G.R. No. 16132. March 30, 1960
RICARCO CANCERAN, FAUSTINO DY, VICENTE TALOSIG, DOMINGO MADDARA, RAMON ALBANO, FEDERICO RAMONES, ENRIQUE DUMATAY, AND EULOGIO DAMATAN, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIO…
BARRERA, J.:
local chapter chairman of the Nacionalista Party at Cauayan, Isabela,
filed with respondent Commission on Elections, the certificate of
candidacy (Annex A) of Tranquilino Dalupang, for mayor; petitioner
Ricardo Canceran, for vice-mayor; and Tino Viloria and petitioners
Faustino Dy, Vicente Talosig, Eulogio Damatan, Domingo Maddera, Ramon
Albano, Federico Ramones, and Enrique Dumatay, for councilors.
Petitioners had been nominated and proclaimed official candidates of
the Nacionalista Party for the November, 1959 elections, in a
convention held at said municipality on June 15, 1959 (Annexes B and
C). After their said proclamation as official candidates, petitioners
started their barrio to barrio campaign announcing by means of posters,
leaflets, and amplified speeches, their platform of office, if and when
elected.
On October 9, 1959, petitioners were informed by the Municipal
Treasurer of Cauayan that respondent Commission had instructed him by
telegram, to suspend the distribution to the different election
precincts of said municipality of copies of petitioners’ certificate of
candidacy. Thereupon, one of the petitioners (Ricardo Canceran)
proceeded to the Commission on Elections in Manila to verify the
information. Upon his arrival on October 14, 1959, he was informed in
the office of the Commission on Elections that respondent Commission,
by its resolution of October 6, 1959, had declared null and void the
aforementioned certificate of candidacy (Annex A), on the grounds that
it was not subscribed under oath by the secretary of the party chapter
at Cauayan, Isabela, and that it failed to state that the persons named
therein are official candidates of the Nacionalista Party in said
municipality.
The following day, or on October 15, 1969, petitioners filed with
respondent Commission, a motion for reconsideration (Annex D) alleging,
inter alia, that they had been duly chosen and selected as official
candidates of the Nacionalista Party at a convention duly and lawfully
called for by delegates, in accordance with the rules and regulations
of the party, and that said certificate of candidacy (Annex A) was not
signed by the secretary of the party (herein petitioner Vicente
Talosig), due to his “honest belief” that he was no longer authorized
to do so, in view of his candidacy as councilor (see affidavits,
Annexes E and C of the local chairman and secretary, respectively).
Petitioners prayed that they be allowed to file a corrected certificate
of candidacy and that it be treated as if filed on time. Said motion
was denied by respondent Commission, in its resolution, dated October
20, 1959 (Annex E), although it allowed Eulogio Damatan, who signed the
collective certificate of candidacy, to substitute it with one of his
own as candidate for councilor.
From this resolution, petitioners took this appeal by way of
certiorari, contesting the validity of the action of respondent
Commission and praying that, pending the determination of the petition
on the merit, a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction be issued by
this Court restraining respondent Commission, or its agents,
representatives, and employees from enforcing said resolution of
October 6, 1959 annulling the certificate of candidacy in question, and
ordering them to count whatever votes will be cast in favor of
petitioners during the elections on November 10, 1959. In due time; the
writ prayed for was issued upon petitioners’ filing a bond in the
amount of P200.00.
The question to be determined in this case is whether the
certificate of candidacy (Annex A) in question complies with the
requirements of Section 35 of the Revised Election Code which, in part
provides:
“SEC. 35. Certificates of candidacy filed by political group or political party.
Certificates of candidacy of candidates may be filed by a political
party nominating them without the signatures or oath of said
candidates.“Any political party having officially
nominated candidates shall file with the Commission on Elections a
certificate of such official nominations subscribed under oath by the
president and secretary or corresponding officers of such political
group or party. * * *.”
Respondent Commission’s resolution declaring null and void the
certificate of candidacy (Annex A) in question is predicated on two
grounds, namely: (1) it was subscribed and sworn to only by petitioner
Eulogio Damatan, the local chairman of the Nacionalista Party at
Cauayan, Isabela, and (2) it does not certify that the candidates
therein mentioned (herein petitioners) have been officially nominated
as official candidates of said party.
Anent the first ground above-mentioned, it appears that the failure
of the secretary of the Nacionalista Party at Cauayan, Isabela (herein
petitioner Vicente Talosig) to sign said certificate, was due to his
honest belief that being one of the official candidates for councilor
of said party, he was no longer authorized to sign the same. (See
Annexes B, C, and D.) This, in our opinion, is an honest mistake which
does not invalidate the certificate.
“When the Election Law does not provide that a
departure from a prescribed form will be fatal and such departure has
been due to an honest mistake or misinterpretation of the Election Law
on the part of him who was obligated to observe it, and such departure
has not been used as a means for fraudulent practices or for the intimidations of voters, and it is clear that there has been a free and honest expression of the popular will, the law will be held directory and such departure will be considered a harmless irregularity.” (Gardiner vs. Romulo, 26 Phil., 521; italics supplied.)[1]
In respect of the second ground, it may be stated that the omission
aforesaid, does not constitute a grave departure from the requirement
of the statute above-quoted, as to warrant the nullification of the
certificate in question. The statements therein contained, that he
(petitioner, Eulogio Damatan) announces the candidacy of petitioners
Faustino Dy, Tino Viloria, Vicente Talosig, Domingo Maddara, Ramon
Albano, Federico Ramones, and Enrique Dumatay in the November 10, 1959
elections; and that they belong to the Nacionalista Party, may be
considered substantial compliance with said requirement. It is
important to note that said chairman of the Nacionalista Party chapter
at Cauayan who filed said certificate, did not attest to the candidacy
of any person other than the candidates’ therein mentioned on behalf of
whom said certificate was filed by him. This circumstance, it is
believed, coupled with the fact that it is stated in the certificate
that the candidates therein mentioned belong to the Nacionalista Party,
conveys the impression that they have been officially nominated by the
said party as its official candidates.
Moreover, the timely filing of the motion for reconsideration (Annex
D) by petitioners on October 15, 1959 has, in effect, cured the said
defect of the certificate, inasmuch as it includes as petitioners or
movants, the chairman and secretary of the Nacionalista Party in
Cauayan, Isabela, the very officials required by the statute to sign
said certificate. In the case of Gabaldon vs. Commission on
Elections (99 Phil., 898), this Court, in effect, has held that when
the original defects of a certificate of candidacy are cured by the
allegations of a motion for reconsideration filed in due time (that is,
before the election) with the Commission on Elections, there is
substantial compliance with the statutory requirement of Section 35.
Lastly, we have been informed by respondent Commission that out of
the herein seven petitioners, candidates for councilor, in the November
10, 1959 elections, three (namely, Eulogio Damatan, Vicente Talosig,
and Federico Ramones) were elected. In the light of this circumstance,
to hold now that the certificate of candidacy (Annex A) in question is
null and void, as held by respondent Commission, would frustrate and
defeat the will of the electorate who have seen fit to choose and elect
them to the position which they now hold. (Guzman vs. Board of Canvassers; Lino Luna vs. Rodriguez, both supra; Cecilio vs. Belmonte, 51 Phil., 540; Nico vs. Blanco, 81 Phil., 214)
All things considered, we are of the opinion and so hold, that the
certificate of candidacy (Annex A) in question substantially complies
with the requirement of Section 35 of the Revised Election Code.
Wherefore, the petition is granted, and the writ of preliminary
injunction issued by this Court is hereby made permanent. Without
pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.
Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
[1] See also Guzman vs. Board of Canvassers, 48 Phil., 211; Lino Luna vs. Rodriguez, 39 Phil., 208.