Fernandez v. Fernandez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Estanislao A. Fernandez sought to strike out the certificate of acceptance of nomination of respondent Vicente B. Fernandez for delegate to the Constitutional Convention for the second district of Laguna. Petitioner alleged that Vicente B. Fernandez was not a resident of Laguna and was a nuisance candidate whose purpose was to cause confusion due to the similarity of their surnames. Procedural History: The COMELEC denied Estanislao's petition, stating it had no jurisdiction to rule on qualification and that evidence of Vicente being a nuisance candidate was inconclusive. Meanwhile, the Court of First Instance of Laguna denied Vicente's application for registration as a voter in Mabitac, Laguna, finding he failed to establish residence. This decision was later submitted to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Estanislao A. Fernandez filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court to set aside the COMELEC's resolution, arguing that Vicente B. Fernandez lacked the requisite one-year residence qualification and was a nuisance candidate under Section 37 of the Revised Election Code.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to pass upon the residence qualification of a candidate. Whether respondent Vicente B. Fernandez is a nuisance candidate within the purview of Section 37 of the Revised Election Code.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari, set aside the COMELEC's resolution, and ordered that Vicente B. Fernandez's certificate of acceptance of nomination be stricken out. The COMELEC was ordered to recall all copies of his certificate of acceptance and candidacy.
Ratio Decidendi
On the COMELEC's jurisdiction over residence qualification: The Court held that the COMELEC has the authority to refuse to give due course to a certificate of candidacy if the disqualification, such as lack of residence, is patent on the face of the certificate. This is especially true when, as in this case, the respondent's counsel unequivocally admitted that the earliest date of residence transfer to Laguna was November 12, 1969, which, when counted towards the election date of November 10, 1970, amounted to only 363 days, falling short of the one-year requirement. This admission, under the peculiar circumstances, rendered the disqualification patent. On whether respondent Vicente B. Fernandez is a nuisance candidate: The Court found that Vicente B. Fernandez had no bona fide intention to run for the office. His prolonged residence in San Juan, Rizal, his voting record there, and his extensive business interests in the Greater Manila Area, contrasted with his lack of known presence in Laguna, strongly indicated that his candidacy was intended to cause confusion among the electorate due to the similarity of surnames. The Court noted that he could have filed his candidacy in Rizal, his actual place of residence, rather than in Laguna, where he was practically unknown. The decision of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, which denied his voter registration due to lack of residence, further buttressed the conclusion that his claim of residence in Laguna was not genuine.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has the authority to refuse to give due course to a certificate of candidacy if it is shown that the candidate lacks the required residence qualification, or if the certificate is filed to cause confusion among electors and prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate, indicating no bona fide intention to run.