G.R. No.

209835, September 22, 2015

ROGELIO BATIN CABALLERO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND

JONATHAN ENRIQUE V. NANUD, JR., Respondents.

PERALTA, J.:

Before us is a petition for certiorari with prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining

order seeking to set aside the Resolution1 dated November 6, 2013 of the Commission
on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc which affirmed in toto the Resolution2 dated May 3,
2013 of the COMELEC First Division canceling the Certificate of Candidacy (COC) of
petitioner Rogelio Batin Caballero.

Petitioner3 and private respondent Jonathan Enrique V. Nanud, Jr.4 were both candidates

for the mayoralty position of the Municipality of Uyugan, Province of Batanes in the May
13, 2013 elections. Private respondent filed a Petition5 to deny due course to or
cancellation of petitioner's certificate of candidacy alleging that the latter made a false
representation when he declared in his COC that he was eligible to run for Mayor of
Uyugan, Batanes despite being a Canadian citizen and a nonresident thereof.

During the December 10, 2012 conference, petitioner, through counsel, manifested that
he was not properly served with a copy of the petition and the petition was served by
registered mail not in his address in Barangay Imnajbu, Uyugan, Batanes. He, however,
received a copy of the petition during the conference. Petitioner did not file an Answer
but filed a Memorandum controverting private respondent's substantial allegations in his
petition.

Petitioner argued that prior to the filing of his COC on October 3, 2012, he took an Oath
of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines before the Philippine Consul General in
Toronto, Canada on September 13, 2012 and became a dual Filipino and Canadian
citizen pursuant to Republic Act (RA) No. 9225, otherwise known as the Citizenship
Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003. Thereafter, he renounced his Canadian
citizenship and executed an Affidavit of Renunciation before a Notary Public in Batanes
on October 1, 2012 to conform with Section 5(2) of RA No. 9225. 6 He claimed that he
did not lose his domicile of origin in Uyugan, Batanes despite becoming a Canadian
citizen as he merely left Uyugan temporarily to pursue a brighter future for him and his
family; and that he went back to Uyugan during his vacation while working in Nigeria,
California, and finally in Canada.

On May 3, 2013, the COMELEC First Division issued a Resolution finding that petitioner
made a material misrepresentation in his COC when he declared that he is a resident of
Barangay Imnajbu, Uyugan, Batanes within one year prior to the election. The decretal
portion of the resolution reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES

to GRANT the instant Petition. The Certificate of Candidacy of respondent Caballero is
hereby CANCELLED.7chanrobleslaw

The COMELEC First Division did not discuss the procedural deficiency raised by petitioner
as he was already given a copy of the petition and also in consonance with the
Commission's constitutional duty of determining the qualifications of petitioner to run for
elective office. It found that while petitioner complied with the requirements of RA No.
9225 since he had taken his Oath of Allegiance to the Philippines and had validly
renounced his Canadian citizenship, he failed to comply with the other requirements
provided under RA No. 9225 for those seeking elective office, i.e., persons who
renounced their foreign citizenship must still comply with the one year residency
requirement provided for under Section 39 of the Local Government Code. Petitioner's
Page 1 of 7
naturalization as a Canadian citizen resulted in the abandonment of his domicile of origin
in Uyugan, Batanes; thus, having abandoned his domicile of origin, it is incumbent upon
him to prove that he was able to reestablish his domicile in Uyugan for him to be eligible
to run for elective office in said locality which he failed to do.

Elections were subsequently held on May 13, 2013 and the election returns showed that
petitioner won over private respondent.8 Private respondent filed an Urgent Ex-
parte Motion to Defer Proclamation.9

On May 14, 2013, petitioner was proclaimed Mayor of Uyugan, Batanes.

On May 16, 2013, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the COMELEC En
Banc assailing the May 3, 2013 Resolution issued by the COMELEC's First Division
canceling his COC.

On May 17, 2013, private respondent filed a Petition to Annul Proclamation.10

On November 6, 2013, the COMELEC En Banc issued its assailed Resolution denying
petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner filed with us the instant petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order.

In the meantime, private respondent filed a Motion for Execution 11 of the May 3, 2013
Resolution of the COMELEC First Division as affirmed by the En Banc and prayed for the
cancellation of petitioner's COC, the appropriate correction of the certificate of canvas to
reflect that all votes in favor of petitioner are stray votes, declaration of nullity of
petitioner's proclamation and proclamation of private respondent as the duly-elected
Mayor of Uyugan, Batanes in the May 13, 2013 elections.

On December 12, 2013, COMELEC Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr. issued a Writ of
Execution.12 Private respondent took his Oath of Office13 on December 20, 2013.

In the instant petition for certiorari, petitioner raises the following assignment of errors,

to wit:cralawlawlibrary

THE COMELEC EN BANC GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE CLEAR IMPORT OF

PROCEDURAL RULES PROVIDED FOR UNDER COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 9523
PROMULGATED ON 25 SEPTEMBER 2012.

THE COMELEC EN BANC GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER ABANDONED

HIS PHILIPPINE DOMICILE WHEN HE WORKED IN SEVERAL FOREIGN COUNTRIES FOR
"GREENER PASTURE."

EVEN ASSUMING THAT PETITIONER HAS ABANDONED HIS PHILIPPINE DOMICILE WHEN
HE BECAME A CANADIAN CITIZEN, HIS REACQUISITION OF HIS FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP,
TAKING OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT NINE (9) MONTHS
PRIOR TO HIS ELECTION ON 13 MAY 2013, IS A SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE
LAW ON RESIDENCY.14chanrobleslaw

Petitioner contends that when private respondent filed a petition to deny due course or
to cancel his COC with the Office of the Municipal Election Officer of Uyugan, Batanes, a
copy thereof was not personally served on him; that private respondent later sent a
copy of the petition to him by registered mail without an attached affidavit stating the
reason on why registered mail as a mode of service was resorted to. Petitioner argues
that private respondent violated Section 4, paragraphs (1)15 and (4),16 Rule 23 of the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended by COMELEC Resolution No. 9523, thus, his
Page 2 of 7
petition to deny due course or cancel petitioner's certificate of candidacy should have
been denied outright.

We are not convinced.

While private respondent failed to comply with the above-mentioned requirements, the
settled rule, however, is that the COMELEC Rules of Procedure are subject to liberal
construction. Moreover, the COMELEC may exercise its power to suspend its own rules
as provided under Section 4, Rule 1 of their Rules of Procedure.cralawlawlibrary

Sec. 4. Suspension of the Rules. - In the interest of justice and in order to obtain speedy
disposition of all matters pending before the Commission, these rules or any portion
thereof may be suspended by the Commission.chanrobleslaw

Under this authority, the Commission is similarly enabled to cope with all situations
without concerning itself about procedural niceties that do not square with the need to
do justice, in any case without further loss of time, provided that the right of the parties
to a full day in court is not substantially impaired. 17

In Hayudini v. COMELEC,18 we sustained the COMELEC's liberal treatment of

respondent's petition to deny due course or cancel petitioner's COC despite its failure to
comply with Sections 2 and 4 of Rule 23 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as
amended by Resolution No. 9523, i.e., pertaining to the period to file petition and to
provide sufficient explanation as to why his petition was not served personally on
petitioner, respectively, and held that:cralawlawlibrary

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 Elections and De Castro v.
Commission on Elections, 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."

Settled is the rule that the COMELEC Rules of Procedure are subject to liberal
construction. 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 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.19chanrobleslaw

Here, we find that the issue raised, i.e., whether petitioner had been a resident of
Uyugan, Batanes at least one (1) year before the elections held on May 13, 2013 as he
represented in his COC, pertains to his qualification and eligibility to run for public office,
therefore imbued with public interest, which justified the COMELEC's suspension of its

Page 3 of 7
own rules. We adopt the COMELEC's s ratiocination in accepting the petition, to
wit:cralawlawlibrary

This Commission recognizes the failure of petitioner to comply strictly with the procedure
for filing a petition to deny due course to or cancel certificate of candidacy set forth in
Section 4, Rule 23 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure as amended by COMELEC
Resolution No. 9523, which requires service of a copy of the petition to respondent prior
to its filing. But then, we should also consider the efforts exerted by petitioner in serving
a copy of his petition to respondent after being made aware that such service is
necessary. We should also take note of the impossibility for petitioner to personally
serve a copy of the petition to respondent since he was in Canada at the time of its filing
as shown in respondent's travel records.

The very purpose of prior service of the petition to respondent is to afford the latter an
opportunity to answer the allegations contained in the petition even prior to the service
of summons by the Commission to him. In this case, respondent was given a copy of the
petition during the conference held on 10 December 2012 and was ultimately accorded
the occasion to rebut all the allegations against him. He even filed a Memorandum
containing his defenses to petitioner's allegations. For all intents and purposes,
therefore, respondent was never deprived of due process which is the very essence of
this Commission's Rules of Procedure.

Even the Supreme Court acknowledges the need for procedural rules to bow to
substantive considerations "through a liberal construction aimed at promoting their
objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding, x x x

x x x x

When a case is impressed with public interest, a relaxation of the application of the rules
is in order, x x x.

Unquestionably, the instant case is impressed with public interest which warrants the
relaxation of the application of the [R]ules of [P]rocedure, consistent with the ruling of
the Supreme Court in several cases.20chanrobleslaw

Petitioner next claims that he did not abandon his Philippine domicile. He argues that he
was born and baptized in Uyugan, Batanes; studied and had worked therein for a couple
of years, and had paid his community tax certificate; and, that he was a registered voter
and had exercised his right of suffrage and even built his house therein. He also
contends that he usually comes back to Uyugan, Batanes during his vacations from work
abroad, thus, his domicile had not been lost. Petitioner avers that the requirement of the
law in fixing the residence qualification of a candidate running for public office is not
strictly on the period of residence in the place where he seeks to be elected but on the
acquaintance by the candidate on his constituents' vital needs for their common welfare;
and that his nine months of actual stay in Uyugan, Batanes prior to his election is a
substantial compliance with the law. Petitioner insists that the COMELEC gravely abused
its discretion in canceling his COC.

We are not persuaded.

RA No. 9225, which is known as the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of

2003, declares that natural-born citizens of the Philippines, who have lost their
Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country,
can re-acquire or retain his Philippine citizenship under the conditions of the law.21 The
law does not provide for residency requirement for the reacquisition or retention of
Philippine citizenship; nor does it mention any effect of such reacquisition or retention of
Page 4 of 7
Philippine citizenship on the current residence of the concerned natural-born Filipino.22

RA No. 9225 treats citizenship independently of residence.23 This is only logical and

consistent with the general intent of the law to allow for dual citizenship. Since a
natural-born Filipino may hold, at the same time, both Philippine and foreign
citizenships, he may establish residence either in the Philippines or in the foreign country
of which he is also a citizen.24 However, when a natural-born Filipino with dual
citizenship seeks for an elective public office, residency in the Philippines becomes
material. Section 5(2) of FLA No. 9225 provides:cralawlawlibrary

SEC. 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities. - Those who retain or reacquire
Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be
subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the
Philippines and the following conditions:
x x x x

(2) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the qualifications for
holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the
time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation
of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an
oath.
chanrobleslaw

Republic Act No. 7160, which is known as the Local Government Code of 1991, provides,
among others, for the qualifications of an elective local official. Section 39 thereof
states:cralawlawlibrary

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 sanggunian
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.chanrobleslaw

Clearly, the Local Government Code requires that the candidate must be a resident of
the place where he seeks to be elected at least one year immediately preceding the
election day. Respondent filed the petition for cancellation of petitioner's COC on the
ground that the latter made material misrepresentation when he declared therein that
he is a resident of Uyugan, Batanes for at least one year immediately preceeding the
day of elections.

The term "residence" is to be understood not in its common acceptation as referring to

"dwelling" or "habitation," but rather to "domicile" or legal residence,25 that is, "the place
where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter
where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain
(animus manendi)."26 A domicile of origin is acquired by every person at birth. It is
usually the place where the child's parents reside and continues until the same is
abandoned by acquisition of new domicile (domicile of choice). It consists not only in the
intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with
conduct indicative of such intention.27

Petitioner was a natural born Filipino who was born and raised in Uyugan, Batanes.
Thus, it could be said that he had his domicile of origin in Uyugan, Batanes. However, he
later worked in Canada and became a Canadian citizen. In Coquilla v. COMELEC28 we
ruled that naturalization in a foreign country may result in an abandonment of domicile
in the Philippines. This holds true in petitioner's case as permanent resident status in
Page 5 of 7
Canada is required for the acquisition of Canadian citizenship. 29 Hence, petitioner had
effectively abandoned his domicile in the Philippines and transferred his domicile of
choice in Canada. His frequent visits to Uyugan, Batanes during his vacation from work
in Canada cannot be considered as waiver of such abandonment.

The next question is what is the effect of petitioner's retention of his Philippine
citizenship under RA No. 9225 on his residence or domicile?

In Japzon v. COMELEC,30 wherein respondent Ty reacquired his Philippine citizenship

under RA No. 9225 and run for Mayor of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar and whose
residency in the said place was put in issue, we had the occasion to state,
thus:cralawlawlibrary

[Petitioner's] reacquisition of his Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No.

9225 had no automatic impact or effect on his residence/domicile. He could still
retain his domicile in the USA, and he did not necessarily regain his domicile in the
Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines. Ty merely had the option
to again establish his domicile in the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar,
Philippines, said place becoming his new domicile of choice. The length of his residence
therein shall be determined from the time he made it his domicile of choice, and it shall
not retroact to the time of his birth.31chanrobleslaw

Hence, petitioner's retention of his Philippine citizenship under RA No. 9225 did not
automatically make him regain his residence in Uyugan, Batanes. He must still prove
that after becoming a Philippine citizen on September 13, 2012, he had reestablished
Uyugan, Batanes as his new domicile of choice which is reckoned from the time he made
it as such.

The COMELEC found that petitioner failed to present competent evidence to prove that
he was able to reestablish his residence in Uyugan within a period of one year
immediately preceding the May 13, 2013 elections. It found that it was only after
reacquiring his Filipino citizenship by virtue of RA No. 9225 on September 13, 2012 that
petitioner can rightfully claim that he re-established his domicile in Uyugan, Batanes, if
such was accompanied by physical presence thereat, coupled with an actual intent to
reestablish his domicile there. However, the period from September 13, 2012 to May 12,
2013 was even less than the one year residency required by law.

Doctrinally entrenched is the rule that in a petition for certiorari, findings of fact of

administrative bodies, such as respondent COMELEC in the instant case, are final unless
grave abuse of discretion has marred such factual determinations/~ Clearly, where there
is no proof of grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, fraud or error of law in the
questioned Resolutions, we may not review the factual findings of COMELEC, nor
substitute its own findings on the sufficiency of evidence.33

Records indeed showed that petitioner failed to prove that he had been a resident of
Uyugan, Batanes for at least one year immediately preceding the day of elections as
required under Section 39 of the Local Government Code.

Petitioner's argument that his nine (9) months of actual stay in Uyugan, Batanes, prior
to the May 13, 2013 local elections is a substantial compliance with the law, is not
persuasive. In Aquino v. Commission on Elections,34 we held:cralawlawlibrary

x x x A democratic government is necessarily a government of laws. In a republican

government those laws are themselves ordained by the people. Through their
representatives, they dictate the qualifications necessary for service in government
positions. And as petitioner clearly lacks one of the essential qualifications for running
for membership in the House of Representatives, not even the will of a majority or
Page 6 of 7
plurality of the voters of the Second District of Makati City would substitute for a
requirement mandated by the fundamental law itself.35chanrobleslaw

Petitioner had made a material misrepresentation by stating in his COC that he is a

resident of Uyugan, Batanes for at least one (1) year immediately proceeding the day of
the election, thus, a ground for a petition under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election
Code. Section 74, in relation to Section 78, of the OEC governs the cancellation of, and
grant or denial of due course to COCs, to wit:cralawlawlibrary

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.

x x x x

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 may be filed
by any 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.chanrobleslaw

We have held that in order to justify the cancellation of COC under Section 78, it is
essential that the false representation mentioned therein pertains to a material matter
for the sanction imposed by this provision would affect the substantive rights of a
candidate - the right to run for the elective post for which he filed the certificate of
candidacy.36 We concluded that material representation contemplated by Section 78
refers to qualifications for elective office, such as the requisite residency, age, citizenship
or any other legal qualification necessary to run for a local elective office as provided for
in the Local Government Code.37 Furthermore, aside from the requirement of materiality,
the misrepresentation must consist of a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or
hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible.38 We, therefore, find no
grave abuse of discretion committed by the COMELEC in canceling petitioner's COC for
material misrepresentation.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. The Resolution dated May 3,

2013 of the COMELEC First Division and the Resolution dated November 6, 2013 of the
COMELEC En Banc and are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Page 7 of 7