EN BANC

G.R. No. 207900 April 22, 2014

MAYOR GAMAL S. HAYUDINI, Petitioner,

vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and MUSTAPHA J. OMAR, Respondents.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

For the Court's resolution is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition1 under Rule 65,
which petitioner Gamal S. Hayudini (Hayudini) filed to set aside and annul the
assailed Resolutions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), dated June 20,
20132 and July 10, 2013,3 which cancelled his Certificate of Candidacy for the
mayoralty seat in the 2013 local elections in South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, for having
been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of
jurisdiction.

The antecedent facts are:

On October 5, 2012, Hayudini filed his Certificate of Candidacy4 (CoC) for the
position of Municipal Mayor of South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi in the May 13, 2013 National
and Local Elections held in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. Ten days
after, or on October 15, 2012, Mustapha J. Omar (Omar) filed a Petition to Deny
Due Course or Cancel Hayudini’s CoC, entitled Mustapha J. Omar v. Gamal S.
Hayudini, docketed as SPA No. 13-106(DC)(F).5Omar basically asserted that
Hayudini should be disqualified for making false representation regarding his
residence. He claimed that Hayudini declared in his CoC that he is a resident of the
Municipality of South Ubian when, in fact, he resides in Zamboanga City.

Thereafter, on November 30, 2012, Hayudini filed a Petition for Inclusion in the
Permanent List of Voters in Barangay Bintawlan, South Ubian before the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court (MCTC). Despite the opposition of Ignacio Aguilar Baki, the MCTC
granted Hayudini’s petition on January 31, 2013.6 On that same day, the COMELEC’s

1 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

First Division dismissed7 Omar’s earlier petition to cancel Hayudini’s CoC in SPA No.
13-106(DC)(F) for lack of substantial evidence that Hayudini committed false
representation as to his residency.

Oppositor Baki, subsequently, elevated the case to the Bongao Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 5. The RTC, on March 8, 2013, Reversed8 the MCTC ruling and
ordered the deletion of Hayudini’s name in Barangay Bintawlan’s permanent list of
voters. In view of said decision, Omar filed before the COMELEC a Petition to Cancel
the Certificate of Candidacy of Gamal S. Hayudini by Virtue of a Supervening Event
on March 26, 2013. The petition was docketed as SPA No. 13-249(DC)(F).9 Hayudini
appealed the March 8, 2013 RTC decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), but on April
17, 2013, in CA-G.R. SP No. 05426,10 the same was denied.

On May 13, 2013, Hayudini won the mayoralty race in South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi. He
was proclaimed and, consequently, took his oath of office.

On June 20, 2013, the COMELEC Second Division issued a Resolution11 granting
Omar’s second petition to cancel Hayudini’s CoC. The dispositive portion of the
COMELEC Resolution reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED.

Accordingly, the Certificate of Candidacy filed by Gamal S. Hayudini as Mayor of
South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, in the 13 May 2013 elections, is hereby CANCELLED.

The Office of the Deputy Executive Director for Operations is hereby directed to
constitute a Special Board of Canvassers for the purpose of proclaiming the lawful
winner for mayoralty position in South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi during the 13 May 2013
elections.

SO ORDERED.12

Hayudini, thus, filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc,
arguing that its Second Division committed grave error when it gave due course to a
belatedly filed petition and treated the March 8, 2013 RTC Decision as a supervening
event.

2 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

On July 10, 2013, the COMELEC En Banc denied Hayudini’s Motion for
Reconsideration for lack of merit. The decretal portion of the En Banc’s assailed
Resolution states:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby

RESOLVES to DENY this Motion for Reconsideration for LACK OF MERIT.
Consequently, the June 20, 2013 Resolution of the Commission (Second Division) is
hereby affirmed.

Corollary thereto, the proclamation of respondent GAMAL S. HAYUDINI is hereby

declared null and void and without any legal force and effect. SALMA A. OMAR is
hereby proclaimed as the duly-elected Mayor for South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, being the
qualified candidate obtaining the highest number of votes, considering the doctrine
laid down by the case Aratea v. Comelec13 that a cancelled CoC cannot give rise to
a valid candidacy, and much less, to a valid vote, to wit:

"Ergo, since respondent Lonzanida was never a candidate for the position of mayor
[of] San Antonio, Zambales, the votes cast for him should be considered stray votes.
Consequently, Intervenor Antipolo, who remains as the sole candidate for the
mayoralty post and obtained the highest number of votes, should now be proclaimed
as the duly-elected Mayor of San Antonio, Zambales.

Lonzanida's certificate of candidacy was cancelled, because he was ineligible or not

qualified to run for Mayor. Whether his certificate of candidacy is cancelled before or
after elections is immaterial because the cancellation on such ground means he was
never a candidate from the very beginning, his certificate of candidacy being void ab
initio. There was only one qualified candidate for Mayor in the May 2010 elections -
Antipolo, who therefore received the highest number of votes."

The Office of the Deputy Executive Director for Operations is hereby directed to
constitute a Special Board of Canvassers for the purpose of proclaiming SALMA
OMAR as the winning candidate for mayoralty position in South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi
during the May 13, 2013 elections.

SO ORDERED.14

3 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

Thus, Hayudini filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition.

Hayudini mainly advances the following arguments:

A.

THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION

AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT FAILED TO
OUTRIGHTLY DISMISS THE INSTANT PETITION TO CANCEL CERTIFICATE OF
CANDIDACY DUE TO SUPERVENING EVENT (SPA. NO. 13-249(DC)(F), DESPITE THE
FAILURE OF RESPONDENT OMAR TO COMPLY WITH THE MANDATORY
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTIONS 2 AND 4 OF THE COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 9532.

xxxx

C.

THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION

AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT REVISITED AND
MODIFIED THE FINAL AND EXECUTORY RESOLUTION ISSUED BY THE FIRST
DIVISION IN THE SPA NO. 13-106(DC)(F).

III.

THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION

AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT RESOLVED TO
CANCEL PETITIONER HAYUDINI’S CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY AND DECLARE HIS
PROCLAMATION AS NULL AND VOID.

xxxx

L.

THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION

AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DECREED THE
PROCLAMATION OF SALMA A. OMAR AS THE DULY-ELECTED MAYOR FOR SOUTH
UBIAN, TAWI-TAWI.15

4 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

The Court finds the petition to be without merit.

A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an independent action based on
thespecific grounds and available only if there is no appeal or any other plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It will only prosper if
grave abuse of discretion is alleged and is actually proved to exist. Grave abuse of
discretion has been defined as the arbitrary exercise of power due to passion,
prejudice or personal hostility; or the whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of
power that amounts to an evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by
law or to act at all in contemplation of law. For an act to be condemned as having
been done with grave abuse of discretion, such an abuse must be patent and
gross.16 Here, Hayudini miserably failed to prove that the COMELEC rendered its
assailed Resolutions with grave abuse of discretion.

Hayudini contends that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it
admitted, and later granted, Omar’s petition despite failure to comply with Sections
2 and 4 of Rule 23 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended by Resolution
No. 9523. The subject sections read:

Section 2. Period to File Petition. — The Petition must be filed within five (5) days
from the last day for filing of certificate of candidacy; but not later than twenty five
(25) days from the time of filing of the certificate of candidacy subject of the
Petition. In case of a substitute candidate, the Petition must be filed within five (5)
days from the time the substitute candidate filed his certificate of candidacy.

xxxx

Section 4. Procedure to be observed. — Both parties shall observe the following

procedure:

1. The petitioner shall, before filing of the Petition, furnish a copy of the Petition,
through personal service to the respondent. In cases where personal service is not
feasible, or the respondent refuses to receive the Petition, or the respondents’
whereabouts cannot be ascertained, the petitioner shall execute an affidavit stating
the reason or circumstances therefor and resort to registered mail as a mode of

5 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

service. The proof of service or the affidavit shall be attached to the Petition to be
filed;17

Here, Hayudini filed his CoC on October 5, 2012, which was also the last day of filing
of CoC for the May 13, 2013 elections. Omar, on the other hand, filed the subject
petition only on March 26, 2013. Under the COMELEC Rules, a Petition to Deny Due
Course or Cancel CoC must be filed within five days from the last day for filing a
certificate of candidacy, but not later than twenty-five days from the time of filing of
the CoC subject of the petition. Clearly, Omar’s petition was filed way beyond the
prescribed period. Likewise, he failed to provide sufficient explanation as to why his
petition was not served personally to Hayudini.

Notwithstanding the aforementioned procedural missteps, the Court sustains the

COMELEC’s liberal treatment of Omar’s petition.

As a general rule, statutes providing for election contests are to be liberally

construed in order that the will of the people in the choice of public officers may not
be defeated by mere technical objections. Moreover, it is neither fair nor just to keep
in office, for an indefinite period, one whose right to it is uncertain and under
suspicion. It is imperative that his claim be immediately cleared, not only for the
benefit of the winner but for the sake of public interest, which can only be achieved
by brushing aside technicalities of procedure that protract and delay the trial of an
ordinary action. This principle was reiterated in the cases of Tolentino v. Commission
on Elections18 and De Castro v. Commission on Elections,19 where the Court held
that "in exercising its powers and jurisdiction, as defined by its mandate to protect
the integrity of elections, the COMELEC must not be straitjacketed by procedural
rules in resolving election disputes."20

Settled is the rule that the COMELEC Rules of Procedure are subject to liberal
construction.1âwphi1 The COMELEC has the power to liberally interpret or even
suspend its rules of procedure in the interest of justice, including obtaining a speedy
disposition of all matters pending before it. This liberality is for the purpose of
promoting the effective and efficient implementation of its objectives − ensuring the
holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections, as well as achieving

6 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

just, expeditious, and inexpensive determination and disposition of every action and
proceeding brought before the COMELEC. Unlike an ordinary civil action, an election
contest is imbued with public interest. It involves not only the adjudication of private
and pecuniary interests of rival candidates, but also the paramount need of
dispelling the uncertainty which beclouds the real choice of the electorate. And the
tribunal has the corresponding duty to ascertain, by all means within its command,
whom the people truly chose as their rightful leader.21

Indeed, Omar had previously filed a Petition to Deny Due Course or Cancel
Hayudini’s CoC on October 15, 2012, docketed as SPA No. 13-106(DC)(F). This was
dismissed on January 31, 2013, or the same day the MCTC granted Hayudini’s
petition to be included in the list of voters. However, on March 8, 2013, the RTC
reversed the MCTC ruling and, consequently, ordered the deletion of Hayudini’s
name in Barangay Bintawlan’s permanent list of voters. Said deletion was already
final and executory under the law.22 Hayudini, however, still appealed the case to
the CA, which was subsequently denied. Notably, thereafter, he went to the CA
again, this time to file a petition for certiorari, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
05499.23 In a Resolution dated July 9, 2013, the CA also denied said petition
primarily because of Hayudini’s act of engaging in the pernicious practice of forum
shopping by filing two modes of appeal before said court.24 Hence, by virtue of the
finality of said RTC decision deleting his name from the voters’ list, Hayudini, who
had been previously qualified under the law25 to run for an elective position, was
then rendered ineligible.

Given the finality of the RTC decision, the same should be considered a valid
supervening event. A supervening event refers to facts and events transpiring after
the judgment or order had become executory. These circumstances affect or change
the substance of the judgment and render its execution inequitable.26 Here, the
RTC’s March 8, 2013 decision, ordering the deletion of Hayudini’s name in the list of
voters, which came after the dismissal of Omar’s first petition, is indubitably a
supervening event which would render the execution of the ruling in SPA No. 13-
106(DC)(F) iniquitous and unjust. As the COMELEC aptly ruled, the decision to
exclude Hayudini was still non-existent when the COMELEC first promulgated the

7 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

Resolution in SPA No. 13-106(DC)(F) on January 31, 2013, or when the issues
involved therein were passed upon.27 The First Division even expressed that
although the Election Registration Board (ERB) denied Hayudini’s application for
registration, it could not adopt the same because it was not yet final as Hayudini
was still to file a Petition for Inclusion before the MCTC.28 Thus, it is not far-fetched
to say that had this final RTC finding been existent before, the COMELEC First
Division could have taken judicial notice of it and issued a substantially different
ruling in SPA No. 13-106(DC)(F).29

The same ruling adequately equipped Omar with the necessary ground to
successfully have Hayudini’s CoC struck down. Under the rules, a statement in a
certificate of candidacy claiming that a candidate is eligible to run for public office
when in truth he is not, is a false material representation, a ground for a petition
under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code.

Sections 74 and 78 read:

Sec. 74. Contents of certificate of candidacy. – The certificate of candidacy shall

state that the person filing it is announcing his candidacy for the office stated therein
and that he is eligible for said office; if for Member of the Batasang Pambansa, the
province, including its component cities, highly urbanized city or district or sector
which he seeks to represent; the political party to which he belongs; civil status; his
date of birth; residence; his post office address for all election purposes; his
profession or occupation; that he will support and defend the Constitution of the
Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; that he will obey the
laws, legal orders, and decrees promulgated by the duly constituted authorities; that
he is not a permanent resident or immigrant to a foreign country; that the obligation
imposed by his oath is assumed voluntarily, without mental reservation or purpose
of evasion; and that the facts stated in the certificate of candidacy are true to the
best of his knowledge.

xxxx

Sec. 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. – A

verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy

8 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

may be filed by the person exclusively on the ground that any material
representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. The
petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the
filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and
hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election.

The false representation mentioned in these provisions must pertain to a material

fact, not to a mere innocuous mistake. A candidate who falsifies a material fact
cannot run; if he runs and is elected, cannot serve; in both cases, he or she can be
prosecuted for violation of the election laws. These facts pertain to a candidate's
qualification for elective office, such as his or her citizenship and residence. Similarly,
the candidate's status as a registered voter falls under this classification as it is a
legal requirement which must be reflected in the CoC. The reason for this is obvious:
the candidate, if he or she wins, will work for and represent the local government
under which he or she is running.30 Even the will of the people, as expressed
through the ballot, cannot cure the vice of ineligibility, especially if they mistakenly
believed, as in the instant case, that the candidate was qualified.31

Aside from the requirement of materiality, a false representation under Section 78

must consist of a "deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which
would otherwise render a candidate ineligible." Simply put, it must be made with a
malicious intent to deceive the electorate as to the potential candidate's
qualifications for public office.32

Section 74 requires the candidate to state under oath in his CoC "that he is eligible
for said office." A candidate is eligible if he has a right to run for the public office. If
a candidate is not actually eligible because he is not a registered voter in the
municipality where he intends to be elected, but still he states under oath in his
certificate of candidacy that he is eligible to run for public office, then the candidate
clearly makes a false material representation, a ground to support a petition under
Section 78.33 It is interesting to note that Hayudini was, in fact, initially excluded by
the ERB as a voter. On November 30, 2012, the ERB issued a certificate confirming
the disapproval of Hayudini’s petition for registration.34 This is precisely the reason
why he needed to file a Petition for Inclusion in the Permanent List of Voters in

9 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

Barangay Bintawlan before the MCTC. Thus, when he stated in his CoC that "he is
eligible for said office," Hayudini made a clear and material misrepresentation as to
his eligibility, because he was not, in fact, registered as a voter in Barangay
Bintawlan.

Had the COMELEC not given due course to Omar’s petition solely based on
procedural deficiencies, South Ubian would have a mayor who is not even a
registered voter in the locality he is supposed to govern, thereby creating a
ridiculously absurd and outrageous situation. Hence, the COMELEC was accurate in
cancelling Hayudini’s certificate of candidacy. Hayudini likewise protests that it was a
grave error on the part of the COMELEC to have declared his proclamation null and
void when no petition for annulment of his proclamation was ever filed. What
petitioner seems to miss, however, is that the nullification of his proclamation as a
winning candidate is also a legitimate outcome − a necessary legal consequence −
of the cancellation of his CoC pursuant to Section 78. A CoC cancellation proceeding
essentially partakes of the nature of a disqualification case.35 The cancellation of a
CoC essentially renders the votes cast for the candidate whose certificate of
candidacy has been cancelled as stray votes.36 If the disqualification or CoC
cancellation or denial case is not resolved before the election day, the proceedings
shall continue even after the election and the proclamation of the winner.
Meanwhile, the candidate may be voted for and even be proclaimed as the winner,
but the COMELEC's jurisdiction to deny due course and cancel his or her CoC
continues. This rule likewise applies even if the candidate facing disqualification has
already taken his oath of office.37 The only exception to this rule is in the case of
congressional and senatorial candidates where the COMELEC ipso jure loses
jurisdiction in favor of either the Senate or the House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal after the candidates have been proclaimed, taken the proper oath, and also
assumed office.38

It bears stressing that one of the requirements for a mayoralty candidate is that he
must be a resident of the city or municipality where he intends to be elected. Thus,
under Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code, it is required that a candidate must
certify under oath that he is eligible for the public office he seeks election. In this

10 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

case, when petitioner stated in his CoC that he is a resident of Barangay Bintawlan,
South Ubian, Tawi Tawi and eligible for a public office, but it turned out that he was
declared to be a non-resident thereof in a petition for his inclusion in the list of
registered voters, he therefore committed a false representation in his CoC which
pertained to a material fact which is a ground for the cancellation of his CoC under
Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. Petitioner's ineligibility for not being a
resident of the place he sought election is not a ground for a petition for
disqualification, since the grounds enumerated under Section 6839 of the Omnibus
Election Code specifically refer to the commission of prohibited acts, and possession
of a permanent resident status in a foreign country.

As held in Aratea v. COMELEC,40 which is a case for cancellation of CoC under

Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, a cancelled certificate of candidacy void ab
initio cannot give rise to a valid candidacy, and much less to valid votes. Whether a
certificate of candidacy is cancelled before or after the elections is immaterial,
because the cancellation on such ground means he was never a candidate from the
very beginning, his certificate of candidacy being void ab initio. We then found that
since the winning mayoralty candidate's certificate of candidacy was void ab initio,
he was never a candidate at all and all his votes were considered stray votes, and
thus, proclaimed the second placer, the only qualified candidate, who actually
garnered the highest number of votes, for the position of Mayor.

We find the factual mileu of the Aratea case applicable in the instant case, since this
is also a case for a petition to deny due course or cancel a certificate of candidacy.
Since Hayudini was never a valid candidate for the position of the Municipal Mayor of
South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, the votes cast for him should be considered stray votes,
Consequently, the COMELEC properly proclaimed Salma Omar, who garnered the
highest number of votes in the remaining qualified candidates for the mayoralty
post, as the duly-elected Mayor of South Ubian, Tawi Tawi.

Codilla v. De Venecia case has no application in this case, since it dealt with a
petition for disqualification under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code and not a
petition to deny due course or cancel certificate of candidacy under Section 78 which
is the case at bar.

11 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

Finally, contrary to Hayudini's belief, the will of the electorate is still actually
respected even when the votes for the ineligible candidate are disregarded. The
votes cast in favor of the ineligible candidate are not considered at all in determining
the winner of an election for these do not constitute the sole and total expression of
the sovereign voice. On the other hand, those votes for the eligible and legitimate
candidates form an integral part of said voice, which must equally be given due
respect , if not more.41

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The COMELEC Resolutions dated June 20,
2013 and July 10, 2013 are hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice

ANTONIO T. CARPIO PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice Associate Justice

Please see separate concurring and

See Concurrence with Separate
dissenting opinion
Opinion
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
ARTURO D. BRION
CASTRO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice Associate Justice

ROBERTO A. ABAD MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

12 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

 Associate Justice Associate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice Associate Justice

BIENVENIDO L. REYES ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE

Associate Justice Associate Justice

MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN

Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions
in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice

Footnotes

1 Rollo, pp. 4-47.

2 Id. at 81-87.

3 Id. at 48-51.

4 Id. at 101.

5 Id. at 90-97.

6 Id. at 216-221.

7 Id. at 149-156.

13 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

8 Id. at 169-182.

9 Id. at 157-166.

10 Id. at 222-242.

11 Id. at 81-87.

12 Id. at 86.

13 G.R. No. 195229, October 9, 2012, 683 SCRA 105.

14 Rollo, pp. 50-51. (Emphasis in the original)

15 Id. at 16-19. (Underscoring and emphasis omitted)

16 Beluso v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 180711, June 22, 2010, 621 SCRA 450, 456.

17 Emphasis supplied

18 G.R. Nos. 187958, 187961, and 187962, April 7, 2010, 617 SCRA 575, 598.

19 G.R. Nos. 187966-68, April 7, 2010, 617 SCRA 575, 598.

20 Violago v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 194143, October 4, 2011, 658 SCRA 516, 525.

21 Id.

22 Omnibus Election Code, Sec. 138. Jurisdiction in inclusion and exclusion cases. -
The municipal and metropolitan trial courts shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all matters of inclusion and exclusion of voters from the list in their
respective municipalities or cities. Decisions of the municipal or metropolitan trial
courts may be appealed directly by the aggrieved party to the proper regional trial
court within five days from receipt of notice thereof, otherwise said decision of the
municipal or metropolitan trial court shall become final and executory after said
period. The regional trial court shall decide the appeal within ten days from the time
the appeal was received and its decision shall be immediately final and executory.
No motion for reconsideration shall be entertained by the courts. (Emphasis
supplied)

14 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

23 Rollo, pp. 421-440.

24 Id. at 442-444.

25 Republic Act No. 7160, Sec. 39. Qualifications. –

(a) An elective local official must be a citizen of the Philippines; a registered voter in
the barangay, municipality, city or province or, in the case of a member of the
sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, or sangguniang bayan, the
district where he intends to be elected; a resident therein for at least one (1) year
immediately preceding the day of the election; and able to read and write Filipino or
any other local language or dialect. x x x

26 Javier v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96086, July 21, 1993.

27 Rollo, p. 85.

28 Resolution, SPA No. 13-106(DC)(F), January 31, 2013, p. 6.

29 Rollo, p. 85.

30 Velasco v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 180051, December 24, 2008, 575 SCRA 590, 603-
604.

31 Limkaichong v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 178831-32, 179120, 179132-33, and

179240-41, April 1, 2009, 583 SCRA 1, 38-39.

32 Velasco v. COMELEC, supra note 30, at 604.

33 Jalosjos v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 193237 and G.R. No. 193536, October 9, 2012,
683 SCRA 1, 2.

34 Rollo, p. 128.

35 Velasco v. COMELEC, supra note 30, at 612.

36 Section 9 of Rule 23, COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended by Resolution

No. 9523.

37 Velasco v. COMELEC, supra note 30, at 613.

15 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!

38 Regina Ongsiako Reyes v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013.

39 Section 68. Disqualifications. - Any candidate who, in an action or protest in

which he is a party is declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or
found by the Commission of having (a) given money or other material consideration
to influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral
functions; (b) committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy; (c) spent in his
election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by this Code; (d) solicited,
received or made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104;
or (e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc,
subparagraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has
been elected, from holding the office. Any person who is a permanent resident of or
an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office
under this Code, unless said person has waived his status as permanent resident or
immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement
provided for in the election laws.

40 GR No. 195229, October 9, 2012, 683 SCRA 105, 145.

41 Casan Macode Maquiling v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013.

16 If you want to become a lawyer, KEEP ON STUDYING!