G.R. No. 30283 , February 15, 1929
JUAN NAMOCATCAT, protestant-appellee, vs. VICTORINO ADAG, protestee-appellant.

FACTS

In the municipal elections for President of Valencia, Bohol, the municipal board of canvassers proclaimed Victorino Adag as the winner with 431 votes against Juan Namocatcat’s 426 votes. Namocatcat filed an election protest. After a recount by appointed commissioners, the Court of First Instance of Bohol adjudicated several contested ballots and declared Namocatcat the winner with 446 votes against Adag’s 435 votes. Adag appealed, contesting the validity of specific ballots counted for Namocatcat.

ISSUE

1. Whether ballots bearing only the Christian name and the initial of the surname (e.g., “Juan N.”) are valid votes for the candidate Juan Namocatcat.
2. Whether ballots bearing the nickname “Juan Gading” are valid votes for Juan Namocatcat, who used that nickname.
3. Whether a ballot is invalid simply because a voter wrote a name for an office (e.g., representative) for which that person was not a candidate.

RULING

1. On the “Juan N.” Ballots: The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s adjudication of these ballots in favor of Juan Namocatcat. The Court departed from its previous strict rulings in *Cailles v. Gomez* and *Lucero v. De Guzman*. It held that when the voter’s intention to vote for a specific candidate is clear, and no other candidate for the same office shares the same Christian name and surname initial, the vote should be counted. The Court emphasized the need to consider the voter’s education, local customs, and the fact that poorly educated voters often know candidates by their Christian names and struggle to write full surnames. Disenfranchising such voters would frustrate the purpose of the election law.

2. On the “Juan Gading” Ballots: The Supreme Court found this assignment of error to be based on a MISAPPREHENSION. The trial court’s records showed that none of the ballots adjudicated to Namocatcat contained the name “Juan Gading.” The ballots counted for him were those with “Juan N.” The Court noted, however, that even if such ballots existed, they could validly be counted for Namocatcat since he was also known by that nickname, and voters of limited education often identify candidates by their nicknames.

3. On the Ballot with a Vote for a Non-Candidate: The Supreme Court REVERSED the trial court on this point. The trial court had rejected a ballot (No. 7, Precinct No. 1) because the voter wrote “Pastor Boiser” for the office of Representative, who was not a candidate. The Court held this was error. While the old Election Law (as amended by Act No. 3210 ) voided such ballots, the subsequent Act No. 3387 amended the law to provide that a vote for a person not a candidate for the office is merely a scattering vote and does not invalidate the entire ballot.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s judgment with respect to the validity of the ballots marked “Juan N.” and REVERSED it with respect to the rejection of ballot No. 7 in Precinct No. 1. The case was remanded for the trial court to add this valid vote to the correct candidate’s total and to amend its judgment accordingly.

DISSENTING OPINION (Justice Malcolm, concurred in by Justice Villamor):
Justice Malcolm argued for adhering to the established doctrine in *Cailles* and *Lucero*, which required the full surname to be written. He warned that the new, liberal rule would create confusion, uncertainty, and multiply issues in future election contests. For example, if another person named “Juan N.” (e.g., Juan Nery) lived in the precinct, it would be ambiguous who the voter intended. He also clarified that the precedent cited (*Mandac v. Samonte*) dealt with initials for Christian names, not surnames, and that the prevalence of illiteracy did not justify departing from the statutory requirement to write the candidate’s name.