MERSON C. CALUBAG, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND KIMBERLY P. JOSEPH, RESPONDENTS.

Calubag versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, brought by Merson Calubag against the Commission on Elections and Kimberly Joseph. Merson asks the Supreme Court to annul the resolutions of the Commission on Elections that cancelled and denied due course to his certificate of candidacy for Sangguniang Kabataan Chairperson of Barangay Magtangale, San Francisco, Surigao del Norte, in the 2023 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections. The case matters for two reasons: it fixes the procedural rule that electronic service of summons to the e-mail address written in a certificate of candidacy binds the candidate, and it gives the Supreme Court's fullest recent statement on the anti-dynasty clause of Republic Act No. 10742 as applied to Sangguniang Kabataan candidates.

Procedural History

Kimberly Joseph filed with the Commission on Elections a petition to cancel and deny due course to Merson's certificate of candidacy, docketed as a special action. The Commission on Elections Second Division granted the petition in a resolution dated October 10, 2023, cancelled the certificate, and forwarded the records to the Commission's Law Department for preliminary investigation of the election offense aspect. Merson moved for reconsideration, raising for the first time that he never received the summons and that his mother had resigned before he filed. The Commission on Elections En Banc denied reconsideration in a resolution dated January 24, 2025 and affirmed the cancellation. Merson then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari under Rule 64, which is the mode of review for judgments and final orders of the Commission on Elections.

Facts

On August 28, 2023, Merson filed his certificate of candidacy for Sangguniang Kabataan Chairperson of Barangay Magtangale. In Item Number 10 of that certificate, he swore that he is not related within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to any incumbent elected national official, or to any incumbent elected regional, provincial, city, municipal, or barangay official, in the locality where he seeks to be elected.

On September 2, 2023, Kimberly Joseph filed a petition to cancel the certificate. She alleged that Merson's mother, Marilyn Calubag, was then an incumbent member of the Sangguniang Barangay of the very same barangay. She attached Marilyn's oath of office as barangay member dated June 25, 2018, and the barangay official information sheet naming Merson as her beneficiary. Summons was sent to Merson through the e-mail address he himself wrote in his certificate, and also by registered mail. Merson filed no answer.

Only in his motion for reconsideration did Merson deny receipt of summons and deny the misrepresentation. He claimed that Marilyn had resigned on August 25, 2023, and attached a resignation letter bearing that date. Kimberly countered with the barangay logbook showing Marilyn reporting for duty on August 30, 2023, and with a joint affidavit of the barangay secretary and treasurer stating that Marilyn sought help drafting her resignation only on September 1, 2023, and handed it to the barangay council only on September 6, 2023.

Issues

• Whether or not the Commission on Elections gravely abused its discretion in cancelling Merson's certificate of candidacy despite the alleged non-receipt of summons.
• Whether or not the Commission on Elections gravely abused its discretion in cancelling the certificate of candidacy despite Marilyn's claimed resignation from her position.

Applicable Provisions

Section 10 of Republic Act No. 10742, the Sangguniang Kabataan Reform Act, provides:

SECTION 10. Qualifications. — An official of the Sangguniang Kabataan, either elective or appointee, must be a citizen of the Philippines, a qualified voter of the Katipunan ng Kabataan, a resident of the barangay for not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the elections, at least eighteen (18) years but not more than twenty-four (24) years of age on the day of the elections, able to read and write Filipino, English, or the local dialect, must not be related within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to any incumbent elected national official or to any incumbent elected regional, provincial, city, municipal, or barangay official, in the locality where he or she seeks to be elected, and must not have been convicted by final judgment of any crime involving moral turpitude.

This is the anti-dynasty clause that Merson swore he had satisfied in Item Number 10 of his certificate, and which the Court holds he violated.

Section 594, paragraph 2 of Commission on Elections Resolution No. 10924 provides:

Any notice or document sent to the E-mail address provided in the COC shall be considered received by the candidate, and shall be binding on the candidate as if the notice or document had been personally served. The candidate shall be responsible for ensuring that the E-mail address or physical address provided in the COC is accurate and accessible at all times.

This provision defeats Merson's claim that he never received summons, because service to the e-mail address in his certificate is service on him.

Section 594, paragraph 8 of the same Resolution provides:

If the Petition is not summarily dismissed, the Office of the Clerk of the Commission shall issue the corresponding summons directly to the respondent or through the appropriate field office having jurisdiction over the party, via E-mail or, in areas where E-mail is inaccessible, through personal service services. The concerned field office shall serve personally serve a copy of the summons, Petition and annexes to the respondent.

This authorizes electronic service of summons, which is what the Commission did in this case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Commission committed no grave abuse of discretion. Its records showed that summons was sent to Merson electronically through the e-mail address he wrote in his certificate, apart from registered mail. Under the Resolution, any notice sent to that address is deemed received and binds the candidate as if personally served, and the candidate bears the responsibility of keeping the address accessible. Merson merely alleged non-receipt without proof, and a bare allegation cannot sustain certiorari. The Court defined grave abuse of discretion as the arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, or a whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise amounting to an evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law. Nothing of that sort appeared, since the resolutions rested on substantial evidence and on the statute.

On the second issue, the Court likewise found no grave abuse of discretion. At the time Merson filed his certificate, Marilyn was an incumbent Sangguniang Barangay member of the same barangay. Merson never rebutted the logbook entry showing her at work on August 30, 2023, nor the sworn statement that she was still drafting her resignation on September 1, 2023. He simply insisted on an earlier resignation date against the evidence. He therefore misrepresented a material fact bearing on his qualifications, and under the Omnibus Election Code his certificate had to be cancelled.

The Court closed with a broader pronouncement. Republic Act No. 10742 is the Legislature's answer to the constitutional call to define political dynasties, at least at the barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan levels, and it is the only law that has supplied a workable definition, limited though it is to Sangguniang Kabataan candidates. Citing data showing that most legislative districts and most cities are held by families with relatives in public office, the Court declared this concentration of political power an affront to the Constitution.

Doctrine

First, service of summons and notices upon a candidate through the e-mail address stated in the certificate of candidacy is valid and binding, as if personally served; the candidate is responsible for keeping that address accurate and accessible, and failure to check it is taken against him. Second, a certificate of candidacy must be cancelled where the candidate materially misrepresents a qualification, and the qualification here is the anti-dynasty clause: a Sangguniang Kabataan official must not be related within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to any incumbent elected national official, or to any incumbent elected regional, provincial, city, municipal, or barangay official, in the locality where he or she seeks to be elected. Third, the resignation of the relative after the filing of the certificate does not cure the misrepresentation, because the qualification is measured as of the filing. Fourth, findings of the Commission on Elections supported by substantial evidence are sustained absent grave abuse of discretion.

Disposition

The petition was denied, the resolutions of the Commission on Elections Second Division and En Banc were affirmed in full, and Merson's certificate of candidacy was denied due course and cancelled, with copies of the decision furnished to the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the e-mail address in a certificate of candidacy is the candidate's legal address for summons, and the anti-dynasty clause of Republic Act No. 10742 is measured at the moment of filing. Examiners use this case for bar questions on cancellation of certificates of candidacy, material misrepresentation, electronic service before the Commission on Elections, and the constitutional policy against political dynasties.