[ G.R. No. 54718. May 31, 1983 ] 207 Phil. 560
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 54718. May 31, 1983 ]
CRISOLOGO VILLANUEVA Y PAREDES, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF DOLORES, QUEZON, AND VIVENCIO G. LIRIO, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N
DE CASTRO, J.:
Petitioner Crisologo Villanueva seeks in this petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction to set aside Resolution No. 9192 of respondent Commission on Elections dated February 21, 1980, denying his petition for annulment of the proclamation of respondent Vivencio Lirio as the elected vice-mayor of Dolores, Quezon, as well as Resolution No. 9885 of said Commission dated July 31, 1980, denying his motion for reconsideration and supplemental motion for reconsideration.
It appears that on January 4, 1980, which is the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy in the January 30, 1980 elections, one Narciso Mendoza, Jr. filed with the Election Registrar of Dolores, Quezon, his sworn certificate of candidacy for the office of vice-mayor of said municipality. Subsequently, however, but on the same day, Mendoza filed an unsworn letter withdrawing his said certificate of candidacy.
On January 25, 1980, herein petitioner filed with the Election Registrar of Dolores, Quezon, his sworn “Certificate of Candidacy in Substitution” of the aforementioned Narciso Mendoza, Jr. for the office of vice-mayor of said municipality.
On January 31, 1980, the respondent Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed, on the basis of the results of its canvass, respondent Vivencio Lirio as the duly elected vice-mayor of Dolores, Quezon. Respondent Board considered all the votes cast in favor of petitioner as stray votes on the ground that his certificate of candidacy was not given due course by the Commission on Elections, Manila, and his name was not included in the certified list of official candidates.
On February 6, 1980, petitioner filed with the COMELEC a petition to annul the proclamation of respondent. He likewise prayed that COMELEC should order the official counting of the votes that may have been cast in his favor and thereafter, to proclaim him as the duly elected vice-mayor of Dolores, Quezon.
On February 21, 1980, COMELEC issued the herein questioned resolution denying the said petition, upon the reasoning that petitioner could not have filed his candidacy in substitution of Mendoza’s because the withdrawal of the latter had produced no legal effect, the same not having been made under oath as required by Section 27 of the Election Code, and even assuming the efficacy of said withdrawal, the same was made not after the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy as provided under Section 28 of said Code, but on the very same last day. COMELEC reaffirmed its stand upon petitioner’s filing of a motion for reconsideration and supplemental motion for reconsideration. Hence, the present recourse.
Petitioner insists that the withdrawal of Narciso Mendoza’s certificate of candidacy was valid and effective, and therefore, his certificate of candidacy in substitution of Mendoza’s was, likewise, valid and effective. Petitioner further alleged that there is sufficient legal basis for the annulment of the proclamation of respondent Lirio, petitioner having supposedly polled the highest number of votes for vice-mayor of Dolores, Quezon.
The law on the matter of withdrawal or cancellation of certificates of candidacy is Section 27 of the 1978 Election Code, which provides:
“Sec. 27. Withdrawal or cancellation of certificates of candidacy.— No certificate of candidacy duly filed shall be considered withdrawn or cancelled unless the candidate files with the office which received the certificate of candidacy or with the Commission, a sworn statement of withdrawal or cancellation at any time before the day of election.” (Italics supplied)
There is absolutely no vagueness or ambiguity of the above provision as to the need of a sworn statement of withdrawal or cancellation of a duly filed certificate of candidacy. That the withdrawal of Mendoza’s certificate of candidacy was not made under oath is not disputed. As such, the withdrawal produces no legal effect for failure to comply with the clear and unequivocal mandate of the law. Mendoza, therefore, for all legal intents and purposes, remained to be a candidate for vice-mayor of Dolores, Quezon, up to January 30, 1980, the date of the elections, as correctly ruled by the COMELEC.
Even assuming that the questioned withdrawal is effective, under a liberal construction of the law as invoked by petitioner, which should not be the case when the terms of the statute are clear and unmistakable, still petitioner may not derive comfort therefrom for Mendoza’s withdrawal was made on January 4, 1980, on the very last day for filing certificates of candidacy. Substitution of a candidate by reason of withdrawal is proper only when such withdrawal is made after the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy. This is as, likewise, clearly provided by Section 28 of the 1978 Election Code.
“Sec. 28. Candidates in case of death, withdrawal or disqualification of another. - If, after the last day for filing certificates of candidacy, a candidate with a certificate of candidacy duly filed should die, withdraw or be disqualified for any cause, any voter qualified for the office may file his certificate of candidacy for the office for which the deceased, the candidate who has withdraw, or disqualified person was a candidate in accordance with the preceding sections on or before mid-day of the day of the election, and if the death, withdrawal or disqualification should occur between the day before the election and the mid-day of election day, said certificate may riled with any election committee in the political subdivision where he is a candidate: Provided, however, That if the candidate who died, withdrew or was disqualified is the official candidate of a political party, group or aggrupation, only a person belonging to, and certified by, the same political party, group or aggrupation may file a certificate of candidacy for the same office.”
While it may be true as persistently pointed out by the petitioner that a certificate of candidacy duly filed may be withdrawn or cancelled at any time before the day of election, it does not necessarily follow that such withdrawn or cancelled certificate of candidacy may be the subject of substitution by another’s certificate of candidacy. For substitution to take place, the withdrawal must be effected after the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy. If the withdrawal was made prior to or on the said last day, as what happened in the instant case, substitution is not allowed. Hence, the person filing a certificate of candidacy is filing said certificate in his own right, not as substitute candidate, and the filing to make the certificate of candidacy valid must not be after the last day for filing ordinary certificates of candidacy, which is January 4, 1980.
By and large, petitioner was, therefore, not a candidate, either in substitution of Mendoza or in his own right, as he filed his certificate of candidacy on January 25, 1980, long after the last day for filing certificates of candidacy. Whatever votes may have been cast in his favor are necessarily considered stray votes. [Section 155 (15), Election Code] There is thus no legal basis for the annulment of respondent Lirio’s proclamation as vice-mayor.
In view of the foregoing, the COMELEC did not commit any error in issuing Resolution Nos. 9192 and 9885. In such a case, this Court cannot properly exercise its limited jurisdiction to review decisions, orders or rulings of the COMELEC, which under the present Constitution has been narrowed down to one of review by certiorari which may be invoked only when there is grave abuse of discretion, or lack or excess of jurisdiction (Aratuc v. COMELEC, 88 SCRA 251), or patent errors of law.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is dismissed, without special pronouncement as to cost.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Vasquez, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur. Fernando, C.J., dissents on the ground that the bona fides of petitioner Crisologo Villanueva y Paredes as a substitute candidate cannot, in his opinion, be successfully assailed. It follows that the votes cast in his favor must be counted. Such being the case there is more than sufficient justification for his proclamation as Vice Mayor assuming that he did poll a greater number of votes than private respondent Vivencio Lirio. Teehankee, J., dissents in a separate opinion.