Villanueva v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Crisologo Villanueva sought to annul the proclamation of Vivencio G. Lirio as the elected vice-mayor of Dolores, Quezon. The dispute arose from the filing and subsequent withdrawal of a certificate of candidacy by one Narciso Mendoza, Jr., and petitioner's subsequent attempt to file a certificate of candidacy in substitution. The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Lirio as the winner, considering votes for petitioner as stray because his candidacy was not officially recognized. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to annul the proclamation of Lirio and to order a count of votes cast for him. The COMELEC denied this petition, citing that Mendoza's withdrawal was not under oath as required by law and that the withdrawal occurred on the same day the certificate of candidacy was filed, not after the deadline for filing, thus invalidating any substitution. The COMELEC also denied petitioner's motions for reconsideration. This led to the present petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner seeks to set aside the COMELEC's resolutions denying his petition for annulment and reconsideration. He argues that his certificate of candidacy in substitution of Narciso Mendoza, Jr. was valid and that the proclamation of respondent Lirio should be annulled. The core of the dispute revolves around the interpretation of Sections 27 and 28 of the 1978 Election Code concerning the withdrawal of certificates of candidacy and the requirements for substitution. Petitioner contends that the votes cast for him should be counted and considered valid, not stray.
Issue(s)
Whether the unsworn withdrawal of Narciso Mendoza, Jr.'s certificate of candidacy was legally effective. Whether petitioner Crisologo Villanueva could validly file a certificate of candidacy in substitution of Narciso Mendoza, Jr. Whether the votes cast for petitioner Villanueva should be considered stray votes. Whether the proclamation of Vivencio G. Lirio as vice-mayor should be annulled.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The COMELEC resolutions denying the annulment of proclamation and reconsideration are affirmed. The proclamation of Vivencio G. Lirio as vice-mayor stands.
Ratio Decidendi
On the legal effect of Narciso Mendoza, Jr.'s withdrawal: The Court held that the withdrawal of Narciso Mendoza, Jr.'s certificate of candidacy was legally ineffective because it was not made under oath, as required by Section 27 of the 1978 Election Code. The law is clear and unambiguous on the necessity of a sworn statement for a withdrawal to produce legal effect. Since the withdrawal was not sworn, Mendoza legally remained a candidate for vice-mayor until the elections. On the validity of petitioner's substitution: Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the withdrawal was effective, the Court ruled that petitioner could not validly substitute for Mendoza. Section 28 of the 1978 Election Code permits substitution only when the withdrawal occurs after the last day for filing certificates of candidacy. In this case, Mendoza's withdrawal was made on January 4, 1980, which was the very last day for filing. Therefore, substitution was not permissible under the law. On the classification of votes cast for petitioner: Consequently, petitioner Villanueva was not a candidate, either as a substitute or in his own right, because he filed his certificate of candidacy on January 25, 1980, long after the deadline of January 4, 1980. Any votes cast in his favor were therefore considered stray votes, in accordance with Section 155(15) of the Election Code. On the annulment of respondent Lirio's proclamation: Given that the votes for petitioner were stray votes and he was not a valid candidate, there was no legal basis to annul the proclamation of respondent Vivencio G. Lirio as the duly elected vice-mayor. The Municipal Board of Canvassers correctly disregarded the votes cast for petitioner.
Main Doctrine
A withdrawal of a certificate of candidacy must be under oath to be legally effective. Furthermore, substitution of a candidate due to withdrawal is only permissible if the withdrawal occurs after the last day for filing certificates of candidacy, not on or before the last day.