Salcedo II v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Neptali P. Salcedo married Agnes Celiz on February 18, 1968. Without this marriage being dissolved, Neptali P. Salcedo married Ermelita Cacao on September 21, 1986. Two days later, on September 23, 1986, Ermelita Cacao married Jesus Aguirre. Petitioner Victorino Salcedo II and private respondent Ermelita Cacao Salcedo ran for mayor of Sara, Iloilo in the May 11, 1998 elections. On April 17, 1998, petitioner filed a petition to cancel private respondent's certificate of candidacy, alleging material misrepresentation for using the surname "Salcedo" as she was not legally married to Neptali Salcedo. Procedural History: The Comelec's Second Division, on August 12, 1998, ruled to cancel private respondent's certificate of candidacy, finding that her subsequent marriage to Neptali Salcedo was null and void due to his existing marriage with Agnes Celiz, thus constituting material misrepresentation. However, the Comelec en banc, in a Resolution dated October 6, 1998, reversed the Second Division's ruling, holding that the use of the surname "Salcedo" did not constitute material misrepresentation and that any defect in the certificate of candidacy should give way to the will of the electorate, especially after proclamation. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging that the Comelec en banc's resolution was issued with grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the use of the surname "Salcedo" in the certificate of candidacy constitutes material misrepresentation under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. Whether the Comelec en banc's resolution reversing the Second Division's decision constituted grave abuse of discretion.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the en banc Resolution of the Commission on Elections dated October 6, 1998, denying the petition to cancel private respondent's certificate of candidacy. The Court held that the use of the surname "Salcedo" did not constitute material misrepresentation and that the will of the electorate should prevail.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of material misrepresentation: The Court held that for a false representation in a certificate of candidacy to justify cancellation under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, it must pertain to a material matter and involve a deliberate attempt to deceive the electorate regarding qualifications. The Court found no showing that the inhabitants of Sara, Iloilo were deceived by the use of the surname "Salcedo" by private respondent. It was assumed that the electorate knew who they were voting for, as private respondent had resided in Sara since 1986 and had been holding herself out as Neptali Salcedo's wife. Furthermore, private respondent had been using the surname "Salcedo" since 1986 in various transactions, including business registrations and income tax returns, which remained uncontested by the petitioner. This consistent use of the surname prior to the election belied the claim that it was adopted solely to improve her chances by riding on her husband's popularity. The Court emphasized that the use of a surname, when not intended to mislead or deceive, is not within the scope of Section 78. The petitioner failed to allege that private respondent lacked any other requisite qualification for the office of mayor, such as residency, age, or citizenship, thus failing to discharge the burden of proving that the alleged misrepresentation was material. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Comelec en banc. The Court stated that there was nothing legally assailable with the Comelec's adoption of the reasoning in the dissenting opinion of Commissioner Desamito, nor was the en banc Resolution rendered infirm by the change of position adopted by Chairman Pardo and Commissioner Guiani. The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to allow the adjudicator a second opportunity to review the case and decide anew. The Court also noted that the promulgation date of the resolution, coinciding with Chairman Pardo's oath-taking as Supreme Court Associate Justice, did not invalidate the decision, as he enjoyed the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official duties, which the petitioner failed to rebut. The Court reiterated the principle that the sanctity of the people's will must be observed, and in challenges that could reverse a democratic voice, the Court should be vigilant in giving effect to the will of the majority, especially when there appears to be no dispute as to the candidate's qualifications.
Main Doctrine
The use of a surname in a certificate of candidacy, when not intended to mislead or deceive the public as to one's qualifications for public office, does not constitute material misrepresentation under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, especially when the electorate is aware of the candidate's identity and the candidate has consistently used the surname in various transactions prior to the election. Furthermore, the will of the electorate should prevail when there is no dispute as to the candidate's qualifications to hold office.