G.R. No. L-21578; November 8, 1963
GABRIEL ROLDAN, petitioner, vs. PEDRO MONSANTO, respondent.

FACTS

In the 1959 municipal elections in Catmon, Cebu, Pedro Monsanto was proclaimed mayor by the board of canvassers, having received 1,706 votes against Gabriel Roldan’s 1,074. Roldan filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance. After a revision of ballots, the trial court upheld Monsanto’s victory but reduced his plurality to 26 votes. Roldan appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s judgment but further reduced Monsanto’s winning margin to 10 votes.
Roldan then filed this petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking a review of the Court of Appeals’ decision. He waived his right to file a brief and relied solely on his petition. His objections were grouped generally rather than presented through a formal assignment of errors or specific challenges to individual ballots.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in reviewing and counting 22 ballots for Monsanto that the trial court had rejected, despite Monsanto not appealing that specific ruling; (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in counting 67 other ballots for Monsanto despite alleged identifying marks or incorrect names; and (3) whether there was a computational error in the vote tally.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. On the first issue, the Court held the Court of Appeals acted correctly. Under Section 178 of the Revised Election Code, an election protest is treated similarly to a criminal case on appeal, requiring a de novo review. Consequently, the appellate court may motu proprio review any ballot ruling from the trial court, regardless of whether it was appealed. This principle, supported by precedents like Ibasco v. Ilao and Borja v. De Leon, also applied to another contested ballot (Exhibit L-57).
Regarding the second issue, the Court found Roldan’s objections insufficient. His petition made only general allegations against groups of 67 and later 56 ballots without specifying the particular ballots or the exact nature of the defect for each. Since the proceeding before the Supreme Court is a petition for certiorari and not an ordinary appeal, review is limited to errors specifically and expressly pointed out. The Court cannot examine ballots en masse based on vague allegations. The findings of the Court of Appeals on these factual matters, made after presumably examining each ballot, were thus upheld.
As to the alleged computational error, the Court could not rule on it because the petition referenced computations from the trial court’s decision, but that document was not attached to the petition or elevated to the Court. Without the necessary records, a review was impossible. Therefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed in its entirety.