ERE".
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 143351. September 14, 2000]
MA. AMELITA C. VILLAROSA, petitioner, vs. TE O!SE O" RE#RESENTATIVES
ELECTORAL TRI$!NAL %&' RICAR(O V. )!INTOS, respondents.
[G.R. No. 14412*. September 14, 2000]
MA. AMELITA C. VILLAROSA, petitioner, vs. TE O!SE O" RE#RESENTATIVES
ELECTORAL TRI$!NAL %&' RICAR(O V. )!INTOS, respondents.
( E C I S I O N
(AVI(E, +R., C.J.,
These cases, which were ordered consolidated on 15 August 2000, have their genesis in
HRET Case No. !"0#0,
$1%
an election &rotest case 'iled () &rivate res&ondent Ricardo *.
+uintos ,herea'ter +-.NT/01 against &etitioner A2elita C. *illarosa ,herea'ter *.33AR/0A1
(e'ore the House o' Re&resentatives Electoral Tri(unal ,herea'ter HRET1.
*.33AR/0A and +-.NT/0 were the onl) candidates 'or the o''ice o' Re&resentative o'
the 3one 3egislative 4istrict o' /ccidental 5indoro in the 11 5a) 1! s)nchroni6ed national
and local elections. /n 27 5a) 1! the 8rovincial Board o' Canvassers &roclai2ed
*.33AR/0A as the winning candidate with a 2argin o' #,0#2 votes.
/n 9 :une 1! +-.NT/0 'iled an election &rotest against *.33AR/0A
$2%
contesting the
results o' the election in all the !!2 &recincts in the eleven 2unici&alities o' /ccidental
5indoro on the 'ollowing grounds; ,11 the (allots were 2isread and counted in 'avor o'
&rotestee< ,21 there was ra2&ant su(stitute voting, i.e., &ersons other than the registered
voters voted< ,#1 violence and inti2idation were co22itted () &rotestee and her 'ollowers
against =nown su&&orters o' &rotestant to enhance &rotestee>s candidac)< 91 &reviousl)
&re&ared (allots 'or the &rotestee were de&osited in the (allot (o?es< and ,51 illiterate
5ang)an voters voting 'or &rotestant were assisted () sel'"a&&ointed assistors o' &rotestee,
who wrote @:T*A on the (allots contrar) to the instruction o' said illiterate voters.
/n B :ul) 1! *.33AR/0A 'iled her Answer with Counter"8rotest and Counterclai2.
$#%
0he counter"&rotested the results o' the election in 97 &recincts.
4uring the &reli2inar) con'erence conducted () the HRET on B August 1!, +-.NT/0
and *.33AR/0A agreed on the 'ollowing 'acts;
1. 8rotestant and 8rotestee were registered candidates 'or and voted as
Re&resentatives, 3one 3egislative 4istrict o' /ccidental 5indoro in the 5a) 11,
1! elections<
2. /n 5a) 27, 1!, a'ter canvass o' returns, the 8rovincial Board o' Canvassers
&roclai2ed 8rotestee *illarosa as the winning candidate 'or having o(tained 'i't)"
'ive thousand 'our hundred ,55,9001 votes, or a 2argin o' three thousand thirt)"
two ,#,0#21 votes over 8rotestant +uintos who was credited 'i't)"two thousand
three hundred si?t)"eight ,52,#B!1 votes<
#. All the &recints in the 3one 3egislative 4istrict o' /ccidental 5indoro 'unctioned in
the elections<
9. 8rotestant contests the results o' the elections in all the &recints o' the eleven
,111 2unici&alities co2&rising the 3one 3egislative 4istrict o' /ccidental
5indoro< u&on the other hand, 8rotestee counter"&rotests the results o' the
elections in 'our hundred ninet)"seven ,971 &recints<
5. 8rotestee is wi'e o' :/0E T. *.33AR/0A, who was Re&resentative o' the 4istrict
in Cuestion 'or two ter2s, the last o' which ended on :une #0, 1!< in his
certi'icate o' candidac) 'or the election o' 5a) !, 15, :/0E T.
*.33AR/0A wrote as his @nic=na2e or stage na2e; :/E":T*.A
B. .n her certi'icate o' candidac), 8rotestee wrote @:T*A as her @nic=na2eDstage
na2e.A
7. .n her a''idavit dated A&ril 1B, 1! sent to the /''ice o' the 8rovincial Election
0u&ervisor, /ccidental 5indoro, 8rotestee as=ed that she (e allowed to insert in
her certi'icate o' candidac) the na2e E.R3.E such that her na2e should read in
'ull as 5A. A5E3.TA @EirlieA C. *.33AR/0A as @in ever) (aranga)s $sic% o' the
8rovince o' /ccidental 5indoroA she is =nown as @Eirlie *illarosaA<
!. .n a letter dated 5arch 27, 1! sent () 8rovincial Election 0u&ervisor ,8E01
Arsenio Euste o' /ccidental 5indoro to 4irector :ose B. Bal(uena, 3aw
4e&art2ent, C/5E3EC, the 'or2er noti'ied the latter that the nic=na2e o'
&rotestee in her certi'icate o' candidac) is :T*<
. .n his 5e2orandu2 dated 5a) 10, 1! to all Election /''icers, 8E0 Euste
in'or2ed the2 that @:T*A is the authori6ed nic=na2e or stage na2e o' &rotestee
and that @hence'orth :T*, 'or all intents and &ur&oses, in the a&&reciation o'
o''icial (allots, F should (e counted in her 'avor<A
10. /ne Att). 4an Restor o' 0an :ose, /ccidental 5indoro, had 'iled with the
C/5E3EC a &etition to invalidateDcancel @:T*A as the o''icial nic=na2e o' the
&rotestee< the &etition was doc=eted as Election 5atter No. !"099< (oth
8rotestant and 8rotestee were not 2ade 'or2al &arties thereto<
11. .n its Resolution o' 5a) 11, 1!, the C/5E3EC en banc unani2ousl) granted
the &etition in Election 5atter No. !"099< it ruled that the 8rotestee @cannot use
the nic=na2e @:T*A considering that the sa2e is not her nic=na2e to which she
is &o&ularl) =nown.A 8rotestee>s 2otion to reconsider the resolution was denied
() the C/5E3EC in its /rder o' 5a) 1#, 1!< 8rotestee therea'ter 'iled with
the 0u&re2e Court a 0&ecial Civil Action 'or Certiorarito challenge the resolution
and order, which was doc=eted as E.R. No. 1##27, which is still &ending
therein<
12. 8er Goint a''idavit o' 5s. 5ichelle *i6carra and 5rs. Car2en Antonio ,Anne? @4A
o' 8etition1 a co&) o' the C/5E3EC Resolution o' 5a) 11, 1! in Election
5atter No. !"099 was received () 8E0 Euste at around 9;00 &.2., (ut were
seen () hi2 at 9;20 &.2. o' 5a) 11, 1!<
1#. Be'ore the 'iling o' this &rotest, 8rotestant 'iled with the C/5E3EC a &etition to
disCuali') 8rotestee, which was doc=e$te%d therein as 08A No. !"#92, on the
grounds that &rotestee had @given 2one) or 2aterial consideration to in'luence,
induce or corru&t the voters or &u(lic o''icials &er'or2ing electoral 'unctions and
co22itted acts o' terroris2 to enhance her candidac).A The case is still &ending.
$9%
The &arties 'urther agreed and sti&ulated on the 'ollowing issues;
1. Hhether or not the votes :T* should (e counted in 'avor o' 8rotestee<
2. Recount and a&&reciation o' (allots<
#. 4a2ages, attorne)>s 'ees and litigation e?&enses as alleged and &ra)ed 'or ()
8rotestee, and according to 8rotestant, as indicated in &ra)er 'or @other relie',
Gust and eCuita(le.A
$5%
The HRET therea'ter reCuired the &arties to designate 25I o' the &rotested and counter"
&rotested &recincts as their res&ective &ilot &recincts &ursuant to Rule B! o' the HRET Rules
o' 8rocedure.
4uring the revision, (allots (earing @:T*,A @:TB,A @ET*,A @ETB,A @:itivi,A @Eitivi,A @:iti(iA and
@Eiti(iA on the line 'or Re&resentative were classi'ied as (allots 'or *.33AR/0A, which the
revisors o' +-.NT/0 o(Gected to. 3i=ewise, (allots (earing @EirlieA on the line 'or
Re&resentative were classi'ied as votes 'or *.33AR/0A.
/n 5 August 1, +-.NT/0 'iled a @5otion to Hithdraw Re2aining Non"8ilot 8rotested
8recincts.A
$B%
/n 7 /cto(er 1, a'ter granting this 2otion, the HRET &ro2ulgated a
resolution
$7%
stating that with +-.NT/0> withdrawal o' the re2aining non"&ilot &rotested
&recincts, +-.NT/0 i2&liedl) li2ited the issue to
D@E/@ER $R N$/ /@E #./0& 0$/EB B@$;%6 BE C$;N/E6 AN FA0$R $F
2R$/EB/EE AME%A/A C( 0A%%AR$BA
/n 4ece2(er 1 the HRET conducted an oral argu2ent and heard +-.NT/0 and
*.33AR/0A on the a'orestated issue.
$!%
/n 1! 5a) 2000, the HRET &ro2ulgated Resolution No. 00"B5
$%
wherein it resolved to
@8R/CEE4 with the revision o' the (allots in the re2aining 75I< and 4.RECT the 0ecretariat
to continue with the revision.A This resolution &ro2&ted *.33AR/0A to 'ile an /2ni(us
5otion
$10%
&ra)ing 'or ,11 the sus&ension o' the revision o' the (allots &ursuant to HRET
Resolution No. 00"B5< ,21 a categorical ruling that all (allots cast 'or @:T*A are valid votes 'or
*.33AR/0A< and ,#1 the dis2issal o' the &rotest.
/n ! :une 2000 the HRET issued Resolution No. 00"!2
$11%
in'or2ing the &arties that @the
Tri(unal ruled on 5a) 1!, 2000, () $a% vote o' 5"9 o' its 2e2(ers, not to count J:T*> and its
variations as valid votes 'or 8rotestee A2elita C. *illarosa, the sa2e (eing considered stra)
(allots... $and that it% directed that the revision o' (allots &roceed with res&ect to the 75I
counter"&rotest &recincts.A
/n 19 :une 2000, *.33AR/0A 'iled with this Court a &etition 'or certiorari doc=eted
as E.R. No. 19##51. 0he alleged therein that the HRET gravel) a(used its discretion in ,a1
issuing the a(ove"2entioned resolutions o' 1! 5a) and ! :une 2000 in that it violated her
right to due &rocess when it dis&osed () a 5"9 ruling a vital election incident without stating
therein the 'indings o' 'act and law on which the resolutions were (ased< and ,(1 treating
@:T*A votes as stra) and invalid, resulting in the disen'ranchise2ent o' the voters o'
/ccidental 5indoro. 0he argued that @:T*A was her designated nic=na2e in the o''icial list o'
candidates su(2itted () the &rovincial election su&ervisor to the C/5E3EC in 5anila< it was
the nic=na2e she used in her &osters, hand(ills and other election &ro&aganda throughout
the ca2&aign &eriod. .n her s&eeches during the rallies, she urged the voters who 2ight have
'ound her 'ull na2e di''icult to write to si2&l) vote @:T*,A as she had decided to use that
nic=na2e as a shortcut o' her na2e as a 2arried wo2an under Article #70 o' the Civil
Code. -nder this Article, a 2arried wo2an 2a) use ,11 her 2aiden 'irst na2e and surna2e
and add her hus(and>s surna2e< ,21 her 2aiden 'irst na2e and her hus(and>s surna2e< or
,#1 her hus(and>s 'ull na2e, (ut &re'i?ing a word indicating that she is his wi'e, such as 5rs.
*.33AR/0A then &ra)ed that this Court issue a te2&orar) restraining order ,TR/1 or a
writ o' &reli2inar) inGunction in E.R. No. 19##51 to enGoin the HRET 'ro2 resu2ing the
revision o' the re2aining (allots in HRET Case No. !"0#0. The Court, however, did not issue
a TR/ (ut reCuired the HRET and +-.NT/0 to 'ile a co22ent on the &etition.
.n his Co22ent, +-.NT/0 alleged that the &etition in E.R. No. 19##51 is &re2ature
(ecause the HRET had not )et rendered a decision on the election &rotest. The assailed
resolutions o' the HRET are not decisions or 'or2al resolutions which, as 2andated () the
Constitution, should set out the 'acts and the law on which the) are (ased< nor are the) acts
which 2a) (e reviewed () certiorari under Rule B5 o' the Rules o' Court. As to the use o'
@:T*A as *.33AR/0A>s nic=na2e, +-.NT/0 clai2s that the HRET>s ruling on the 2atter
should (e 2aintained (ecause under 0ection 211 o' the /2ni(us Election Code an) vote
containing initials onl) shall (e considered a stra) vote. 5oreover, *.33AR/0A>s use o' such
nic=na2e was attended () (ad 'aith, 'raud and 2isre&resentation, and could have (een 'or
no other &ur&ose than to 2a=e voters (elieve that the) are voting 'or her hus(and, who was
the Congress2an o' /ccidental 5indoro 'or two ter2s and the incu2(ent Congress2an at
the ti2e o' the elections on 11 5a) 1!.
The /''ice o' the 0olicitor Eeneral su(2itted a 5ani'estation in 3ieu o' Co22ent and
too= the &osition that @:T*A votes should (e declared valid and counted in 'avor o'
*.33AR/0A, and to declare otherwise would 'rustrate the sovereign will o' the &eo&le o'
/ccidental 5indoro.
No TR/ having (een issued () this Court, the revision o' the (allots o' the re2aining
75I o' the counter"&rotested &recincts went on and was co2&leted on 2! :une
2000. Because o' the ruling that @:T*A votes or votes consisting o' variations o' @:T*A are
stra) votes, *.33AR/0A lost 1,!92 votes in the 75I counter"&rotested &recincts and 9,##B
votes in the 25I &ilot &recincts.
Accordingl), in its decision &ro2ulgated on 27 :ul) 2000,
$12%
the HRET, () a vote o' 5"9,
,11 ruled that +-.NT/0 o(tained 51,9B5 votes, while *.33AR/0A garnered 9!,B17 votes< ,21
declared +-.NT/0 as the dul) elected Re&resentative o' the 3one 4istrict o' /ccidental
5indoro, having o(tained the highest nu2(er o' votes with a 2argin o' 2,!9! votes over
*.33AR/0A< and ,#1 ordered *.33AR/0A to vacate her o''ice at the House o'
Re&resentatives.
The HRET 2aintained that the issue o' whether to count in 'avor o' *.33AR/0A votes
'or @:T*A or its variations necessitated a deter2ination o' whether *.33AR/0A was in 'act
generall) or &o&ularl) =nown as such in the localit) o' /ccidental 5indoro.
The HRET held against *.33AR/0A 'or various reasons. Kirst, in her a''idavit as=ing 'or
the insertion o' @E.R3.EA (etween her given na2e and surna2e she stated that she was
=nown as E.R3.E in ever) (aranga) o' the 8rovince o' /ccidental 5indoro. This is an
ad2ission that, indeed, her nic=na2e is not @:T*A (ut @E.R3.E.A .n 'act, votes cast 'or
@E.R3.EA were credited in her 'avor. Hence, the counting in her 'avor o' (allots (earing @:T*A
votes on the line 'or Re&resentative would (e tanta2ount to inGustice (ecause that would
allow *.33AR/0A to use two nic=na2es, @E.R3.EA and @:T*,A which would (e in violation o'
the second &aragra&h o' 0ection 79 o' the /2ni(us Election Code allowing candidates to use
onl) one nic=na2e or stage na2e () which the) are generall) or &o&ularl) =nown in the
localit). 5oreover, Rule 1#, 0ection 211 o' the /2ni(us Election Code on a&&reciation o'
(allots &rovides;
/he use of ni!-naes and appellations of affe!tion and friendship, if a!!opanied by the first nae or
surnae of the !andidate, does not annul su!h 3ote, e8!ept ,hen they ,ere used as a eans to identify
the 3oter, in ,hi!h !ase the ,hole ballot is in3alid= 2ro3ided, /hat if the ni!-nae used is
una!!opanied by the nae or surnae of a !andidate and it is the one by ,hi!h he is generally or
popularly -no,n in the lo!ality, the nae shall be !ounted in fa3or of said !andidate, if there is no
other !andidate for the sae offi!e ,ith the sae ni!-nae(
The HRET thus agreed with the C/5E3EC in its resolution
$1#%
that disallowed
*.33AR/0A to use @:T*A as a nic=na2e (ecause the sa2e was not her nic=na2e with which
she was &o&ularl) =nown. .n other cases the C/5E3EC en banc in its Resolution No. 5"
0707 o' Ke(ruar) 15 reCuired the 'ollowing senatorial candidates in the ! 5a) 15
elections to su(2it other na2es considering that the nic=na2es or stage na2es the)
su(2itted were not acce&ta(le under the law 'or &ur&oses o' their candidac);
1. :uan Klavier, who su(2itted the nic=na2e @3et>s 4/H it,A which is a slogan o' the
4e&art2ent o' Health and not the nic=na2e o' a &erson<
2. Rodol'o Bia6on, who su(2itted the nic=na2e @Eeneral,A which cannot re'er to
Rodol'o Bia6on onl)<
#. Eloria 5aca&agal"Arro)o, who su(2itted the nic=na2e @E5A,A which is 2ore
associated with Channel 7< and
9. 0ergio /s2eLa ..., who su(2itted the nic=na2e @/M Es=a&o,A which is a title o' a
recent 2ovie and not a general or &o&ular nic=na2e o' /s2eLa.
Kinall), the HRET invo=ed Rule 19 o' 0ection 211 o' the /2ni(us Election Code, which
&rovides that @an) vote containing initials onl)F or which does not su''icientl) identi') the
candidate 'or who2 it is intended shall (e considered stra) vote.A The letters @:T*A and its
derivatives do not adeCuatel) descri(e the identit) o' *.33AR/0A considering that the) are
&art o' the @:/E":T*A nic=na2e o' Jose Tapales Villarosa who had (een the re&resentative o'
the district in Cuestion 'or two ter2s, the last o' which ended on #0 :une 1!. The letters
@:T*A could not de'initel) i2&ress u&on the voters that the &erson running 'or election was
indeed &etitioner *.33AR/0A.
Her 2otion 'or the reconsideration o' the decision having (een denied, *.33AR/0A 'iled
in E.R. No. 19##51 a 0u&&le2ental 5ani'estation with -rgent 5otion to Act on a 8ending
8ra)er and &leaded that this Court issue a te2&orar) restraining order or a status quo order
&ending deli(eration on, and resolution o', the &etition.
/n ! August 2000 this Court reCuired +-.NT/0 to co22ent on the 0u&&le2ental
5ani'estation, and set the case 'or oral argu2ent on 15 August 2000.
/n 11 August 2000 *.33AR/0A 'iled a &etition 'or certiorari under Rule B5 o' the 17
Rules o' Civil 8rocedure, which was doc=eted as E.R. No. 19912, ,11 assailing the HRET
decision< ,21 reiterating the issue o' the validit) o' the @:T*A votes< and ,#1 charging the HRET
with grave a(use o' discretion in dis&ensing with the hearings and a&&reciation o' (allots in
the re2aining 75I counter"&rotested &recincts, there() de&riving her o' the right to due
&rocess.
+-.NT/0 'iled his Co22ent on the 0u&&le2ental 5ani'estation in E.R. No.
19##51. 3ater, in his Addendu2 to Co22ent he in'or2ed the Court that on 12 August 2000,
'ollowing the denial () the HRET o' *.33AR/0A>s 2otion 'or reconsideration, he too= his oath
o' o''ice as Re&resentative o' the 3one 3egislative 4istrict o' /ccidental 5indoro. He then
&ra)ed that the &etition in E.R. No. 19##5 (e dis2issed 'or having (een rendered 2oot and
acade2ic.
At the oral argu2ent on 15 August 2000, the &arties argued on the 'ollowing issues;
,11 Hhether or not due &rocess was o(served () the HRET in rendering the
decision in Cuestion.
,21 Hhether or not the HRET co22itted grave a(use o' discretion in not counting in
'avor o' *.33AR/0A the votes 'or @:T*A or derivatives thereo'.
,#1 Hhether or not this Court can still sustain the en'orce2ent o' the decision o' the
HRET considering its rules on 'inalit) o' Gudg2ent and the 'act that +-.NT/0
has ta=en his oath o' o''ice.
B) a vote o' 7"9, the Court resolved to issue a Status Quo /rder allowing *.33AR/0A to
continue holding her o''ice until 2 August 2000.
/n 2 August 2000, () a vote o' 7"9, with 4avide, :r., C.J.< Bellosillo< Ma&unan<
+uisu2(ing< 8urisi2a< Buena and 0antiago, JJ., voting in 'avor o' the dis2issal o' these
&etitions< and with 8uno, 8angani(an, Re)es and 4e 3eon, JJ., dissenting, the Court resolved
to dis2iss the &etitions in these cases, without &reGudice to an e?tended o&inion. He also
ordered the i22ediate li'ting o' the status quo order issued on 15 August 2000.
This ponencia is an e?tended o&inion.
The 'irst two issues revolve on the ruling o' the HRET li2iting the issue to the validit) o'
the votes 'or @:T*A or derivatives thereo' and in dis&ensing with the hearings and a&&reciation
o' (allots in the re2aining 75I o' the counter"&rotested &recincts.
He hold that *.33AR/0A was not denied due &rocess in this regard. As to the li2itation
o' the issue, *.33AR/0A has hersel' to (la2e. Kirst, she sought no reconsideration o' the
&ronounce2ent o' the HRET in its 7 /cto(er 1 Resolution that @$w%ith 8rotestant>s
withdrawal o' the re2aining non"&ilot &rotested &recincts, 8rotestant i2&liedl) li2ited the
issue to whether or not J:T*> votes should (e counted in 'avor o' &rotestee A2elita C.
*illarosa.A 0econd, at the oral argu2ent (e'ore the HRET on 4ece2(er 1,
*.33AR/0A>s counsel did not o(Gect to, (ut instead concurred with, +-.NT/0> su(2ission
that the case would rise or 'all on how the Tri(unal would rule on the @:T*A votes.
The assailed decision o' the HRET Cuotes the state2ents o' Att). Keli62eLa, counsel 'or
+-.NT/0, and Att). 5a=alintal, counsel 'or *.33AR/0A, during the oral argu2ent, thus;
Att). Keli62eLa; ? ? ? /ur case will rise or 'all on @:T*A on whether or not it is valid or not ?
? ? ,T0N o' 4ece2(er , 1, 8art ., &. 101
? ? ?
Att). Keli62eLa; ? ? ? i' this Tri(unal will validate @:T*A (allots, . have no case. ,.(id, i(id,
&. 191
? ? ?
Att). Keli62eLa; ? ? ? as . said earlier, . alread) withdrew the (alance o' our &rotest, Nour
Honor, and . will onl) su(2it 'or resolution on the &recincts so revised, re'erring to the
&ilot &recincts o' (oth &arties. Now, even in the &ilot &recincts o' the &rotestee, Nour
Honor, there were !B5 (allots containing @:T*A and its derivatives so it will increase
even the lead o' the &rotestant should the Hon. Tri(unal rule$ % that @:T*A is null and
void. However, i' the rule is valid, . have no 2ore case ,.(id, 8art .., &. 101
? ? ?
Att). Keli62eLa; ? ? ? And 'inall), Nour Honors, there are su''icient (allots containing @:T*A
and its derivatives including @EirlieA which will o''set the winning 2argin o' the
&rotestee () 2ore than one thousand eight hundred ,1,!001. And the &rotestee, in the
re2aining non"&ilot counter"&rotested $&recincts% will not an)2ore recover what she
had lost here in the &ilot &recincts (ecause the &ilot &recincts are su&&osedl) the
&recincts where the ano2al) is 2ore notorious. 0o, there is no 2ore chance 'or the
&rotestee to recover what she had lost i' @:T*A (allots are considered stra). ,.(id, 8art
..., &. 2#1
? ? ?
Att). Keli62eLa; ? ? ? we alread) withdrew our re2aining non"&ilot &rotested
&recincts. Hhat is now le't 'or the Tri(unal is to decide whether or not it will continue
the revision o' the non"&ilot counter"&rotested &recincts ? ? ? He su(2it, Nour
Honors, that i' this Honora(le Tri(unal will consider as stra) @:T*A (allots, we will
su''icientl) overco2e the winning 2argin. And the &rotestee cannot overco2e our
winning 2argin in the non"&ilot counter"&rotested &recincts. 0o that, there'ore, Nour
Honors, there is no need an)2ore to go though $sic% and this case could (e decided
without an)2ore revising. That is wh) we withdrew, as we stated earlier, our case will
rise and 'all on @:T*.A ? ? ? ,.(id, i(id, &&. 29"251
? ? ?
Att). 5acalintal; ? ? ? Hell, . have nothing 2ore to discuss, Nour Honors, (ecause . thin=
the onl) issue here is whether we could validate the use$ % o' initials, Nour Honors.
,.(id, 8art .*, &. 251.
$19%
,underscoring su&&lied 'or e2&hasis1
Kinall), a'ter the HRET &ro2ulgated its resolution o' 1! 5a) 2000 directing the revision
o' the (allots in the re2aining 75I &recincts, *.33AR/0A'iled an /2ni(us 5otion, &ra)ing
'or, inter alia, a categorical ruling that all (allots cast 'or @:T*A are valid votes 'or her. .n its
resolution o' ! :une 2000 the HRET ruled () a 5"9 vote @not to count :T* and its variations as
valid votes 'orA *.33AR/0A.
.n the 11! case o' Banco Espaol-Filipino v. Palanca
$15%
this Court held;
As applied to a Cudi!ial pro!eeding, ho,e3er, it ay be laid do,n ,ith !ertainty that the re<uireent of
due pro!ess is satisfied if the follo,ing !onditions are present, naely= "1' there ust be a !ourt or
tribunal !lothed ,ith Cudi!ial po,er to hear and deterine the atter before it= "4' Curisdi!tion ust be
la,fully a!<uired o3er the person of the defendant or o3er the property ,hi!h is the subCe!t of the
pro!eeding= "1' the defendant ust be gi3en an opportunity to be heard= and "+' Cudgent ust be
rendered upon the la,ful hearing(
The essence o' due &rocess is the reasona(le o&&ortunit) to (e heard and su(2it
evidence in su&&ort o' one>s de'ense. To (e heard does not onl) 2ean ver(al argu2ents in
court< one 2a) (e heard also through &leadings. Hhere o&&ortunit) to (e heard, either
through oral argu2ents or &leadings, is accorded, there is no denial o' due &rocess.
$1B%
Kro2 the 'oregoing, it is too &lain and o(vious that not onl) was *.33AR/0A heard on
the issue, she even 2oved that the HRET 2a=e a categorical ruling that all (allots cast 'or
@:T*A are valid (allots 'or her. *.33AR/0A cannot now (e heard to co2&lain that she was
denied due &rocess.
Hith the ruling that the onl) issue le't 'or deter2ination was whether to count in 'avor o'
*.33AR/0A votes cast 'or :T* or variations thereo', it logicall) 'ollows that a hearing or
a&&reciation o' (allots other than those cast 'or @:T*A or variations thereo' in the re2aining
75I counter"&rotested &recincts was unnecessar). All that was to (e done was to segregate
there'ro2 (allots (earing @:T*A or variations thereo'.
Concretel) then, the onl) issue that can Gusti') our ta=ing cogni6ance o' these cases is to
deter2ine, &ursuant to our dut) under 0ection 1 o' Article *... o' the Constitution, whether the
HRET co22itted grave a(use o' discretion a2ounting to lac= or e?cess o' Gurisdiction in
declaring the @:T*A votes as stra) votes. .t should not (e 'orgotten that under the Constitution
the HRET is @the sole Gudge o' all contests relating to the election, returns and Cuali'ications o'
the 5e2(ers o' the House o' Re&resentatives.
$17%
Erave a(use o' discretion i2&lies such
ca&ricious and whi2sical e?ercise o' Gudg2ent as is eCuivalent to lac= o' Gurisdiction< or, in
other words, where the &ower is e?ercised in an ar(itrar) 2anner () reason o' &assion or
&ersonal hostilit). .t 2ust (e so &atent and gross as to a2ount to an evasion o' &ositive dut)
or to a virtual re'usal to &er'or2 the dut) enGoined or to act at all in conte2&lation o' law.
$1!%
.' the HRET had co22itted grave a(use o' discretion a2ounting to lac= or e?cess o'
Gurisdiction, then the aggrieved &art) 2a) co2e to us 'or redress () wa) o' a s&ecial civil
action 'or certiorari under Rule B5 o' the 17 Rules o' Civil 8rocedure even i' () the HRET
Rules o' 8rocedure the assailed Gudg2ent has (eco2e 'inal and the &revailing &art) has
ta=en his oath o' o''ice or assu2ed his &osition. The HRET rule on 'inalit) o' its Gudg2ent
cannot divest the 0u&re2e Court o' its &ower and dut) under 0ection 1 o' Article *... o' the
Constitution to deter2ine in a &ro&er case whether there has (een grave a(use o' discretion
a2ounting to lac= or e?cess o' Gurisdiction on the &art o' HRET.
E?&laining this dut) o' the courts, then Co22issioner Ro(erto R. Conce&cion, 'or2er
Chie' :ustice, stated;
Briefly stated, !ourts of Custi!e deterine the liits of po,er of the agen!ies and offi!es of the
go3ernent as ,ell as those of its offi!es( An other ,ords, the Cudi!iary is the final arbiter on the
<uestion ,hether or not a bran!h of go3ernent or any of its offi!ials has a!ted ,ithout Curisdi!tion or
in e8!ess of Curisdi!tion, or so !apri!iously as to !onstitute an abuse of dis!retion aounting to e8!ess
of Curisdi!tion or la!- of Curisdi!tion( /his is not only a Cudi!ial po,er but a duty to pass Cudgent on
atters of this nature(
G19H
The 'acts esta(lished in this case, strengthened () the ad2ission o' the &arties at the
&reli2inar) con'erence conducted () the HRET on B August 1! and during the oral
argu2ent (e'ore the Court on 15 August 2000, lead us to no other conclusion than that the
use () *.33AR/0A o' @:T*A as her nic=na2e or stage na2e, as indicated in her Certi'icate o'
Candidac), was a clever ruse or &lo) to 2a=e a 2oc=er) o' the election &rocess. There'ore,
the HRET did not co22it an) grave a(use o' discretion in ruling that @:T*A votes should not
(e counted in 'avor o' *.33AR/0A. The) are stra) votes.Here are the 'acts;
1. The hus(and o' &etitioner is Jose Tapales Villarosa.
2. Jose Tapales Villarosa was elected Re&resentative o' the 3one 3egislative
4istrict o' /ccidental 5indoro in the 12 and 15 elections, there() serving
two 'ull ter2s.
#. 4uring the election and ca2&aign &eriods 'or the 11 5a) 1! elections Jose
Tapales Villarosa was the incu2(ent Re&resentative o' the 3one 3egislative
4istrict o' /ccidental 5indoro.
9. .n his certi'icate o' candidac) 'or the 5a) 15 elections Jose Tapales
Villarosa entered as his nic=na2e @:/E":T*.A As stated () counsel 'or
*.33AR/0A during the 15 August 2000 oral argu2ent, :/E and @:T*A are two
nic=na2es o' Jose Tapales Villarosa.
5. 8er ad2ission o' *.33AR/0A>s counsel during the oral argu2ent on 15 August
2000, @:T*A was used () Jose Tapales Villarosa as his nic=na2e in (oth the
12 and 15 elections, and the &u(lic was &u(licl) in'or2ed thereo'.
$20%
B. @:T*A re'ers actuall) to the initials o' Jose Tapales Villarosa.
7. Be'ore *.33AR/0A 'iled her certi'icate o' candidac) on 27 5arch 1! 'or the 11
5a) 1! elections, *.33AR/0A never used @:T*A as her nic=na2e or stage
na2e. Her nic=na2e was @E.R3.E.A .n her a''idavit dated 1B A&ril 1! which
she 'iled with the 8rovincial Election 0u&ervisor, she reCuested that she (e
allowed to insert in her Certi'icate o' Candidac) the na2e @E.R3.EA (etween her
given na2e A2elita and the initial o' her 2aiden surna2e C so that her na2e
would read in 'ull as 'ollows; @5A. A5E3.TA @EirlieA C. *.33AR/0A.A
!. .n said a''idavit o' 1B A&ril 1!, *.33AR/0A sole2nl) declared under oath that
she was =nown as @E.R3.EA *illarosa in ever) (aranga) o' the 8rovince o'
/ccidental 5indoro.
. 4uring the ca2&aign &eriod 'or the 11 5a) 1! elections, *.33AR/0A>s
ca2&aign strea2ers ,e.g., Anne? @8"1A o' 8etition in E.R. No. 199121 and
hand(ills ,e.g., Anne? @8"2,A id.1 did not at all show that @:T*A was her
nic=na2e. 0he earlier wanted her real nic=na2e @E.R3.EA to (e &laced (etween
A5E3.TA and *.33AR/0A &er the reCuest in her a''idavit o' 1B A&ril 1!, which
reCuest was not acted u&on.
Kro2 the 'oregoing, the 'ollowing conclusions are (e)ond dis&ute;
First, #./0& represents either the initials or the ni!-nae of #ose $a%ales Villarosa.
Be!ond, 0A%%AR$BA ,as ne3er generally or popularly -no,n as #./0(& Bhe ,as generally or
popularly -no,n as #7AR%AE(& Clearly then, sin!e #./0& reains to be either the initials or ni!-nae
of #ose $a%ales Villarosa, ,ho ,as the in!ubent Congressan during the ele!tion and !apaign
periods for the 11 May 1998 ele!tions, 3otes entered or ,ritten as #./0& !annot be !onsidered as 3otes
for petitioner( /he 3otes #./0& or any 3ariations thereof are, therefore, stray 3otes(
.t would (e the height o' naivet) to (elieve that, indeed, @:T*A is &etitioner>s nic=na2e, or
that she used it 'or an) other &ur&ose than to ride on the &o&ularit) o' her hus(and to 2islead
the voters, es&eciall) the less in'or2ed.
The &lea that the voters> intention 2ust &revail is 2is&laced. .t assu2es that those who
wrote @:T*A actuall) intended to vote 'or &etitioner. This could (e true onl) i' the &erson who
actuall) owns the nic=na2e or the initials @:T*A ere not ,a1 *.33AR/0A>s hus(and, ,(1 the
incu2(ent Re&resentative who had won as such in (oth the 12 and 15 elections, ,c1
generall) and &o&ularl) =nown as @:T*A when he ran and ca2&aigned 'or Re&resentative in
(oth elections in the sa2e legislative district where *.33AR/0A ran in the 5a) 1!
elections. But since these were the i22uta(le 'acts, the voters who wrote @:T*A or variations
thereo' had no other &erson in 2ind e?ce&t the then incu2(ent Re&resentative, Jose Tapales
Villarosa, or the ver) &erson who2 the) have =nown 'or a long ti2e as @:T*.A
The 'oregoing 'acts distinguish these cases 'ro2 those relied u&on () *.33AR/0A and
in the concurring and dissenting o&inion o' 52e. :ustice Eon6aga"Re)es.
0ince @:T*A undou(tedl) re'ers to the initials or nic=na2e o' *.33AR/0A>s
hus(and, Jose Tapales Villarosa, who was, let it (e stressed again, the incu2(ent
Re&resentative o' the district in Cuestion at the ti2e o' the election 'or his successor, neither
reason nor rh)2e can su&&ort or Gusti') a clai2 that @:T*A votes were intended 'or &etitioner
*.33AR/0A.
Article #70 o' the Civil Code, which *.33AR/0A invo=es, &rovides no relie' 'or her. The
article enu2erates the na!es which a 2arried wo2an 2a) use. /ne o' the2 is @her
hus(and>s 'ull na2e, (ut &re'i?ing a word indicating that she is his wi'e, such as 5rs.A .'
*.33AR/0A had availed hersel' o' this, as she suggested in her &etition and during the oral
argu2ent, then her na!e would (e @5R0. :/0E TA8A3E0 *.33AR/0A.A .' 'or e?&edienc)
and convenience she would use the initials o' her hus(and, then her na!e, in initials would
(e @5R0. :T*.A Net, on this &oint, *.33AR/0A even atte2&ted to con'use us. 4uring the oral
argu2ent on 15 August 2000 she tried to convince us that @5R0. :T*A is also her nic=na2e,
thus;
CH.EK :-0T.CE;
And (e'ore 15 can )ou in'or2 the Court i' 5rs. *illarosa the &etitioner here had ever
used the nic=na2e :T*O
ATTN. 4E 3.5A B/H/3;
As 5rs. :T*, )es, (ut not &urel) as :T*. . a2 not aware o' an) instance where she used
&urel) as :T* (ut as 5rs. :T*.
CH.EK :-0T.CE;
4o )ou have evidence to show that (e'ore 15 elections :T* was the nic=na2e o' 5rs.
*illarosa or the &etitioner nowO
ATTN. 4E 3.5A B/H/3;
He don>t have evidence, Nour Honor.
CH.EK :-0T.CE;
Can )ou tell the Court i' at an) ti2e (e'ore the 'iling o' the certi'icate o' candidac) o' the
&etitioner (e'ore the 5a) 11, 1! election she ever used the nic=na2e :T*O
ATTN. 4E 3.5A B/H/3;
As 5rs. :T*, )es.
CH.EK :-0T.CE;
0o, (e'ore the 'iling o' the certi'icate o' candidac) 'or the 5a) 11, 1! election the
&etitioner here used the nic=na2e 5rs. :T*O
ATTN. 4E 3.5A B/H/3;
Nes, Nour Honor.
CH.EK :-0T.CE;
5eaning, . stress 5rs. :T*O
ATTN. 4E 3.5A B/H/3;
Nes, )our Honor.
$21%
,E2&hasis su&&lied1
This atte2&t 'urther &roves (e)ond dou(t that, indeed, @:T*A had never (een *.33AR/0A>s
nic=na2e.
Even i' *.33AR/0A decided to use @:T*A as her nic=na2e 'or &ur&oses o' the 11 5a)
1! elections, one 2ust never 'orget that she never used it as a nic=na2e (e'ore she 'iled
her certi'icate o' candidac). The nic=na2e which the second &aragra&h o' 0ection 79 o' the
/2ni(us Election Code allows to (e included in the certi'icate o' candidac) is that @() which
$the candidate% is generall) or &o&ularl) =nown.A This clearl) 2eans the nic=na2e () which
one has (een generall) or &o&ularl) =nown BEK/RE the 'iling o' the certi'icate o' candidac),
(ut N/T what the candidate wants toTHEREAKTER use. B) her own state2ent under oath in
her a''idavit o' 1B A&ril 1!, *.33AR/0A sole2nl) declared that she was generall) and
&o&ularl) =nown in ever) (aranga) in /ccidental 5indoro as
@E.R3.EA BEK/RE and AKTER she 'iled her certi'icate o' candidac). And, as asserted () her
counsel during the oral argu2ent on 15 August 2000, her other nic=na2e (e'ore she 'iled her
certi'icate o' candidac) was @5R0. :T*,A not @:T*.A
Rule 1# o' 0ection 211 o' the /2ni(us Election Code cannot (e a&&lied in 'avor o'
*.33AR/0A. That rule allows the use o' ,a1 a nic=na2e and a&&ellation o' a''ection and
'riendshi&, &rovided that it is acco2&anied () the 'irst na2e or surna2e o' the candidate,
unless the nic=na2e or a&&ellation is used to identi') the voter< and ,(1 a nic=na2e, which is
not acco2&anied () the na2e or surna2e o' a candidate, &rovided that it is the one () which
the candidate is generall) or &o&ularl) =nown in the localit). .n (oth instances, the vote cast
'or the nic=na2e is a valid vote 'or the candidate concerned.The @:T*A votes are
unacco2&anied () her 'irst na2e or surna2e< and @:T*A is not, to re&eat, a nic=na2e ()
which *.33AR/0A was generall) and &o&ularl) =nown in the 3egislative 4istrict o' /ccidental
5indoro. The HRET then co22itted no error in not a&&l)ing in 'avor o' *.33AR/0A Rule 1#,
0ection 211 o' the /2ni(us Election Code.
0igni'icantl), *.33AR/0A>s original counsel ad2itted during the oral argu2ent on
4ece2(er 1 that @:T*A are 2ere initials, thus;
Att). 5acalintal; ??? Hell, . have nothing 2ore to discuss, Nour Honors, (ecause . thin= the
ver) issue here is whether, we could validate the used $sic% o' initials, Nour Honors.
The HRET was thus correct in a&&l)ing Rule 19 o' 0ection 211 o' the /2ni(us Election
Code, which &rovides;
1+( Any 3ote !ontaining initials only or ,hi!h is illegible or ,hi!h does not suffi!iently identify the
!andidate for ,ho it is intended shall be !onsidered as a stray 3ote but shall not in3alidate the ,hole
ballot(
-nder this rule three =inds o' votes are considered stra); ,11 a vote containing initials
onl), ,21 a vote which is illegi(le, and ,#1 a vote which does not su''icientl) identi') the
candidate 'or who2 it is intended. The onl) error o' the HRET is its ruling that i' the votes are
in initials onl), the) are to (e considered stra) votes i' the) do not su''icientl) identi') the
candidate 'or who2 the votes are intended. The 'irst categor) o' stra) votes under this rule is
not to (e Cuali'ied () the third categor) in the sense that votes in initials onl) 2a) (e counted
'or a candidate &rovided that the initials would su''icientl) identi') the candidate voted
'or. 0uch construction o' the rule 'ails to give 2eaning to the disGunctive
conGunction /R se&arating the 'irst categor) 'ro2 the second, and the second 'ro2 the third.
Kurther2ore, since votes 'or @E.R3.EA written in the s&ace 'or Re&resentative were in
'act clai2ed () *.33AR/0A and credited in her 'avor, then the HRET correctl) ruled that
@:T*A votes or variations thereo', under the ide! sonans rule, cannot (e counted 'or
*.33AR/0A (ecause onl) one nic=na2e or stage na2e is allowed.
Kro2 all the 'oregoing, (ad 'aith or 2alice on the &art o' *.33AR/0A was evident when,
in her certi'icate o' candidac) and ca2&aign 2aterials, she a&&ro&riated the initials or
nic=na2e o' her hus(and, the incu2(ent Re&resentative o' the district in Cuestion who2 she
wanted to succeed in o''ice. 0he tried to 2a=e a 2oc=er) o' a &rocess whose credi(ilit) is
essential in &reserving de2ocrac). "ullus co!!odu! potest de in#uria sua propia. No one
should (e allowed to ta=e advantage o' his own wrong.
Howsoever viewed, &u(lic res&ondent HRET did not co22it an) a(use o' discretion in
holding that the onl) issue 'or its deter2ination was whether @:T*A votes or variations thereo'
should (e counted in 'avor o' *.33AR/0A and in ruling that such votes are stra) votes.
-ERE"ORE, the &etitions in these cases are 4.05.00E4 'or lac= o' 2erit.
SO OR(ERE(.