Professional Documents
Culture Documents
G.R. No. 209835 - Caballero v. COMELEC and Nanud Jr.
G.R. No. 209835 - Caballero v. COMELEC and Nanud Jr.
DECISION
PERALTA, J :p
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 canvass 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 Office 13
on December 20, 2013.
In the instant petition for certiorari, petitioner raises the following
assignment of errors, to wit:
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. 14
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 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.
Sec. 4. Â 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.
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:
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. 19 SDHTEC
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 own rules. We adopt the
COMELEC's ratiocination in accepting the petition, to wit:
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 Resolu tion
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. . .
.
xxx xxx xxx
When a case is impressed with public interest, a relaxation of
the application of the rules is in order. . . . .
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. 20
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. HSAcaE
Separate Opinions
BRION, J., concurring:
* On official leave.
** On leave.
*** No part.
4. Id. at 144.
5. Id. at 117-121.
6. Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities . — Those who retain or
re-acquire 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:
(2) Those seeking elective public in the Philippines shall meet the
qualification 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;
7. Rollo , p. 72.
8. Id. at 128-129.
9. Id. at 130-133.
14. Id. at 8.
15. 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 service. The proof of service or the affidavit
shall be attached to the Petition to be filed.
17. See Mentang v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 110347, February 4, 1994,
229 SCRA 666, 675.
18. G.R. No. 207900, April 22, 2014, 723 SCRA 223.
23. Id.
24. Id.
25. Coquilla v. Commission on Elections, 434 Phil. 861, 871-872 (2002), citing
Nuval v. Guray, 52 Phil. 645 (1928); Gallego v. Verra , 73 Phil. 453 (1941);
Romualdez v. RTC, Br. 7, Tacloban City, G.R. No. 104960, September 14,
1993, 226 SCRA 408.
26. Id. at 872, citing Aquino v. COMELEC , G.R. No. 120265, September 18, 1965,
248 SCRA 400, 420.
Section 5. (1) The Minister shall grant citizenship to any person who:
• (c) is a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, has, within the four years
immediately preceding the date of his or her application, accumulated at
least three years of residence in Canada calculated in the following manner:
• (i) for every day during which the person was resident in Canada before
his lawful admission to Canada for permanent residence the person shall be
deemed to have accumulated one-half of a day or residence, and
• (ii) for every day during which the person was resident in Canada after
his lawful admission to Canada for permanent residence the person shall be
deemed to have accumulated one day of residence;
32. Pangkat Laguna v. Commission on Elections , 426 Phil. 480, 486 (2002).
33. Domingo, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 372 Phil. 188, 202 (1999), citing
Nolasco v. Commission on Elections, 341 Phil. 761 (1997); Lozano v. Yorac ,
G.R. No. 94521, October 28, 1991, 203 SCRA 256; Apex Mining Co., Inc. v.
Garcia, 276 Phil. 301 (1991).
37. Villafuerte v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 206698, February 25, 2014,
717 SCRA 312, 323, citing Salcedo II v. Commission on Elections, supra, at
389, citing RA 7160, Section 39 on qualifications.
3. The Section 4, paragraphs (1) and (4), Rule 23 of the Comelec Rules of
Procedure provides:
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 respondent's whereabouts cannot be ascertained, the petitioner shall
execute an affidavit stating the reason and circumstances therefor and resort
to registered mail as mode of service. The proof of service or the affidavit
shall be attached to the Petition to be filed.
4. See The Philippine Consulate General in Los Angeles Website, Consular Services
(Dual Citizenship),
http://www.philippineconsulatela.org/consular%20services/conserv-
dual.htm#overseas, (last visited on September 24, 2015); and The
Commission on Filipinos Overseas Website, Programs and Services — Dual
Citizenship, http://www.cfo.gov.ph/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=1362%3Adual-
citizenship&catid=145%3Aintegration-and-reintegration&Itemid=833 (last
visited on September 24, 2015).
5. See Macalintal v. Comelec, 453 Phil. 586 (2003); and Japzon v. Comelec, 596
Phil. 354 (2009).
7. See Pundaodaya v. Comelec, supra note 6; and Jalosjos v. Comelec, G.R. No.
191970, April 24, 2012.
(i) been physically present in Canada for at least 1,460 days during the six
years immediately before the date of his or her application,
(ii) been physically present in Canada for at least 183 days during each of
four calendar years that are fully or partially within the six years immediately
before the date of his or her application, and
(iii) met any applicable requirement under the Income Tax Act to file a return
of income in respect of four taxation years that are fully or partially within
the six years immediately before the date of his or her application;
(ii) to enter into, or continue in, employment outside Canada in or with the
Canadian Armed Forces, the federal public administration or the public
service of a province, otherwise than as a locally engaged person, or
(iii) to reside with his or her spouse or common-law partner or parent, who is
a Canadian citizen or permanent resident and is employed outside Canada in
or with the Canadian Armed Forces, the federal public administration or the
public service of a province, otherwise than as a locally engaged person;
(d) if under 65 years of age at the date of his or her application, has an
adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada;
(f) is not under a removal order and is not the subject of a declaration by the
Governor in Council made pursuant to section 20.
10. See Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 which enumerates the
qualifications for naturalization as Philippine citizen. It reads:
First. He must be not less than twenty-one years of age on the day of the
hearing of the petition;
Fourth. He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than five
thousand pesos, Philippine currency, or must have some known lucrative
trade, profession, or lawful occupation;
Fifth. He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any one of
the principal Philippine languages;
Sixth. He must have enrolled his minor children of school age, in any of the
public schools or private schools recognized by the Office of Private
Education of the Philippines, where the Philippine history, government and
civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during the
entire period of the residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the
hearing of his petition for naturalization as Philippine citizen. [Emphasis
supplied]
(a) The applicant must be born in the Philippines and residing therein
since birth;
(b) The applicant must not be less than eighteen (18) years of age, at the
time of filing of his/her petition;
(c) The applicant must be of good moral character and believes in the
underlying principles of the Constitution, and must have conducted
himself/herself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his/her entire
period of residence in the Philippines in his relation with the duly constituted
government as well as with the community in which he/she is living;
(d) The applicant must have received his/her primary and secondary
education in any public school or private educational institution dully
recognized by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, where
Philippine history, government and civics are taught and prescribed as part
of the school curriculum and where enrollment is not limited to any race or
nationality: Provided, That should he/she have minor children of school age,
he/she must have enrolled them in similar schools;
(e) The applicant must have a known trade, business, profession or lawful
occupation, from which he/she derives income sufficient for his/her support
and if he/she is married and/or has dependents, also that of his/her family:
Provided, however, That this shall not apply to applicants who are college
degree holders but are unable to practice their profession because they are
disqualified to do so by reason of their citizenship;
(f) The applicant must be able to read, write and speak Filipino or any of the
dialects of the Philippines; and
(g) The applicant must have mingled with the Filipinos and evinced a sincere
desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipino
people. [Emphasis supplied]
(c) Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to
the Republic;
19. Id., citing Aratuc v. Comelec, 177 Phil. 205, 222 (1979).
20. Id.
3. Romualdez v. Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Tacloban City, G.R. No. 104960,
226 SCRA 408 (1993) [Per J. Abad, Second Division].
8. Id. at 456, citing Nuval v. Guray, 52 Phil. 645 (1928) [Per J. Villareal, En Banc]
and 17 Am. Jur., section 16, pages 599-601.
(f) Candidates for the sangguniang kabataan must be at least fifteen (15)
years of age but not more than twenty-one (21) years of age on election day.
10. Japzon v. COMELEC, 596 Phil. 354 (2009) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, En Banc].
15. Gallego v. Verra, 73 Phil. 453, 456 (1941) [Per J. Ozaeta, En Banc].
18. Faypon v. Quirino , 96 Phil. 294, 298 (1956) [Per J. Padilla, Second Division].
20. Faypon v. Quirino , 96 Phil. 294, 298 (1956) [Per J. Padilla, Second Division].
21. Limbona v. COMELEC , 578 Phil. 364, 374 (2008) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, En
Banc].
22. G.R. No. 104235, November 18, 1993, 228 SCRA 23 [Per J. Nocon, Second
Division].
23. Id. at 30, citing Collector of Internal Revenue v. Fisher and Court of Tax
Appeals, 110 Phil. 686, 700 (1961) [Per J. Barrera, En Banc] and JOVITO
SALONGA, PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 82-83 (1979).