JUANITO C. PILAR VS.
COMELEC candidacy was not valid since Mendoza did not
G.R. NO. 115245
JULY 11, 1995
FACTS:
On March 22, 1992, petitioner Juanito C.
Pilar filed his certificate of candidacy for the position
of member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the
Province of Isabela. Three days after, the petitioner
withdrew his certificate of candidacy.
In M.R. Nos. 93-2654 and 94-0065 dated
November 3, 1993 and February 13, 1994
respectively, the COMELEC imposed upon
petitioner the fine of Ten Thousand Pesos for failure
to file his statement of contributions and
expenditures.
Petitioner argues that he cannot be held
liable for failure to file a statement of contributions
and expenditures because he was a "non-
candidate," having withdrawn his certificates of
candidacy three days after its filing. Petitioner
speculates that "it is . . . clear from the law that
candidate must have entered the political contest,
and should have either won or lost".
ISSUE: Whether or not a candidate is excused in
filing his statement of contributions and expenditures
after he has withdrawn his certificate of candidacy.
HELD:
The petition is dismissed. The court ruled
that the filing or withdrawal of certificate of candidacy
shall not affect whatever civil, criminal or
administrative liabilities which a candidate may have
incurred. Petitioner’s withdrawal of his candidacy did
not extinguish his liability for the administrative fine.
It is not improbable that a candidate who withdrew
his candidacy has accepted contributions and
incurred expenditures, even in the short span of his
campaign. The evil sought to be prevented by the
law is not all too remote. Courts have also ruled that
such provisions are mandatory as to the requirement
of filing.
VILLANUEVA VS. COMELEC
G.R. NO. L – 54718
DECEMBER 4, 1986
FACTS:
On January 25, 1980, Petitioner filed a
certificate of candidacy for Vice Mayor of Dolores
for the January 30 elections in substitution
for his companion Mendoza who withdrew candidacy
without oath upon filing on January 4. Petitioner won in
the election but Respondent Board disregarded all his
votes and proclaimed Respondent Candidate as the
winner on the presumption that Petitioner’s candidacy
was not duly approved by Respondent.
Petitioner filed a petition for the annulment
of the proclamation but was dismissed by
Respondent Commission on the grounds that
Mendoza’s unsworn withdrawal had no legal effect
, and that assuming it was effective, Petitioner’s
withdraw after January 4.
ISSUE: W/N Petitioner should be disqualified on the
ground of formal or technical defects.
HELD:
NO.
The fact that Mendoza’s withdrawal was not
sworn is a technicality, which should not be used to
frustrate the people’s will in favor of Petitioner as the
substitute candidate. Also, his withdrawal right on
the very same day that he filed his candidacy
should be considered as having been made
substantially and in truth after the last day, even going
by the literal reading of the provision by
Respondent Commission. The spirit of the law
rather than its literal reading should have
guided Respondent Commission in resolving the is
sue of last-minute withdrawal and substitution of
other persons as candidates.
GO VS. COMELEC
357 SCRA 739, 2001
FACTS: Petitioner was the incumbent
representative of the Fifth District, province of Leyte
when she filed on February 27, 2001 with the
municipal election officer of the municipality of
Baybay, Leyte, a certificate of candidacy for mayor
of the said municipality.
On February 28, 2001, at 11:47 p.m., petitioner filed
with the provincial election supervisor of Leyte, with
office at Tacloban City, another certificate of
candidacy for governor. Simultaneously therewith,
she attempted to file with the provincial election
supervisor an affidavit of withdrawal of her
candidacy for mayor. However, the provincial
election supervisor refused to accept the affidavit of
withdrawal and suggested that, pursuant to
COMELEC Resolution No. 3253-A, she should file it
with the municipal election officer of Baybay, Leyte
where she filed her certificate of candidacy for
mayor.
Private respondents filed similar petitions to
disqualify petitioner on the ground that petitioner
filed certificates of candidacy for two positions,
namely, that for mayor, and that for governor, thus,
making her ineligible for both.
The COMELEC granted the petition and disqualified
the petitioner from running for both position.
ISSUE: Whether or not an affidavit of withdrawal of
candidacy should be filed with the election officer of
the place where the certificate of candidacy was
filed.
HELD:
No.
There is nothing in Section 73 of the
Omnibus Election Code which mandates that the
affidavit of withdrawal must be filed with the same
office where the certificate of candidacy to be
withdrawn was filed. Thus, it can be filed directly with
the main office of the COMELEC, the office of the
regional election director concerned, the office of the
provincial election supervisor of the province to
which the municipality involved belongs, or the office
of the municipal election officer of the said
municipality. While it may be true that Section 12 of
COMELEC Resolution No. 3253-A requires that the
withdrawal be filed before the election officer of the
place where the certificate of candidacy was filed,
such requirement is merely directory, and is
intended for convenience.

SINICA VS MULA AND COMELC
In this case, assailed was the COMELEC Resolution
on Oct. 6, 1998 in SPA No. 98-292, declaring the
substitution of mayoralty candidate Teodoro Sinaca,
Jr. by petitioner Emmanuel D. Sinaca as invalid.
FACTS:
In the May 1998 elections, petitioner
Emmanuel Sinica was a substitute candidate for the
mayoral post of the Matugas Wing after their original
candidate, Teodoro Sinica, Jr., was disqualified for
being convicted of bigamy. He was proclaimed
winner after the canvassing. (Matugas Wing was a
faction in the LAKAS-NUCD-UMPD party, as well as
the Barbers Wing.
Each faction has separate candidates for the
mayoral post in the Municipality of Malimono,
Surigao del Norte.) Respondent Mula (who got
Sinica, Jr. disqualified) filed a disqualification case
against Emmanuel Sinica before the COMELEC. He
alleged that said substitution was invalid because:
a) Sinica was not member of the LAKAS party
when he was nominated as a substitute; and
b) it lacks approval of Sen. Barbers as a joint
signatory of the substitution.
The COMELEC Second Division dismissed the
disqualification case. However, when respondent
Mula filed a Motion for Reconsideration, COMELEC
en banc set aside the resolution of the Second
Division and disqualified EMMANUEL asserting that
the substitution violated the provisions of Sec. 77 of
the Omnibus Election Code that the substitute must
belong to the same political party as the substituted
candidate. Emmanuel D. Sinaca was not valid
because he was an independent candidate for
councilor prior to his nomination as substitute
candidate in place of the withdrawing candidate who
was a Lakas party member. Therefore, this case
before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: WON the substitution of Emmanuel Sinica
was against the provisions of Section 77 of the
Omnibus Election Code.
HELD:
NO.
Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code only
mandates that a substitute candidate should be a
person belonging to and certified by the same
political party as the candidate to be replaced.
Petitioner Emmanuel Sinaca, an independent
candidate, had first withdrawn his certificate of
candidacy for Sangguniang Bayan Member before he
joined the LAKAS party and nominated by the LAKAS
MATUGAS Wing as the substitute candidate. He had
filed his certificate of candidacy and his certificate of
nomination as LAKAS mayoralty candidate signed by
Gov. Matugas with his written acceptance of the
party’s nomination. Therefore, he is a bona fide
LAKAS member. There is nothing in the Constitution
or the statute which requires as a condition
precedent that a substitute candidate must have
been a member of the party concerned for a certain
period of time before he can be nominated as such.
RAMIREZ VS. COMELEC
270 SCRA 590
1997
FACTS:
The Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC)
of Gipolos, Eastern Samar proclaimed petitioner
Ramirez winner in the vice-mayoralty race over
another candidate, private respondent Go based on
the results showing that Ramirez obtained more
votes than Go.
Go petitioned COMELEC for correction of
manifest error claiming that owing to error in
addition, he was credited with lesser votes. The
COMELEC en banc issued a Resolution directing
the MBC to reconvene and recompute the votes in
the Statement of Votes and proclaim the winning
candidate. Acting on separate motions filed by
Ramirez and Go, the COMELEC en banc affirmed
its earlier resolution.
Ramirez petitioned the Supreme Court to
annul the 2 COMELEC en banc resolutions and to
reinstate his proclamation as the duly elected vice-
mayor. He alleged that the COMELEC en banc had
no jurisdiction over the controversy since it was not
yet acted upon by a division of the COMELEC.
ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC en banc has
jurisdiction to act directly on the petition for
correction of manifest error filed by private
respondent Go?
HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative,
citing Rule 27, Section 5 of the 1993 COMELEC
Rules which provides correction of manifest errors in
the tabulation or tallying of results during the
canvassing as one of the pre-proclamation
controversies which maybe filed directly with the
COMELEC en banc.
HELD:
The doctrine cannot be applied in this case
because the disqualification of Cayat became final
and executory before the elections and hence, there
is only one candidate to speak of.
The law expressly declares that a candidate
disqualified by final judgment before an election
cannot be voted for, and votes cast for him shall not
be counted. As such, Palileng is the only candidate
and the duly elected mayor.
The doctrine will apply in Bayacsan’s favor,
regardless of his intervention in the present case, if
two conditions concur: (1) the decision on Cayat’s
disqualification remained pending on election day,
10 May 2004, resulting in the presence of two
mayoralty candidates for Buguias, Benguet in the
elections; and (2) the decision on Cayat’s
disqualification became final only after the elections.

The Supreme Court annulled the COMELEC

resolutions but directed COMELEC to reconvene the
MBC or if this is not feasible, to constitute a new
MBC in Gipolos, Eastern Samar and to order it to
promptly revise the Statement of Votes based on the
election returns from all the precincts of the
Municipality and thereafter, proclaim the winning
candidate.

CAYAT V. COMELEC
G.R. No. 163776
April 24, 2007
FACTS:
Fr.Nardo Cayat and Thomas Palileng are the
only mayoralty candidates for the May 2004
elections in Buguias Benguet.

Palileng filed a petition for cancellation of the

COC of Cayat on the ground of misrepresentation.
Palileng argues that Cayat misrepresents himself
when he declared in his COC that he is eligible to
run as mayor when in fact he is not because he is
serving probation after being convicted for the
offense of acts of lasciviousness.

Comelec, granted the petition of Palileng and

Cayat filed a motion for reconsideration. Such, MR
was denied because Cayat failed to pay the filing fee
and hence, it was declared final and executory.

Despite this decision, Cayat was still

proclaimed as the winner and Palileng filed a petition
for annulment of proclamation. Comelec declared
Palileng as the duly elected mayor and Feliseo
Bayacsan as the duly elected vice mayor.

Bayacsan argues that he should be declared

as mayor because of the doctrine of rejection of
second placer.

ISSUE: WON the rejection of second placer doctrine

is applicable.