Prepared by Czarina Comines

1. REPUBLIC V. DELA ROSA G.R. NO. 104654

JUNE 6 1994
Facts:
On September 20, 1991, Frivaldo (herein respondent) filed a petition for
naturalization captioned: "In the Matter of Petition of Juan G. Frivaldo to be
Re-admitted as a Citizen of the Philippines under Commonwealth Act No. 63".
Petitioner was the official candidate of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino
(LDP) for the position of governor of the Province of Sorsogon in the May
1992 elections. Private respondent was the official candidate of the LakasNational Union of Christian Democrats (Lakas-NUCD) for the same position.
Private respondent was proclaimed winner on May 22, 1992. On June 1,
petitioner filed a petition with the COMELEC to annul the proclamation of
private respondent as Governor-elect of the Province of Sorsogon on the
grounds: (1) that the proceedings and composition of the Provincial Board of
Canvassers were not in accordance with law; (2) that private respondent is an
alien, whose grant of Philippine citizenship is being questioned by the State in
G.R. No. 104654; and (3) that private respondent is not a duly registered
voter. Petitioner further prayed that the votes cast in favor of private
respondent be considered as stray votes, and that he, on the basis of the
remaining valid votes cast, be proclaimed winner.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent is disqualified to run or sit for public office
Held:
Section 1 of R.A. No. 530 provides that no decision granting citizenship in
naturalization proceedings shall be executory until after two years from its
promulgation in order to be able to observe if: (1) the applicant has left the
country; (2) the applicant has dedicated himself continously to a lawful
calling or profession; (3) the applicant has not been convicted of any offense
or violation of government promulgated rules; and (4) the applicant has
committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the country or contrary to
government announced policies. Private respondent is declared NOT a citizen
of the Philippines and therefore disqualified from continuing to serve as
Goverbor of the Province of Sorsogon. He is ordered to vacate his office and
to surrender the same to the Vice-Governor of the Province of Sorsogon once
the decision becomes final and executory.

Prepared by Czarina Comines

2. GARIDA V. SALES G.R. NO. 124893

APRIL 18 1997
Facts:
Petitioner applied for membership in the Katipunan ng Kabataan but was
denied such as she was already 21 years and 10 months old. She filed a
"Petition for Inclusion as Registered Kabataang Member and Voter" with the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Bangui-Pagudpud-Adams-Damalneg, Ilocos
Norte. The court found her qualified. The Board of Election Tellers appealed,
but the RTC judge inhibited himself by reason of his close relation with her.
Petitioner filed her certificate of candidacy for the position of Chairman of the
Sangguniang Kabataan. Election Officer Dionisio F. Rios, per advice of
Provincial Election Supervisor Noli Pipo, disapproved petitioner's certificate of
candidacy again due to her age. Petitioner, however, appealed to COMELEC
Regional Director Filemon A. Asperin who set aside the order of respondents
and allowed petitioner to run. Rios issued a memorandum to petitioner
informing her of her ineligibility and giving her 24 hours to explain why her
certificate of candidacy should not be disapproved. Earlier and without the
knowledge of the COMELEC officials, private respondent Florencio G. Sales,
Jr., a rival candidate for Chairman of the Sangguniang Kabataan, filed with the
COMELEC en banc a "Petition of Denial and/or Cancellation of Certificate of
Candidacy" against petitioner Garvida for falsely representing her age
qualification in her certificate of candidacy. That same day Rios issued the
memorandum to petitioner, the COMELEC en banc issued an order directing
the Board of Election Tellers and Board of Canvassers of Barangay San
Lorenzo to suspend the proclamation of petitioner in the event she won in the
election. Petitioner won. In accordance with the May 2, 1996 order of the
COMELEC en banc, the Board of Election Tellers did not proclaim petitioner as
the winner. Hence, the instant petition for certiorari was however, the Board
of Election Tellers proclaimed petitioner the winner for the position of SK
chairman,Barangay San Lorenzo, Bangui, Ilocos Norte. The proclamation was
"without prejudice to any further action by the Commission on Elections or
any other interested party." On July 5, 1996, petitioner ran in the Pambayang
Pederasyon ng mga Sangguniang Kabataanfor the municipality of Bangui,
Ilocos Norte. She won as Auditor and was proclaimed one of the elected
officials of the Pederasyon.
Issue:
WON the cancellation of her certificate of candidacy on the ground that she
has exceeded the age requirement to run as an elective official of the SK
is valid.

Prepared by Czarina Comines

Held:
It is valid. COMELEC interpreted Sections 424 and 428 of the Local
Government Code of 1991 in Resolution No. 2824 and defined how a member
of the Katipunan ng Kabataan becomes a qualified voter and an elective
official. A member of the Katipunan ng Kabataan may be a qualified voter in
the SK elections if he is: (a) a Filipino citizen; (b) 15 but not more than 21
years of age on election day, i.e., the voter must be born between May 6,
1975 and May 6, 1981, inclusive; and (c) a resident of the Philippines for at
least one (1) year and an actual resident of the barangay at least six (6)
months immediately preceding the elections. A candidate for the SK must: (a)
possess the foregoing qualifications of a voter; (b) be a resident in the
barangay at least one (1) year immediately preceding the elections; and (c)
able to read and write. The provision that an elective official of the SK should
not be more than 21 years of age on the day, of his election is very clear. The
Local Government Code speaks of years, not months nor days. When the law
speaks of years, it is understood that years are of 365 days each. One born
on the first day of the year is consequently deemed to be one year old on the
365th day after his birth the last day of the year. The phrase "not more
than 21 years of age" means not over 21 years, not beyond 21 years. It
means 21 365-day cycles. It does not mean 21 years and one or some days
or a fraction of a year because that would be more than 21 365-days cycles.
"Not more than 21 years old" is not equivalent to "less than 22 years old,"
contrary to petitioner's claims. The law does not state that the candidate be
less than 22 years on election day. The general rule is that an elective official
of the Sangguniang Kabataan must not be more than 21 years of age on the
day of his election. The only exception is when the official reaches the age of
21 years during his incumbency. Section 423 [b] of the Code allows him to
serve the remaining portion of the term for which he was elected. According
to Senator Pimentel, the youth leader must have "been elected prior to his
21st birthday. Conversely, the SK official must not have turned 21 years old
before his election. Reading Section 423 [b] together with Section 428 of the
Code, the latest date at which an SK elective official turns 21 years old is on
the day of his election. The maximum age of a youth official must therefore
be exactly 21 years on election day. Section 3 [b] in relation to Section 6 [a]
of COMELEC Resolution No. 2824 is not ultra vires insofar as it fixes the
maximum age of an elective SK official on the day of his election.

Prepared by Czarina Comines

3. MERCADO V. MANZANO G.R. NO. 135083

MAY 26 1999
Facts:
Petitioner Ernesto Mercado and Private respondent Eduardo Manzano are
candidates for the position of Vice-Mayor of Makati City in the May, 1998
elections. Private respondent was the winner of the said election but the
proclamation was suspended due to the petition of Ernesto Mamaril regarding
the citizenship of private respondent. Mamaril alleged that the private
respondent is not a citizen of the Philippines but of the United States.
COMELEC granted the petition and disqualified the private respondent for
being a dual citizen, pursuant to the Local Government code that provides
that persons who possess dual citizenship are disqualified from running any
public position. Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which
remained pending until after election. Petitioner sought to intervene in the
case for disqualification. COMELEC reversed the decision and declared private
respondent qualified to run for the position. Pursuant to the ruling of the
COMELEC, the board of canvassers proclaimed private respondent as vice
mayor. This petition sought the reversal of the resolution of the COMELEC and
to declare the private respondent disqualified to hold the office of the vice
mayor of Makati.
Issue:
Whether or Not private respondent is qualified to hold office as Vice-Mayor
Held:
Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The former arises when, as
a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of two or more
states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states.
For instance, such a situation may arise when a person whose parents are
citizens of a state which adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis is born in a
state which follows the doctrine of jus soli. Private respondent is considered
as a dual citizen because he is born of Filipino parents but was born in San
Francisco, USA. Such a person, ipso facto and without any voluntary act on
his part, is concurrently considered a citizen of both states. Considering the

Prepared by Czarina Comines

citizenship clause (Art. IV) of our Constitution, it is possible for the

following classes of citizens of the Philippines to posses dual citizenship: (1)
Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow
the principle of jus soli; (2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers
and alien fathers if by the laws of their fathers country such children are
citizens of that country; (3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the
latters country the former are considered citizens, unless by their act or
omission they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship. Dual
allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the situation in which a person
simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states.
While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an
individuals
volition.
By filing a certificate of candidacy when he ran for his present post, private
respondent elected Philippine citizenship and in effect renounced
his American citizenship. The filing of such certificate of candidacy sufficed to
renounce his American citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification
he
might
have
as
a
dual
citizen.
By declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a Filipino citizen; that he
is not a permanent resident or immigrant of another country; that he will
defend and support the Constitution of the Philippines and bear true faith and
allegiance thereto and that he does so without mental reservation, private
respondent has, as far as the laws of this country are concerned, effectively
repudiated his American citizenship and anything which he may have said
before as a dual citizen. On the other hand, private respondents oath of
allegiance to the Philippine, when considered with the fact that he has spent
his youth and adulthood, received his education, practiced his profession as
an artist, and taken part in past elections in this country, leaves no doubt of
his election of Philippine citizenship.

Prepared by Czarina Comines

4. IMBONG V. COMELEC G.R. NO. 32432

35 SCRA 28 (1970)
Facts:
Two separate but related petitions for declaratory relief were filed pursuant to
Sec. 19 of R.A. No. 6132 by petitioners Manuel B. Imbong and Raul M.
Gonzales, both members of the Bar, taxpayers and interested in running as
candidates for delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Both impugn the
constitutionality of R.A. No. 6132, claiming during the oral argument that it
prejudices their rights as such candidates. Under Sec. 4 of R.A. No. 6132, it
considers all public officers and employees, whether elective or appointive,
including members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, as well as officers
and employees of corporations or enterprises of the government, as resigned
from the date of the filing of their certificates of candidacy.
Issue:
WON the said law is unconstitutional
Held:
The validity of Sec. 4 of R.A. No. 6132, which considers all public officers and
employees, whether elective or appointive, including members of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines, as well as officers and employees of corporations or
enterprises of the government, as resigned from the date of the filing of their
certificates of candidacy, was recently sustained by this Court, on the
grounds, inter alia, that the same is merely an application of and in
consonance with the prohibition in Sec. 2 of Art. XII of the Constitution and
that it does not constitute a denial of due process or of the equal protection
of the law. Likewise, the constitutionality of paragraph 2 of Sec. 8(a) of R.A.
No. 6132 was upheld. It must be taken into consideration that a citizen does
not have any inherent nor natural right to a public office and is axiomatic
under our Constitutional system. The State, through its Constitution or
legislative body, can create an office and define the qualifications and
disqualifications therefore as well as impose inhibitions on a public officer.
Consequently, only those with qualifications and who do not fall under any

Prepared by Czarina Comines

constitutional or statutory inhibition can be validly elected or appointed to a

public office.

5. CAASI V. CA G.R. NO. 88831

NOVEMBER 8 1990
Facts:
Merito Miguel won in the 1988 mayoral elections in Bolinao, Pangasinan.
Petitions were filed seeking to disqualify him on the ground that he holds a
green card issued to him by the US Immigration Service which would mean
that he is a permanent resident of the United States, and not of Bolinao.
COMELEC dismissed the petitions on the ground that possession of a
greencard by Miguel does not sufficiently establish that he has abandoned his
residence in the Philippines. On the contrary, despite his green card, he has
sufficiently indicated his intention to continuously reside in Bolinao as shown
by
his
having
voted
in
successive
elections in said
municipality. Commissioner Badoysdissent: A green card holder being a
permanent resident of or an immigrant of a foreign country and respondent
having admitted that he is a green card holder, it is incumbent upon him,
under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, to prove that he "has waived
his status as a permanent resident or immigrant" to be qualified to run for
elected office. This respondent has not done. Miguels opponent, Caasi also
filed a petition for quo warranto. Miguel filed an MTD which was denied by the
RTC. CA ordered the RTC to dismiss and desist from further proceeding in the
quo warranto case on the ground that the COMELEC has already ruled on his
qualifications.
Issue:
WON Miguel is disqualified to run for public office
Held:
In the case at bar, the Court deems it significant that in the "Application
for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration" which Miguel filled up in his own
handwriting and submitted to the US Embassy in Manila before his departure
for the United States in 1984, Miguel's answer to Question No. 21 therein
regarding his "Length of intended stay (if permanently, so state)," Miguel's
answer was, "Permanently." On its face, the green card that was

Prepared by Czarina Comines

subsequently issued by the United States Department of Justice and

Immigration and Registration Service to the respondent Merito C. Miguel
identifies him in clear bold letters as a RESIDENT ALIEN. Despite his vigorous
disclaimer, Miguel's immigration to the United States in 1984 constituted an
abandonment of his domicile and residence in the Philippines. For he did not
go to the United States merely to visit his children or his doctor there, he
entered the United States with the intention to live there permanently as
evidenced by his application for an immigrant's (not a visitor's or tourist's)
visa. Based on that application of his, he was issued by the U.S. Government
the requisite green card or authority to reside there permanently. Miguel's
application for immigrant status and permanent residence in the U.S. and his
possession of a green card attesting to such status are conclusive proof that
he is a permanent resident of the U.S. despite his occasional visits to the
Philippines. The waiver of such immigrant status should be as indubitable as
his application for it. Absent clear evidence that he made an irrevocable
waiver of that status or that he surrendered his green card to the appropriate
U.S. authorities before he ran for mayor of Bolinao in the local elections on
January 18, 1988, our conclusion is that he was disqualified to run for said
public office, hence, his election thereto was null and void

Prepared by Czarina Comines

6. NOLASCO V. COMELEC G.R. NOS. 122250 & 122258

JULY 21 1997
Facts:
Florentino P. Blanco and Eduado A. Alarilla both vied for the mayoral position
of Meycauayan, Bulacan during the election held 8 May 1995. Blanco
garnered the highest number of votes. Edgardo Nolasco was elected vicemayor. On 9 May, Alarilla filed with the Comelec a petition to disqualify
Blanco on grounds that the latter committed acts in violation of Section 68 of
the Omnibus Election Code, i.e. for giving money to influence, induce or
corrupt the voters or public officials performing election functions; for
committing acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy; and for spending in
his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by the Election
Code (P10 million against 97,000 registered voters). On 15 August, the
Comelec disqualified Blanco on the ground of vote-buying and ordered the
Board of Canvassers of Meycauayan, Bulacan to reconvene and to determine
the winner out of the remaining qualified candidates who shall be
immediately proclaimed. Blanco moved for reconsideration while Nolasco, as
vice mayor, intervened in the proceedings. Nolasco urged that as vice-mayor
he should be declared mayor in the event Blanco was finally disqualified.
Both motions were denied. Hence, the petition for certiorari.
Issue:
Whether the disqualification of the mayor-elect warrants the declaration of
any of the remaining qualified mayoral candidates, upon the canvassing of
votes, as mayor
Held:
In a mayoralty election, the candidate who obtained the second highest
number of votes cannot be proclaimed winner in case the winning candidate
is disqualified. Permanent vacancies (i.e. when an elective local official fills a
higher vacant office, refuses to assume office, fails to qualify, dies, is
removed from office, voluntarily resigns, or is otherwise permanently
incapacitated to discharge the functions of his office) in the Offices of the
Governor, Vice Governor, Mayor, and Vice Mayor are governed by Section 44,

Prepared by Czarina Comines

Chapter 2 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and Article 38 of the Rules
and Regulations implementing the Local Government Code of 1991. ViceMayor Edgardo C. Nolasco was adjudged as Mayor of Meycauayan, Bulacan in
view of the disqualification of mayor-elect Florentino P. Blanco.

7. DOMINGO JR V. COMELEC G.R. NO. 136587

AUGUST 30 1999
Facts:
In May 11, 1998 elections, petitioner Ernesto Domingo, Jr. and private
respondent Benjamin Abalos, Jr. (Benhur) were both mayoralty candidates of
Mandaluyong City. After private respondent's proclamation, Domingo filed the
instant petition for disqualification, on the ground that, during the campaign
period, private respondent "prodded" his father, then incumbent
Mandaluyong City Mayor Benjamin Abalos, Sr., to give "substantial
allowances" to public school teachers appointed as chairpersons and
members of the Boards of Election Inspector (BEIs) for Mandaluyong City.
Petitioner's allegations were obtained from the Pasyal-Aral" outing for
Mandaluyong City public school teachers. The then Mayor Abalos, Sr.,
announced that the teachers appointed to the BEIs will each be given
substantial allowances. Petitioner alleged that it was done so as to influence
them into voting for him (Benhur) and ensuring his victory. Petitioner
presented as evidence photographs and of the said activity, affidavits of 3
public school teachers, and videotapes showing Mayor Abalos Sr. announcing
Benhur
as
the
one
responsible
for
such
release.
Petitioner alleges that private respondent's act of "prodding" his father
constitutes a violation of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, the
pertinent
provisions
of
which
read:
Sec. 68. Disqualifications. Any candidate who, in an action or protest in
which he is a party is declared by final decision of a competent court guilty
of, or found by the Commission of having (a) given money or other material
consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public officials
performing electoral functions; . . . shall be disqualified from continuing as a
candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office. . . .

Prepared by Czarina Comines

Issue:
WON Mayor Abalos Jr. violate Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code.
Held:
Mayor Abalos did not violate section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code.
Nothing in the affidavits suggests knowledge on any degree of participation
of private respondent in the grant of these allowances. The name of private
respondent was not even mentioned or alluded to by any of the three
affiants. The videotapes did not prove his participation therein either. The
burden of proving that private respondent indirectly influenced the public
school teachers of Mandaluyong City, through his father, Abalos, Sr., was a
burden that petitioner failed to meet. Neither is this burden overcome by the
argument that private respondent, for himself, had "no evidence" to rebut
petitioner's allegations, since the burden of proving factual claims rests on
the party raising them besides, it is not true that private respondent gave
only denials and did not present any evidence to his defense. Benhur
presented in evidence a certified true copy of Joint Circular No. 1, series of
1998, issued by the DECS, DBM and DILG, which authorized the payment of
allowances of public school teachers chargeable to local government funds.
The Joint Circular provided the basis for private respondent's argument that
the disbursement of funds by then mayor Abalos, Sr. was valid as having
been made pursuant to administrative circular, and was not an unlawful
attempt made in conspiracy with private respondent to secure the latter's
victory in the elections.

Prepared by Czarina Comines

8. TRINIDAD V. COMELEC G.R. NO. 135716

SEPTEMBER 23 1999
Facts:
Petitioner Trinidad won the May 1995 elections. Private respondentSunga filed
a disqualification case against petitioner and asking theCOMELEC to proclaim
him as the duly elected mayor. COMELECpromulgated it decision on June
22, 1998, disqualifying Trinidad.
Petitioner filed a Motion For Reconsideration claiming that he wasdeprived of
due process. Petitioner was again proclaimed winner in theMay 1998
elections. On October 13, 1998 COMELEC denied petitionersMR as well
as annulling his proclamation as elected mayor. Thus the petition for
certiorari.
Issue:
WON petitioners proclamation as Mayor under the May 11, 1998elections
may be cancelled on account of the disqualification case filedagainst him
during the May 8, 1995 elections.
Held:
NO. Petitioner cannot be disqualified from his reelection term of office.
Removal cannot extend beyond the term during which thealleged misconduct
was committed. If a public official is not removedbefore his term of office
expires, he can no longer be removed if he isthereafter reelected for another
term.

Prepared by Czarina Comines

9. FERNANDEZ V. FERNANDEZ G.R. NO. L- 32675

NOVEMBER 3 1975
Facts:
The petitioner Estanislao A. Fernandez is a resident of Lilio, Laguna, having
resided in that municipality since 1945. He ran for representative for the
second district of Laguna in the elections of 1946, 1949 and 1953, and for
senator in 1957, 1959 and 1965. On September 9, 1970, he filed his formal
certificate of candidacy dated September 7, 1970 with the COMELEC, and the
same was given due course on September 22, 1970. The respondent Vicente
B. Fernandez, who was born in Manila on August 8, 1919, has been a resident
of 360 Guevara Avenue, San Juan, Rizal from before World War II. In the
general elections of November 11, 1969 he voted in precinct no. 117 of San
Juan, Rizal, using ballot no. 44778. As late as September 18, 1970, he had not
filed any application for his transfer as a voter to any other. As late as
September 14, 1970 he was not a registered voter in the municipality of
Mabitac, Laguna, nor did he have in the said municipality any real property
declared under his name for taxation purposes. Nor is he a registered voter in
the municipality of Siniloan, Laguna, although he avers that his provincial
address is "c/o Dr. Alfredo Fernandez, Siniloan, Laguna." The certification of
the municipal treasurer of Siniloan, Laguna dated September 17, 1970 states
that "Vicente B. Fernandez does not have any real property" in the said
municipality. He was nominated to be a candidate for delegate on September
1, 1970, and he filed his certificate of acceptance dated September 9, 1970
on September 10, 1970.

Issue:

Prepared by Czarina Comines

WON respondent Vicente B. Fernandez lacks the requisite residence

qualification, which is not less than one year immediately prior to his election

Held:
Yes. The court held that the COMELEC should refuse to give due course to a
certificate of candidacy if the disqualification is patent on its face. In the case
at bar, the respondent Fernandez, thru counsel, admitted unequivocally
during the oral argument that, the said respondent having voted in San Juan,
Rizal on November 11, 1969, the earliest time that he could have transferred
his residence to Laguna was on November 12, 1969. And the period of time
from that date up to November 10, 1970 (the date of the coming elections)
encompasses a total of only 363 days, or 2 days short of the one-year
residence qualification for a candidate for delegate. This unequivocal and
categorical admission on the part of the respondent Fernandez, in view of the
peculiar environmental circumstances here obtaining, amounts to the
disqualification being patent on the face of the certificate of candidacy.

10.KARE V. COMELEC G.R. NO. 157526

APRIL 28 2004
Facts:
Petitioner Moll and Private Respondent Ceriola were candidates for mayor of
the Municipality of Malinao, Albay, during the elections of May 14, 2001. Moll
obtained the highest number of votes cast for the position while Ceriola came
in second, with a total of nine hundred eighty-seven (987) votes separating
the two. Kare was elected vice mayor in the same election. On May 18, 2001,
Ceriola filed a "Petition to Confirm the Disqualification and/or Ineligibility of
Dindo K. Moll to Run for Any Elective Position." The Petition alleged that the
latter had been sentenced by final judgment to suffer the penalty of six (6)
months of arresto mayor to one (1) year and nine (9) months of prision
correccional, for the crime of usurpation of authority or official functions
under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code.

Prepared by Czarina Comines

Issue:
Who is entitled to the position of mayor if Moll is rendered disqualified to run
or to hold the said position
Held:
When a mayoral candidate who gathered the highest number of votes is
disqualified after the election is held, a permanent vacancy is created, and
the vice mayor succeeds to the position. In every election, the choice of the
people is the paramount consideration, and their expressed will must at all
times be given effect. When the majority speaks by giving a candidate the
highest number of votes in the election for an office, no one else can be
declared elected in place of the former. In a long line of cases, this Court has
definitively ruled that the Comelec cannot proclaim as winner the candidate
who obtained the second highest number of votes, should the winning
candidate be declared ineligible or disqualified.

11.MONVOY V. CA G.R. NO. L- 23258

JULY 1 1967
Facts:
Petitioner Roberto Monroy was the incumbent mayor of Navotas when he filed
his certificate of candidacy (COC) as representative of the first district of Rizal
in
the
then
coming
elections.
Three
days after such filing, he
withdrew his COC which act was
approved by the COMELEC. Three
days
passed when, then vice mayor, respondent Felipe del Rosario took his
oath of office
as mayor
of Navotas,
contending that petitioner already
forfeited such office upon filing of his COC. The CFI of Rizal, as affirmed by
the CA, decided in favor of respondent del Rosario, holding that petitioner
Monroy ceased to be mayor upon filing his COC and that respondent del
Rosario became the municipal mayor upon taking his oath of office. Further,
the court adjudged petitioner liable for the salaries respondent was entitled

Prepared by Czarina Comines

as mayor from the time he took his oath up to the time he reassumed his
office.
Issue:
WON Monroy forfeited his seat when he filed his COC
Held:
Monroy forfeited his seat when he filed his certificate of candidacy. Section 27
of the Revised Election Code makes the forfeiture automatic and permanently
effective upon the filing of the certificate of candidacy for another office. Only
the moment and act of filing are considered. Once the certificate is filed, the
seat is forfeited forever and nothing save a new election or appointment can
restore the ousted official. The withdrawal of a certificate of candidacy does
not necessarily render the certificate void ab initio. Once filed, the permanent
legal effects produced thereby remain even if the certificate itself be
subsequently withdrawn.

12.GADOR V. COMELEC G.R. NO. L- 52365

JANUARY 22 1980
Facts:
The petition alleges that the petitioner is a candidate for the Office of Mayor
of the City of Ozamiz as an Independent in the 1980 local election. He
filed his certificate of candidacy with the Election Registrar of Ozamis City on
January 7, 1980 because of the news in the Bulletin. The said news stated
that the respondent, COMELEC, issued a resolution for the extension of time
for filing COC. However, the President denied said resolution. Therefore,
respondent COMELEC informed the petitioner that his name might not
be included in the list of candidates for mayor because of the said incident.
Thus, this petition.
Issue:

Prepared by Czarina Comines

WON the certificate of candidacy of the petitioner which was filed on January
7, 1980 is valid.
Held:
NO. A certificate of candidacy filed beyond the reglementary period is void.
Section 7, Batasang Pambansa Bilang 52, provides that The sworn certificate
of candidacy shall be filed in triplicate not later than January 4, 1980. It is a
fact admitted by the petitioner that the President had not extended the
period within which to file the certificate of candidacy. This Court is powerless
to grant the remedy prayed for in the petition. Having been filed beyond
January 4, 1980, the certificate of candidacy of the petitioner is void.

13.CONQUILLA V. COMELEC G.R. NO. 139801

MAY 31 2000
Facts:
On 27 March 1998 ALARILLA filed his Certificate of Candidacy with the
Municipal Election Officer of Meycauayan, Bulacan, without however
indicating the elective position which he was aspiring for. On 14 April 1998
CONQUILLA filed with the COMELEC a Petition for Cancellation of Certificate of
Candidacy and Disqualification, docketed as SPA No. 98-132, praying that
private respondent ALARILLA's Certificate of Candidacy be expunged and
cancelled on the ground that it was null and void for failing to specify the
elective position he was running for and, consequently, he be disqualified to
run for any position in Meycauayan, Bulacan.
Issue:

Prepared by Czarina Comines

WON Alarillas COC should be cancelled for failure to indicate his aspired
position
Held:
No. The court held that ALARILLA's failure to specify the public office he was
seeking in his Certificate of Candidacy was a fatal defect, for several reasons.
As correctly observed by the First Division of COMELEC and affirmed by
COMELEC En Banc, the information omitted in the Certificate of
Candidacy was supplied in the Certificate of Nomination and Acceptance
attached thereto specifying that ALARILLA was nominated as the Lakas
NUCD-UMDP's official candidate for the position of Municipal Mayor of
Meycauayan, Bulacan, and that such nomination had been accepted by
ALARILLA. As the COMELEC itself has clarified, certificates of nomination and
acceptance are procedurally required to be filed with, and form an integral
part of, the certificates of candidacy of official candidates of political parties.
ALARILLA timely rectified the deficiency in his original Certificate of
Candidacy by filing an Amended Certificate on 21 April 1998 specifically
stating that he was running for the position of Municipal Mayor of
Meycauayan, Bulacan, in the 11 May 1998 elections. The filing of an
amended certificate even after the deadline but before the election was
substantial compliance with the law which cured the defect.

14.GO V. COMELEC G.R. NO. 147741

MAY 10 2001
Facts:
Petitioner is the incumbent representative of the Fifth District, province of
Leyte, whose term of office will expire at noon on 30 June 2001. On 27
February 2001, petitioner filed with the municipal election officer of the
municipality of Baybay, Leyte, a certificate of candidacy for mayor of Baybay,
Leyte. On 28 February 2001, at 11:47 p.m., petitioner filed with the provincial
election supervisor of Leyte, with office at Tacloban City, another certificate of
candidacy for governor of the province of Leyte. Simultaneously therewith,
she attempted to file with the provincial election supervisor an affidavit of
withdrawal of her candidacy for mayor of the municipality of Baybay, Leyte.
However, the provincial election supervisor of Leyte refused to accept the

Prepared by Czarina Comines

affidavit of withdrawal and suggested that, pursuant to a COMELEC

resolution, she should file it with the municipal election officer of Baybay,
Leyte where she filed her certificate of candidacy for mayor. At that later
hour, with only minutes left to midnight, the deadline for filing certificates of
candidacy or withdrawal thereof, and considering that the travel time from
Tacloban to Baybay was two hours, petitioner decided to send her affidavit of
withdrawal by fax to her father at Baybay, Leyte and the latter submitted the
same to the office of the election officer of Baybay, Leyte at 12:28 a.m., 01
March 2001.5 On the same day, at 1:15 p.m., the election officer of Baybay
Leyte, received the original of the affidavit of withdrawal. On 05 March 2001
respondent Montejo filed with the provincial election supervisor of Leyte, at
Tacloban City a petition to deny due course and/or to cancel the certificates
of candidacy of petitioner. Respondent Antoni filed a similar petitions,
namely, that for mayor of Baybay, Leyte, and that for governor of Leyte, thus,
making her ineligible for both.
Issues:
WON petitioner is disqualified to be candidate for governor of Leyte and
mayor of Baybay, Leyte because she filed certificates of candidacy for both
positions

WON there was a valid withdrawal of the certificate of candidacy for

municipal mayor of Baybay, Leyte

Held:
There was a valid withdrawal. The filing of the affidavit of withdrawal with the
election officer of Baybay, Leyte, at 12:28 a.m., 1 March 2001 was a
substantial compliance with the requirement of the law. The court held that
the petitioners withdrawal of her certificate of candidacy for mayor of
Baybay, Leyte was effective for all legal purposes, and left in full force her
certificate
of
candidacy
for
governor.

Section 73, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus
Election Code, provides that:

Prepared by Czarina Comines

SEC. 73. Certificate of candidacy. No person shall be eligible for any elective
public office unless he files a sworn certificate of candidacy within the period
fixed herein.

A person who has filed a certificate of candidacy may, prior to the election,
withdraw the same by submitting to the office concerned a written
declaration under oath.

No person shall be eligible for more than one office to be filled in the same
election, and if he files his certificate of candidacy for more than one office,
he shall not be eligible for any of them. However, before the expiration of the
period for the filing of certificates of candidacy, the person who has file more
than one certificate of candidacy may declare under oath the office for which
he desires to be eligible and cancel the certificate of candidacy for the other
office or offices.

There is nothing in this Section which mandates that the affidavit of

withdrawal must be filed with the same office where the certificate of
candidacy to be withdrawn was filed. Thus, it can be filed directly with the
main office of the COMELEC, the office of the regional election director
concerned, the office of the provincial election supervisor of the province to
which the municipality involved belongs, or the office of the municipal
election officer of the said municipality. While it may be true that Section 12
of COMELEC Resolution No. 3253-A, adopted on 20 November 2000, requires
that the withdrawal be filed before the election officer of the place where the
certificate of candidacy was filed, such requirement is merely directory, and
is intended for convenience. It is not mandatory or jurisdictional.

Prepared by Czarina Comines

15.VILLAROSA V. HRET G.R. NO. 143351

SEPTEMBER 14 2000
Facts:
Villarosa and Private respondent QUINTOS were the only candidates for the
office of Representative of the Lone Legislative District of Occidental Mindoro
in the May 1998 synchronized national and local elections. The Provincial
Board of Canvassers proclaimed Villarosa as the winning candidate with
a margin of 3,032 votes. QUINTOS filed an election protest against
VILLAROSA contesting the results of the election in all the 882 precincts in
the eleven municipalities of Occidental Mindoro. Petitioner is the wife
of JOSE T. VILLAROSA, who was the Representative of the District in question
for two terms, the last of which ended on June 30, 1998; in his certificate of
candidacy for the election of May 8, 1995,J OSE T. VILLAROSA wrote as
his nickname or stage name: JOE- JTV. In her certifi cate of candidacy,
Protestee wrote JTV as her nickname/stage name.
Issue:
Whether JTV votes should be counted in favor of Villarosa. JTV is the
nickname of Villarosas husband, who is the incumbent representative of
Occidental Mindoro.
Held:
Villarosas use of JTV as her nickname was a clever ploy to make a mockery
of the election process. HRET did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
holding that the only issue for its determination was whether JTV votes or
variations thereof should be counted in favor of VILLAROSA and in ruling that
such votes are stray votes.

Prepared by Czarina Comines

16.MALINIAS V. COMELEC G.R. NO. 146943

OCTOBER 4 2002
Facts:
Petitioner Sario Malinias, a candidate for Governor of Mountain Province in
the May 11, 1998 elections, filed before the respondent COMELEC a
complaint against respondents Victor Dominguez, Teofilo Corpuz, Anacleto
Tangilag, Thomas Bayugan, Jose Bagwan, who was then Provincial Election
Supervisor, and the members of the Provincial Board of Canvassers.
Petitioner Malinias alleged: that private respondents denied him his right to
be present during the canvassing in violation of Section 25 of Republic Act
No. 6646; that his supporters were blocked by the checkpoint set up by
private respondents; that respondents Corpuz and Tangilag, officers of the
PNP, entered the canvassing room in blatant violation of Section 232 of B.P.
Blg. 881; that respondents engaged in partisan political activity in violation of
Section 261 of B.P. Blg. 881. In support of his charges, petitioner presented
the "mass affidavits' executed by his supporters.
Issue:
WON respondents engaged in partisan political activity in violation of Section
261 of B.P. Blg. 881.
Held:
No. Section 79, Article X of B.P. Blg. 881 defines the term "partisan political
activity" as an act designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular
candidate or candidates to a public office." Malinias asserts that, in setting up
a checkpoint at Nacagang, Tambingan, Sabangan, Mountain Province and in
closing the canvassing room, Corpuz and Tangilag unduly interfered with his
right to be present and to counsel during the canvassing. This interference
allegedly favored the other candidate. While Corpuz and Tangilag admitted
ordering the setting up of the checkpoint, they did so to enforce the
COMELEC's firearms ban, pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 2968, among
others. There was no clear indication that these police officers, in ordering
the setting up of checkpoint, intended to favor the other candidates. Neither
was there proof to show that Corpuz and Tangilag unreasonably exceeded
their authority in implementing the COMELEC rules. Further, there is no basis

Prepared by Czarina Comines

to rule that private respondents arbitrarily deprived Malinias of his right to be

present and to counsel during the canvassing. The act of Corpuz and Tangilag
in setting up the checkpoint was plainly in accordance with their avowed duty
to maintain effectively peace and order within the vicinity of the canvassing
site. Thus, the act is untainted with any color of political activity. There was
also no showing that the alleged closure of the provincial capitol grounds
favored the election of the other candidates.