conquilla vs. comelec

CONQUILLA vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 139801
May 31, 2000

FACTS:

ROBERTO CONQUILLA assails in this special civil action for certiorari the En Banc Resolution of COMELEC which affirmed the Resolution of its First Division dismissing his Petition for Cancellation of Certificate of Candidacy and Disqualification (SPA No. 98-132) against private respondent EDUARDO A. ALARILLA for lack of merit.

EDUARDO A 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. However, attached thereto and filed with his Certificate of Candidacy was ALARILLAs Certificate of Nomination and Acceptance, which states:

…I , JOSE DE VENECIA, JR. ... (LAKAS NUCD-UMDP) as its Secretary-General, hereby nominate: EDUARDO A. ALARILLA as the Party’s official candidate in the May 11, 1998 elections for the position of MUNICIPAL MAYOR of the Municipality of Meycauayan in the Fourth District of Bulacan. …

On 14 April 1998 CONQUILLA filed with the COMELEC a Petition for 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 n Meycauayan, Bulacan.

During the pendency of SPA No. 98-132 the Board of Canvassers proclaimed ALARILLA as the Mayor-elect of Meycauayan, Bulacan. Thereafter, the First Division of COMELEC dismissed SPA No. 98-132.

ISSUE:

CONQUILLA contends that public respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion:

1. in affirming in toto the Resolution of the First Division dismissing SPA No. 98-132 for lack of merit and in ruling that the Certificate of Nomination and Acceptance attached to private respondents Certificate of Candidacy could be used as basis in determining the elective position private respondent was seeking; and,

2. In not resolving the motion to suspend private respondents proclamation as Mayor-elect of Meycauayan, Bulacan.

3. Additionally, CONQUILLA contends that COMELEC erred in dismissing his appeal for late filing

HELD:

1. It is correctly observed by the First Division of COMELEC and affirmed by COMELEC En Banc that the information omitted in the Certificate of Candidacy was supplied in the Certificate of Nomination and Acceptance attached thereto. 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. Additionally, the First Division ruled that ALARILLA was able to correct his omission by filing an Amended Certificate of Candidacy on 21 April 1998 (after the filing and before the dismissal of SPC no. 98-132) clearly indicating therein that he was running for the position of Municipal Mayor, Meycauayan, Bulacan.

2. It cannot be denied that ALARILLA was elected Mayor of Meycauayan, Bulacan, in the 11 May 1998 elections. If substantial compliance with the Election Law should give way to a mere technicality, the will of the electorate, as far as ALARILLA is concerned, would be frustrated

3. However, CONQUILLA’S motion for reconsideration was not filed late on 1 June 1998 considering that 31 May 1998 was a Sunday, hence, he had until the next working day, which was 1 June 1998, within which to ask for reconsideration

NOTES:

-The purpose in requiring a certificate of candidacy (which is to enable the voters to know before the elections the candidates among whom they are to make a choice) was deemed satisfied not only by the Amended Certificate of Candidacy filed before the elections but also by the Certified List of Candidates issued by the Office of the Election Officer, Meycauayan, Bulacan, indubitably listing therein EDUARDO A. ALARILLA as candidate for the position of "mayor" of said municipality

- x.....x.....x.....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 that such departure has not been used as a means for fraudulent practices x x x the law will be held directory and such departure will be considered a harmless irregularity (Gardiner v. Romulo, 26 Phil. 521, cited in the De Guzman v. Bd. of Canvassers of La Union and Lucero, 48 Phil. 211, 214-215).