G.R. No. 233016 . March 05, 2019
REYNALDO S. ZAPANTA, PETITIONER, EDILBERTO U. LAGASCA, PETITIONER-INTERVENOR, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ALFRED J. ZAPANTA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

For the 2016 elections for eight city councilor seats in Antipolo City’s Second District, incumbent councilor Alfred J. Zapanta (Alfred) and Reynaldo S. Zapanta (Reynaldo) both filed Certificates of Candidacy. Alfred filed a petition to declare Reynaldo a nuisance candidate, alleging Reynaldo fraudulently used the nickname “Alfred” on his COC and ballot to sow confusion, as Reynaldo was allegedly known as “Rey” on social media. Reynaldo countered that he was genuinely known as “Alfred” to family and friends, was a legitimate nominee of the Lakas-CMD party, and that the ballot entries—”ZAPANTA ALFRED J.” for Alfred and “ZAPANTA ALFRED LAKAS” for himself—were sufficiently distinct.
The COMELEC Second Division granted Alfred’s petition, declaring Reynaldo a nuisance candidate due to the “confusingly similar” names and a perceived lack of bona fide intention to run. The COMELEC En Banc affirmed this and, citing the rule in Jalosjos v. COMELEC, ordered that all votes cast for Reynaldo be credited to Alfred. This adjustment altered the election results, making Alfred the eighth and final winner and displacing petitioner-intervenor Edilberto Lagasca, who initially placed eighth.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the transfer of all votes received by nuisance candidate Reynaldo S. Zapanta to bona fide candidate Alfred J. Zapanta.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the COMELEC resolutions. The Court held that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion by misapplying the doctrine for crediting votes in nuisance candidate cases. The legal rule, established in Jalosjos and clarified in Santos v. COMELEC, is distinct for single-slot and multi-slot offices. For a multi-slot office like the city council, votes for a nuisance candidate are not automatically credited to the bona fide candidate. The proper rule is: if a ballot contains a vote only for the nuisance candidate, it is counted for the bona fide candidate; but if a ballot contains votes for both the nuisance and the bona fide candidate, only one vote is counted for the bona fide candidate to avoid over-voting. The COMELEC’s blanket crediting of all of Reynaldo’s votes to Alfred violated this nuanced rule, effectively disenfranchising voters who may have intentionally voted for both candidates and unjustly altering the vote totals. Consequently, the official canvass results prior to the COMELEC’s order were reinstated, declaring Lagasca as the rightful eighth winning candidate.