G.R. No. L-20245; September 30, 1963
Tomas A. Borja, petitioner, vs. Dioscoro de Leon, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Tomas A. Borja and Dioscoro de Leon were candidates for mayor of Gapan, Nueva Ecija in the 1959 elections. The municipal board of canvassers proclaimed De Leon as the winner by a margin of 96 votes. Borja filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance, contesting results in several precincts. De Leon filed a counter-protest. After trial and a recount in one precinct, the trial court amended its decision, declaring De Leon the winner by 8 votes.
Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals. De Leon’s appeal was dismissed for failure to file his brief, and he was also barred from filing a brief as appellee. The Court of Appeals rendered a decision, again declaring De Leon the winner, this time by a plurality of 37 votes. Borja moved for reconsideration, arguing that the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction by reviewing over 300 ballots that he did not specifically assign as errors in his appeal. He contended that, with De Leon’s appeal dismissed and no brief filed, the appellate court’s review should have been limited only to the ballots Borja himself questioned. The Court of Appeals denied his motion.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reviewing ballots not specifically assigned as errors by the appellant (Borja) in his appeal, especially considering the dismissal of the appellee’s (De Leon’s) appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, ruling that it did not err. The Court clarified that while prior rulings stated that an appellant in an election case should point out specific errors in the revision of ballots to guide the court, this procedural guideline is not a jurisdictional limit on the appellate court’s power. An appeal in an election contest is treated similarly to an appeal in a criminal case, where the case is tried de novo. This grants the appellate court broad authority to examine ballots motu proprio to ascertain the true will of the electorate, as mandated by Section 175 of the Revised Election Code.
The Court emphasized that election cases involve paramount public interest. The fundamental objective is to determine the candidate truly elected by the people. Technicalities and procedural barriers must not obstruct this purpose. Therefore, an appellate court has the duty and authority to correct errors in the appreciation of ballots, even if not specifically raised in an assignment of error, to ensure a just result and give effect to the popular will. The ruling in Cababasada v. Valmoria was cited, where it was held that an appellate court must correct the illegal rejection of ballots even without an express assignment of error. The Court concluded that the appellate court acted within its jurisdiction and in line with the liberal construction required in election cases to serve the ends of justice.