Digest Author: Cecille Mangaser

Ma. Amelita C. Villarosa v. The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET)

GR Number 143351
Petition: Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
Petitioner: Ma. Amelita C. Villarosa
Respondent: The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Ricardo V. Quintos
Ponente: Davide, Jr., C. J.
Date: September 14, 2000
Facts:
Petitioner (Villarosa) and private respondent (Quintos) were the only candidates for the office of
Representative of the lone legislative district of Occidental Mindoro in the synchronized national
and local elections of 1998. The provincial board of canvassers proclaimed petitioner as the
winning candidate. Private respondent filed an election protest against the petitioner contesting
the results in all of the precincts of the province 1. Petitioner is the wife of a previous
representative of the district and in his certificate for candidacy on the 1995 elections, he wrote
as his nickname/stage name: JOE-JTV. In her certificate of candidacy, petitioner wrote JTV
as her nickname/stagename.
The HRET issued two resolutions, (00-65) with the withdrawal of the remaining non-pilot
protest precincts, the private respondent limited the issue to whether or not the JTV votes should
be counted in favor of the petitioner and (00-82) the tribunal ruled not to count JTV and its
variations as valid votes for Amelita Villarosa.
The HRET agreed with the COMELEC in its resolution that disallowed the petitioner to use JTV
as her nickname because it was not her nickname with which she was popularly known. HRET
also invoked Rule 14 of Section 211 of the Omnibus Election Code providing that votes
containing initials only shall be considered stray.
Petitioner assails the HRET decision, reiterates the issue of the validity of the JTV votes, and
charges the HRET with grave abuse of discretion and deprivation of her right to due process. She
further asserted that treating of the JTV votes as stray would result to the disenfranchisement
of the voters. She argues that JTV was her designated nickname and the one she used in her
election propaganda materials. She decided to use that nickname as a shortcut of her name as a
married woman pursuant to Article 370 of the Civil Code2.

1
b.
c.
d.
e.

2
b.
c.

On the grounds that:The ballots were misread and counted in favor of the petitioner
There was rampant substitute voting
Violence and intimidation were committed against the known supporters of the private respondent
Previously prepared ballots for the petitioner were deposited
Illiterate Mangyan voters were assisted by self-appointed assistors of the petitioner, who wrote JTV on the ballots contrary to the
instruction of the illiterate voters
A married woman may use:Her maiden first name and surname and add her husbands surname
Her maiden first name and her husbands surname
Her husbands full name, but prefixing a word indicating that she is his wife (such as Mrs)

Digest Author: Cecille Mangaser

The HRET ruled against the petitioner because in her affidavit, she stated that she was known as
Girlie in every barangay, hence an admission that her nickname was not JTV but Girlie. The
counting of JTV votes would be tantamount to injustice because it allows the petitioner to have 2
nicknames.
Issue:
1. Whether or not due process was observed by the HRET in rendering the decision.
2. Whether or not the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion in not counting the votes
for JTV or other derivatives thereof in favor of the petitioner.
Ruling:
1. No. Petitioner was not denied due process. She sought no reconsideration of the
pronouncements of the HRET. She impliedly limited the issue to whether or not the JTV
votes should be counted in her favor. Her counsel did not object to the submission of the
private respondent that the case would rise or fall depending on the ruling of the tribunal.
2. No. The facts established in the case, reinforced by the admission of the parties during the
preliminary conferences conducted and during the oral arguments, lead the Court to no
other conclusion that the use of JTV as a nickname or stage name was a clever ruse or
ploy to make a mockery of the election process. Based on the facts, the Court ruled that
the HRET did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the JTV votes shall
not be counted in favor of the petitioner, because they are stray votes.
HRET correctly applied Rule 14, Section 211 of the Omnibus Election Code which
provides that there are three different kinds of stray votes: (1) a vote containing initials
only, (2) a vote which is illegible, and (3) a vote which does not sufficiently identify the
candidate for whom it was intended.
Dispositive:
The petitions were dismissed for lack of merit.