Coc Cases.docx

JUANITO C. PILAR VS. COMELEC G.R. NO. 115245 JULY 11, 1995

candidacy was not valid since Mendoza did not withdraw after January 4.

FACTS: On March 22, 1992, petitioner Juanito C. Pilar filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Isabela. Three days after, the petitioner withdrew his certificate of candidacy.

ISSUE: W/N Petitioner should be disqualified on the ground of formal or technical defects.

In M.R. Nos. 93-2654 and 94-0065 dated November 3, 1993 and February 13, 1994 respectively, the COMELEC imposed upon petitioner the fine of Ten Thousand Pesos for failure to file his statement of contributions and expenditures.

The fact that Mendoza’s withdrawal was not sworn is a technicality, which should not be used to frustrate the people’s will in favor of Petitioner as the substitute candidate. Also, his withdrawal right on the very same day that he filed his candidacy should be considered as having been made substantially and in truth after the last day, even going by the literal reading of the provision by Respondent Commission. The spirit of the law rather than its literal reading should have guided Respondent Commission in resolving the is sue of last-minute withdrawal and substitution of other persons as candidates.

Petitioner argues that he cannot be held liable for failure to file a statement of contributions and expenditures because he was a "noncandidate," having withdrawn his certificates of candidacy three days after its filing. Petitioner speculates that "it is . . . clear from the law that candidate must have entered the political contest, and should have either won or lost". ISSUE: Whether or not a candidate is excused in filing his statement of contributions and expenditures after he has withdrawn his certificate of candidacy. HELD: The petition is dismissed. The court ruled that the filing or withdrawal of certificate of candidacy shall not affect whatever civil, criminal or administrative liabilities which a candidate may have incurred. Petitioner’s withdrawal of his candidacy did not extinguish his liability for the administrative fine. It is not improbable that a candidate who withdrew his candidacy has accepted contributions and incurred expenditures, even in the short span of his campaign. The evil sought to be prevented by the law is not all too remote. Courts have also ruled that such provisions are mandatory as to the requirement of filing.

VILLANUEVA VS. COMELEC G.R. NO. L – 54718 DECEMBER 4, 1986 FACTS: On January 25, 1980, Petitioner filed a certificate of candidacy for Vice Mayor of Dolores for the January 30 elections in substitution for his companion Mendoza who withdrew candidacy without oath upon filing on January 4. Petitioner won in the election but Respondent Board disregarded all his votes and proclaimed Respondent Candidate as the winner on the presumption that Petitioner’s candidacy was not duly approved by Respondent. Petitioner filed a petition for the annulment of the proclamation but was dismissed by Respondent Commission on the grounds that Mendoza’s unsworn withdrawal had no legal effect , and that assuming it was effective, Petitioner’s

HELD: NO.

GO VS. COMELEC 357 SCRA 739, 2001 FACTS: Petitioner was the incumbent representative of the Fifth District, province of Leyte when she filed on February 27, 2001 with the municipal election officer of the municipality of Baybay, Leyte, a certificate of candidacy for mayor of the said municipality. On February 28, 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. Simultaneously therewith, she attempted to file with the provincial election supervisor an affidavit of withdrawal of her candidacy for mayor. However, the provincial election supervisor refused to accept the affidavit of withdrawal and suggested that, pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 3253-A, she should file it with the municipal election officer of Baybay, Leyte where she filed her certificate of candidacy for mayor. Private respondents filed similar petitions to disqualify petitioner on the ground that petitioner filed certificates of candidacy for two positions, namely, that for mayor, and that for governor, thus, making her ineligible for both. The COMELEC granted the petition and disqualified the petitioner from running for both position. ISSUE: Whether or not an affidavit of withdrawal of candidacy should be filed with the election officer of the place where the certificate of candidacy was filed. HELD: No. There is nothing in Section 73 of the Omnibus Election Code 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 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.

b) it lacks approval of Sen. Barbers as a joint signatory of the substitution. The COMELEC Second Division dismissed the disqualification case. However, when respondent Mula filed a Motion for Reconsideration, COMELEC en banc set aside the resolution of the Second Division and disqualified EMMANUEL asserting that the substitution violated the provisions of Sec. 77 of the Omnibus Election Code that the substitute must belong to the same political party as the substituted candidate. Emmanuel D. Sinaca was not valid because he was an independent candidate for councilor prior to his nomination as substitute candidate in place of the withdrawing candidate who was a Lakas party member. Therefore, this case before the Supreme Court. ISSUE: WON the substitution of Emmanuel Sinica was against the provisions of Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code. HELD:

NO.

Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code only mandates that a substitute candidate should be a person belonging to and certified by the same political party as the candidate to be replaced.

SINICA VS MULA AND COMELC In this case, assailed was the COMELEC Resolution on Oct. 6, 1998 in SPA No. 98-292, declaring the substitution of mayoralty candidate Teodoro Sinaca, Jr. by petitioner Emmanuel D. Sinaca as invalid. FACTS: In the May 1998 elections, petitioner Emmanuel Sinica was a substitute candidate for the mayoral post of the Matugas Wing after their original candidate, Teodoro Sinica, Jr., was disqualified for being convicted of bigamy. He was proclaimed winner after the canvassing. (Matugas Wing was a faction in the LAKAS-NUCD-UMPD party, as well as the Barbers Wing. Each faction has separate candidates for the mayoral post in the Municipality of Malimono, Surigao del Norte.) Respondent Mula (who got Sinica, Jr. disqualified) filed a disqualification case against Emmanuel Sinica before the COMELEC. He alleged that said substitution was invalid because: a) Sinica was not member of the LAKAS party when he was nominated as a substitute; and

Petitioner Emmanuel Sinaca, an independent candidate, had first withdrawn his certificate of candidacy for Sangguniang Bayan Member before he joined the LAKAS party and nominated by the LAKAS MATUGAS Wing as the substitute candidate. He had filed his certificate of candidacy and his certificate of nomination as LAKAS mayoralty candidate signed by Gov. Matugas with his written acceptance of the party’s nomination. Therefore, he is a bona fide LAKAS member. There is nothing in the Constitution or the statute which requires as a condition precedent that a substitute candidate must have been a member of the party concerned for a certain period of time before he can be nominated as such.

RAMIREZ VS. COMELEC 270 SCRA 590 1997 FACTS: The Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) of Gipolos, Eastern Samar proclaimed petitioner Ramirez winner in the vice-mayoralty race over another candidate, private respondent Go based on the results showing that Ramirez obtained more votes than Go. Go petitioned COMELEC for correction of manifest error claiming that owing to error in addition, he was credited with lesser votes. The COMELEC en banc issued a Resolution directing the MBC to reconvene and recompute the votes in the Statement of Votes and proclaim the winning candidate. Acting on separate motions filed by

Ramirez and Go, the COMELEC en banc affirmed its earlier resolution. Ramirez petitioned the Supreme Court to annul the 2 COMELEC en banc resolutions and to reinstate his proclamation as the duly elected vicemayor. He alleged that the COMELEC en banc had no jurisdiction over the controversy since it was not yet acted upon by a division of the COMELEC. ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC en banc has jurisdiction to act directly on the petition for correction of manifest error filed by private respondent Go? HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative, citing Rule 27, Section 5 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules which provides correction of manifest errors in the tabulation or tallying of results during the canvassing as one of the pre-proclamation controversies which maybe filed directly with the COMELEC en banc. The Supreme Court annulled the COMELEC resolutions but directed COMELEC to reconvene the MBC or if this is not feasible, to constitute a new MBC in Gipolos, Eastern Samar and to order it to promptly revise the Statement of Votes based on the election returns from all the precincts of the Municipality and thereafter, proclaim the winning candidate. CAYAT V. COMELEC G.R. No. 163776 April 24, 2007 FACTS: Fr.Nardo Cayat and Thomas Palileng are the only mayoralty candidates for the May 2004 elections in Buguias Benguet. Palileng filed a petition for cancellation of the COC of Cayat on the ground of misrepresentation. Palileng argues that Cayat misrepresents himself when he declared in his COC that he is eligible to run as mayor when in fact he is not because he is serving probation after being convicted for the offense of acts of lasciviousness. Comelec, granted the petition of Palileng and Cayat filed a motion for reconsideration. Such, MR was denied because Cayat failed to pay the filing fee and hence, it was declared final and executory. Despite this decision, Cayat was still proclaimed as the winner and Palileng filed a petition for annulment of proclamation. Comelec declared Palileng as the duly elected mayor and Feliseo Bayacsan as the duly elected vice mayor. Bayacsan argues that he should be declared as mayor because of the doctrine of rejection of second placer.

ISSUE: WON the rejection of second placer doctrine is applicable.

HELD: The doctrine cannot be applied in this case because the disqualification of Cayat became final and executory before the elections and hence, there is only one candidate to speak of. The law expressly declares that a candidate disqualified by final judgment before an election cannot be voted for, and votes cast for him shall not be counted. As such, Palileng is the only candidate and the duly elected mayor. The doctrine will apply in Bayacsan’s favor, regardless of his intervention in the present case, if two conditions concur: (1) the decision on Cayat’s disqualification remained pending on election day, 10 May 2004, resulting in the presence of two mayoralty candidates for Buguias, Benguet in the elections; and (2) the decision on Cayat’s disqualification became final only after the elections.