EN BANC

[EAC (BRGY-SK) No. 06-10. January 12, 2012.]

JOANNA MARIE P. MANILAG, protestant-appellant, vs.

RONALYN ANN H. BAUTISTA, protestee-appellee.

RESOLUTION

BRILLANTES JR., SIXTO S., Chairman : p

The instant Motion for Reconsideration assails the Resolution of the

First Division dated June 27, 2011 annulling the Order of the Metropolitan
Trial Court Branch 71, Pasig City dated November 5, 2010 which dismissed
the election protest filed by protestant-appellant Joanna Marie P. Manilag
(Manilag) against protestee-appellee Ronalyn Ann H. Bautista (Bautista). The
dispositive portion of the assailed Resolution reads:
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Appeal is hereby
GRANTED. The Order dated November 5, 2010 of the Metropolitan
Trial Court, Pasig City in Election Protest Case No. EC-004-10 is
ANNULLED. Accordingly, the said protest is REINSTATED and its
records REMANDED to the court of origin for further proceedings."
During the October 25, 2010 Barangay and SK elections, Manilag and
Bautista were among the candidates for the position of Sangguniang
Kabataan Chairman of Barangay Sta. Cruz, Pasig City. Leading by four (4)
votes, Bautista was proclaimed as elected SK Chairman with twenty eight
(28) votes while Manilag garnered only twenty-four (24) votes.
Dissatisfied with the election results, Manilag filed an election protest
before the court a quo on November 3, 2010. 1
On November 5, 2010, the court a quo without awaiting for the Answer
of Bautista, immediately ordered the dismissal of Manilag's election protest
for being insufficient in form and content citing Rule 2, Section 13 of A.M. No.
07-4-15-SC.
Manilag appealed the said Order through a Notice of Appeal 2 before
this Commission. Reversing the court a quo's Order, the First Division found
the election protest to be sufficient in form and content thereby granting the
Appeal of Manilag and remanding the case to the court a quo for further
proceedings. Thus, Bautista filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration
arguing that the election protest was "based on sweeping and general
allegations of election fraud, anomaly or irregularity." 3
We now resolve.
Rule 2, Section 11 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC states: CSTHca

"SEC. 11. Contents of the protest or petition. — An election

protest or petition for quo warranto shall specifically state the
following facts:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 (a) the position involved;
(b) the date of proclamation; and
(c) the number of votes credited to the parties per
proclamation.
An election protest shall also state:
(d) the total number of precincts of the municipality or the
barangay concerned;
(e) the protested precincts and votes of the parties in the
protested precincts per the Statement of Votes By Precinct or, if the
votes of the parties are not specified, an explanation why the votes
are not specified; and
(f) a detailed specification of the acts or omissions
complained of showing the electoral frauds, anomalies or
irregularities in the protested precincts."
In the instant case, it is not disputed by the parties that the first five (5)
of the six (6) averments required in Rule 2, Section 11 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-
S C (pars. a, b, c, d and e) have been satisfactorily alleged in the election
protest, to wit: (a) that Manilag assails the results of the election for the
position of Sangguniang Kabataan Chairman of Barangay Sta. Cruz, Pasig
C i t y ; 4 (b) that the protestee Bautista was proclaimed as elected
Sangguniang Kabataan Chairman on 25 October 2010; 5 (c) that the
protestee was credited with twenty eight (28) votes while the protestant
garnered twenty four (24) votes; 6 (d) that there is only one (1) precinct in
Barangay Sta. Cruz Pasig City during the October 25, 2010 Barangay
Election; 7 and (e) that Manilag protests the results of the election in the said
sole precinct, Precinct No. 480-A-480-B and based on the Statement of Votes
by Precinct, the votes of the protestee and protestant in the said precinct
were twenty eight (28) and twenty four (24), respectively. 8
Therefore, the crux of the controversy is whether the election protest
contains "a detailed specification of the acts or omissions complained of
showing the electoral frauds, anomalies or irregularities in the protested
precincts." 9
In a long line of cases including Miguel v. COMELEC, 10 Saquilayan v.
COMELEC 11 and Panlilio vs. COMELEC , 12 the Supreme Court consistently
ruled that mere allegations of fraud are already sufficient to warrant the
revision of ballots.
In Miguel, the Supreme Court explained:
"The law does not require prima facie showing other than the
allegations in the protest of fraud or irregularities in order to authorize
the opening of the ballot boxes. . ."
It continued:
"The rule in this jurisdiction is clear and jurisprudence is even
clearer. In a string of categorical pronouncements, we have
consistently ruled that when there is an allegation in an election
protest that would require the perusal, examination or counting of
ballots as evidence, it is the ministerial duty of the trial court to order
the opening of the ballot boxes and the examination and counting of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 ballots deposited therein."
In other words, as long as there is an allegation of fraud that would
require the perusal, examination or counting of ballots as evidence, it is the
ministerial duty of the court to give due course to an election protest. The
reason for this, as held by the Supreme Court in Astorga v. Fernandez , 13 is
that "the simplest, the most expeditious and the best means to determine
the truth or falsity of this allegation is to open the ballot box and examine its
content."
Upon careful examination of the subject election protest, we found that
the following serious allegations would require the perusal, examination or
counting of ballots as evidence, to wit: HIEASa

"4.1.1. The rules for appreciation of ballots were not

correctly observed by the members of the Board of Election Tellers
(BET) despite objections from the watchers of the protestant;
4.1.2. Ballots wherein the name of protestant was voted for
were not read and counted by the Board of Election Tellers in at least
two (2) ballots;
xxx xxx xxx

4.1.4. In the protested precinct, ballot legally cast in favor of

protestant was considered stray, and were not counted amounting to
at least two (2) ballots;
4.1.5. Ballots in the protested precinct that were clearly
marked was read and counted in favor of the protestee numbering at
least two (2) ballots;
4.1.6. Ballots which appeared to have been prepared by one
hand/person, and individual ballot which appear to have been
prepared by two or more persons, were counted and read in favor of
the protestee, numbering at least two (2) ballots;

xxx xxx xxx." 14

Bautista also argued that, ". . . in deciding whether or not an election

protest is sufficient in form and in substance, it is not enough to simply look
at the allegations in the election protest. . ." 15 Such argument is parallel to
the finding of the court a quo that the "allegations [in the election protest]
were unsubstantiated by any of the attached documentary evidence" 16 and
therefore dismissible.
We find the said conclusion of the court a quo as premature
considering that the issues were yet to be joined, the trial has not yet
started and the ballots — which are the best evidence of the protestant's
allegations — are yet to be recounted. Thus, such conclusion erroneously
touches upon the merits or substanceof the election protest and goes
beyond the limited authority of the court a quo which is merely to determine
whether an election protest contains the basic allegations required by Rule 2
Section 11 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC.
Thus, considering that the subject election protest contains all the
basic allegations required by Rule 2 Section 11 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 including those averments that would require the perusal, examination or
counting of ballots as evidence, it is the ministerial duty of the court a quo to
order the opening of the ballot boxes and the examination and counting of
ballots deposited therein. For only then will the uncertainty that beclouds the
real choice of the electorate be dispelled.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motion for Reconsideration
is hereby DENIED. The Resolution of the First Division is hereby AFFIRMED.
Accordingly, the election protest is REINSTATED and its records REMANDED
to the court of origin for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.

(SGD.) SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR.

Chairman

(SGD.) RENE V. SARMIENTO

Commissioner

(SGD.) LUCENITO N. TAGLE

Commissioner

(SGD.) ARMANDO C. VELASCO

Commissioner

(SGD.) ELIAS R. YUSOPH

Commissioner

(SGD.) CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM

Commissioner

(SGD.) AUGUSTO C. LAGMAN

Commissioner
Footnotes
1. Records, p. 27.

2. Records, pp. 1-2.

3. Records, p. 80; Motion for Reconsideration p. 4.

4. Election Protest, p. 1; Records, p. 27.

5. Election Protest p. 3; Records, p. 29.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 6. Election Protest p. 3; Records, p. 29.
7. Election Protest p. 3; Records, p. 29.
8. Election Protest p. 3; Court Records, p. 29.

9. Rule 2, Section 11 (f) of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC.

10. G.R. No. 136966, July 5, 2000.

11. G.R. No. 157249, November 28, 2003.

12. G.R. No. 181478, July 15, 2009.

13. 19 SCRA 331.

14. Records pp. 30-31.
15. Records p. 83.

16. Records, p. 25.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com