G.R. No. 48603 ; October 1, 1941
ANTONIO RIMANDO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and VIRGINIA OTEYZA, respondents.

FACTS

In the upcoming national elections for the office of Representative for the second district of Mountain Province, the registered candidates were Ramon P. Mitra (a Nacionalista seeking reelection), Igmidio Galang (of the Ganap Party, which did not poll the required minimum of 10% of the total votes in the 1938 elections and made no claim for a minority inspector), and Virginia Oteyza, Fernando Gorospe, and Ambrosio Rodriguez (all Nacionalistas). The first inspector was awarded to the Nacionalista Party, represented by Ramon P. Mitra. The petitioner, Antonio Rimando, claiming to have obtained the second largest number of votes for Assemblyman in the same district in the 1938 elections, filed a petition with the Commission on Elections on behalf of Fernando Gorospe, asking that the minority inspector be awarded to Gorospe. The Commission denied the petition and instead awarded the minority inspector to Virginia Oteyza, based on evidence that she appeared to be the strongest among the opponents of Ramon P. Mitra. Rimando filed this petition for certiorari, alleging the Commission’s decision constituted a grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the Commission on Elections committed a grave abuse of discretion in awarding the minority election inspector to Virginia Oteyza instead of to Fernando Gorospe, as requested by petitioner Antonio Rimando.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Commission on Elections, holding that no grave abuse of discretion was committed. The Court ruled that under Section 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 657 , the right to minority representation in the board of election inspectors is conferred upon “the party which polled the next largest number of votes” at the preceding election, provided it constitutes at least ten percent of the total votes cast. In the second district of Mountain Province, aside from the Nacionalista Party (which polled the largest number of votes in 1938), no other party polled the minimum votes required by law. Therefore, no party was entitled to a minority inspector. The petitioner’s claim, based on his having obtained the second largest number of votes as a candidate in 1938, was untenable because the right is determined by the votes polled by a political party, not by an individual candidate. Furthermore, since both Rimando and Gorospe belonged to the Nacionalista Party in 1938, they could not claim a right separate from that party. The Court also cited its ruling in Sumulong vs. Commission on Elections that no recognition can be accorded to a faction of a duly organized political party for inspector representation. Consequently, with no party entitled to the minority inspector, the Commission on Elections could properly exercise its discretion in appointing the second inspector, as provided by law. Its award to Oteyza based on her being the strongest opponent did not constitute a grave abuse of discretion warranting judicial interference. Costs were awarded against the petitioner.
Separate Opinion:
Justice Ozaeta dissented, reiterating his view from Vinzons vs. Commission on Elections that where no minority party is entitled to the second inspector, the Commission itself should choose a nonpartisan inspector. He argued that the Commission, by judging Oteyza to be the strongest opponent and awarding her the inspector, abdicated its neutral discretion and exposed itself to criticism of partiality.