JOSE FAJURA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. CASTRENSE C. VELOSO, AS JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO, AND EDMUNDO FLORES, RESPONDENTS.

Appeal by certiorari from an order of the Court of First
Instance of Iloilo affirming an order of the municipal court of Miagao dismissing the protest filed by petitioner
contesting the results of the barrio elections held on January 14, 1968.

Petitioner Jose Fajura and respondent Edmundo Flores were candidates for the position of barrio
captain of barrio Indag-an, Miagao,
Iloilo province, at the barrio
elections held on January 14, 1968.  Respondent Flores was
declared by the election tellers the elected barrio captain with 103 votes,
while petitioner received 56 votes.

Petitioner, not satisfied with the results, timely filed on
January 27, 1968 his verified petition against respondent Flores in the
municipal court of Miagao, alleging that the site of
the elections had been illegally transferred from the barrio hall to the school
building of barrio Tan-agan, an adjacent barrio, at
the instance of the muni­cipal mayor; that his sympathizers were prevented from
voting be­cause of the presence at the polling place of the mayor and his two
policemen; and that fraud attended the elections with the active participation
of the mayor who ordered the tearing up of the voters’ list prepared by the
election tellers to keep track of the actual voters and the ballot numbers
issued to them; and praying that the said elec­tions, specifically the election
and proclamation of respondent as bar­rio captain, be declared null and void.

The municipal court, upon motion to dismiss of respondent and
after preliminary hearing and reception of evidence, ordered on February 12, 1969 the dismissal of
the petition.  Petitioner had not
personally filed his certificate of candidacy for barrio captain, which was
filed on his behalf by five registered voters, as permitted under section 8 of
the Revised Barrio Charter, Republic Act No. 3590.^[1]
One of his five endorsers, Lucila Montalban,
had apparently executed and filed with the barrio secretary a sworn statement
on January 12, 1968 two days before the elections a withdrawal of her signature
in the said certificate of candidacy “so that the same shall have no force
and effect.” This withdrawal was repudiated by the same Lucila Montalban in a later
affidavit executed on August 12, 1968, stating that she had not understood the
contents of the alleged withdrawal statement which she had signed at the
insistence of a municipal patrolman whom she trusted, but that she had never
sworn to it before the mayor, as appears on the document, and that she had no
intention of withdrawing her signature from petitioner’s certificate of
candidacy.  The municipal court, in
dismissing the petition, held that “withdrawal of Lucila
Montalban (Exh. 2) nullified the certificate of candidacy of the plaintiff for
barrio cap­tain.  The votes, therefore,
cast in his favor were stray votes.  Hence,
even if the votes obtained by the defendants were voided, taking for the sake
of argument that they were fraudulently cast, nevertheless the plaintiff can
not be legally declared elected.”

Petitioner appealed to respondent court, which received the memoranda
of the parties and thereafter issued its order of July 11, 1969 affirming the
municipal court’s dismissal order, ruling that “The withdrawal of the
signature of the registered voter who endorsed the candidacy of the petitioner
renders insufficient petitioner’s certificate of candidacy for being short of
the required five (5) voters’ endorsement. 
Thus, in the eyes of the law, no certificate of candi­dacy was filed for
and in behalf of the petitioner. 
Consequently, he was not a legal candidate for the position of barrio
captain.”

The legal issue at bar is simply whether the last day withdraw­al
of one of the five registered voters who filed petitioner’s certificate of
candidacy for the position of barrio captain could be deemed to have nullified
his candidacy such as to divest him of the legal status of a registered
candidate and right to pursue his action contesting the results of the
election.

The Court holds in the negative. 
The certificate of candidacy filed on behalf of petitioner by the five
registered voters in accordance with the provisions of the barrio charter and
accepted by him as evidenced by the fact that he pursued his candidacy, was
voted for and received a sizable number of votes from the voters could no
longer be nullified by any unilateral withdrawal thereof without his express
con­sent,^[2]
much less by a questionable and repudiated alleged with­drawal of one of the
five endorsers – which appears to have come to petitioner’s knowledge only after
the election.  In the absence of any
express provision in the governing statutes, the Revised Barrio Charter and the
Revised Election Code^[3]
on the right of voters filing a certificate of candidacy on behalf of a
candidate for office to unilaterally withdraw such certificate, once the
candidate has acted on it and ac­cepted it, such right to withdraw the
certificate should not be recog­nized, particularly to divest the candidate of
his standing to contest the results of the election and in which the barrio
electorate itself has a vital public interest.

This is all the more true in the case at bar where the valid act
of five registered voters of the barrio in filing petitioner’s certificate of
candidacy would be nullified by the last hour act of one of them in withdrawing
her signature of endorsement on the whimsical ground that petitioner was not
interested in his candidacy, not to mention that there are strong indications
from Montalban’s affidavit of repudiation, supra,
that her withdrawal of her signature had been obtained by trickery and bad
faith.

Respondent’s contention that petitioner’s failure to include the
six elected barrio councilors as indispensable parties, since the annulment of
the election sought by petitioner would affect their posi­tions, justifies the
dismissal order, is manifestly untenable.  It is quite clear from the pleadings that the
annulment sought by petitioner is solely the election and proclamation of
respondent Flores to the disputed position of barrio
captain.

ACCORDINGLY, the order of respondent court dated July 11, 1969 is set aside and the
case is ordered immediately remanded to the municipal court of Miagao, Iloilo,
for further proceedings and trial on the merits.  This decision shall be immediately executory upon promulgation hereof.  With costs against private
respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Barredo, Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

Ruiz Castro, J., took no part.

^[1]
The pertinent provision reads “(C)andidates
shall file their certificates of candidacy with the barrio secre­tary, not
later than the first Sunday of January of the election year.  Any five registered voters may also file the
certificates of candidacy of any qualified person.” (RA 3590, sec. 8)

^[2] Vide
Monroy vs. CA, 20 SCRA 621 (1967); Monsale vs. Nico, 83 Phil.
758 (1949); Cecilio vs. Belmonte,
51 Phil. 540 (1928); Guzman vs. Bd. of Canvassers, 48 Phil. 211 (1925).

^[3]
Contrary to petitioner’s submittal that the Revised Barrio Charter exclusively
governs election contests of barrio elections, citing Bautista vs. de la
Cruz, 9 SCRA 725 (1963), the Court has ruled in Falcotelo
vs. Gali, 22 SCRA 17 (1968), expressly
modifying Bautista, that the Revised Election Code governs all elections
of public officers and that “the procedure to be followed and the periods
within which the corresponding actions should be filed” in barrio election
contests are governed by the Revised Election Code.