September 1956 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > September 1956 Decisions > [G.R. No. L-9895. September 12, 1956.] VALENTIN GABALDON, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.:




EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-9895.  September 12, 1956.]

VALENTIN GABALDON, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

 

D E C I S I O N

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:

On August 31, 1955, ten qualified electors and members of the “Mannalon-Mangmangued”, a local faction of the Democratic Party of the municipality of Anao, province of Tarlac, filed with the Commission on Elections the certificate of candidacy of Valentin Gabaldon for the position of vice-mayor of said municipality, said certificate having been subscribed under oath. Among the ten persons aforesaid were Jose de la Cruz and Tomas Ofrecio, president and secretary respectively of said faction, who had been duly elected as such on July 28, 1955. On said date, Gabaldon was duly nominated as such candidate by the faction with which he was affiliated.

The Commission on Elections, in a resolution dated October 7, 1955, resolved not to give due course to the certificate on the ground that the same was not filed in accordance with law. A petition for reconsideration having been filed, the Commission denied the petition stating as grounds therefor, first, that the certificate does not state that Gabaldon was nominated by his party; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand second, the certificate was not sworn to by the president and secretary of his party as required by section 35 of the Revised Election Code. From this resolution, Gabaldon took this appeal by way of certiorari disputing the validity of the action of the Commission on Elections and praying that, pending determination of the petition on the merits, a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction be issued in order that his candidacy as vice-mayor may be voted upon by the electorate in the elections to be held on November 8, 1955. In due time, the writ prayed for was granted upon a bond of P300.

The question to be determined is whether the certificate of candidacy of Petitioner as vice-mayor of Anao, Tarlac filed by the ten qualified electors and members of the local faction of the Democratic Party complies with the requirements of section 35 of the Revised Election Code.

It appears that the certificate of candidacy was merely signed under oath by ten qualified electors and members of the local faction of the Democratic Party without stating therein that Petitioner has been duly nominated by said faction as candidate for the office of vice-mayor. Said certificate does not also state the position held by the ten members of the nominating party. For these reasons, Respondent Commission considered said certificate legally inadequate for it does not meet the requirements of section 35 of the Revised Election Code which provides in part:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“SEC, 35.  Certificates of candidacy filed by political group or political party. — Certificates of candidacy of candidates may be filed by a political party nominating them without the signature or oath of said candidates.

“Any political party having officially nominated candidates shall file with the Commission on Elections a certificate of such official nominations subscribed under oath by the president and secretary or corresponding officers of such political group or party.”

Considering the certificate alone, the stand of Respondent Commission would appear to be correct for it fails to state that Petitioner has been duly nominated by a political party and it is not subscribed under oath by the president and secretary of said party as required by law. But it should be noted that in the petition for reconsideration filed by the ten electors who registered said certificate of candidacy they made the manifestation that Petitioner had been duly nominated as candidate for vice-mayor of Anao, Tarlac in a convention duly called for the purpose and that among the ten persons who had been authorized to file his certificate of candidacy were Jose de la Cruz and Tomas Ofrecio, the president and secretary, respectively, of the local faction of the Democratic Party, attaching to the petition a duplicate copy of the minutes of the meeting held concerning said nomination. Thus, pertinent portions of the minutes are quoted hereunder:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“Upon motion of Mr. Andres de la Cruz, seconded by Mr. Federico Primero, to the effect that, in view of the fact that they are fully aware of the active service to the town and the masses of their brother, Mr. Valentin Gabaldon, and because he has no time to come to town due to the importance of his work with respect to his tenants in the “hacienda” where he worked, he moved, therefore, that his companions in the party be the ones to present his candidacy for vice- mayor in the town of Anao, Tarlac, in the November 8 election. The certificate of his candidacy should be presented by ten (10) persons of this party headed by the secretary, Tomas Ofrecio, and his companions to sign the same are Jose de la Cruz, president; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryIgmedio Ofrecio, vice-president; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryAlexander Baniqued, sub-secretary; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryClemente Navarro, treasurer; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryLucio Cayme, sergeant-at-arms; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryGregorio de la Cruz, sergeant-at-arms; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryEugenio Fermantes, auditor; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryLeon Suares, sub- auditor; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryLorenzo de la Cruz, adviser and Leandro Reyes, adviser; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand, the said certificate of candidacy, to be submitted, should be subscribed to before the Justice of the Peace of that town so as to make it secure. Any objection to the motion? There was none. Therefore, the same was approved.” (Annex B of the petition as translated.)

It appearing that the petition for reconsideration was filed on the time wherein it states that the Petitioner had been duly nominated as candidate for vice-mayor of Anao, Tarlac, and that the certificate of candidacy was duly subscribed under oath by the president and secretary of the local faction of the Democratic Party which nominated him, together with other eight electors and members of the same party, we are of the opinion that said certificate substantially complies With the requirements of the law. It was, therefore, a mistake for Respondent Commission to disregard the same to the prejudice of the nominee.

It should be stated in passing that the electorate did not consider of any consequence the technical objection of the Commission on Elections when in the ensuing elections it voted for Petitioner who in due time took his oath of office. He is now the incumbent vice-mayor of Anao, Tarlac.

Petition is granted, without pronouncement as to costs. The writ of injunction issued by this Court is hereby made permanent.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1956 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. L-9414. September 7, 1956.] CIRIACO SAN ANTONIO, Petitioner, vs. ASUNCION ESPINOLA, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-9695. September 10, 1956.] In the matter of the estate of PETRONILA BAGA, Appellee, vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-9182. September 12, 1956.] OPERATORS, INCORPORATED, Appellant, vs. JOSE PELAGIO and VICENTE LAGMAN, Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-9895. September 12, 1956.] VALENTIN GABALDON, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-9565. September 14, 1956.] YU KI LAM, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. NENA MICALLER, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9785. September 19, 1956.] MARIANO H. DE JOYA, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, PASAY CITY BRANCH, presided over by the Hon. Judge EMILIO RILLORAZA, Respondent.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-8497 & L-8517. September 21, 1956.] BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY and LAGUNA-TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, Petitioners, vs. BI�AN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, and JOSE SILVA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9141. September 25, 1956.] Testate Estate of OLIMPIO FERNANDEZ, deceased. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, claimant-Appellee, vs. ANGELINA OASAN VDA DE FERNANDEZ, PRISCILLA O. FERNANDEZ, and ESTELA O. FERNANDEZ, Oppositors-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-9145. September 25, 1956.] MAXIMA FELIPE, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PONCIANA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-9305. September 25, 1956.] GEORGE EDWARD KOSTER INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE C. ZULUETA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-9334. September 25, 1956.] HEIRS OF MARIANO ARROYO SINGBENGCO, Petitioners, vs. THE HON. FRANCISCO ARELLANO, ETC., ET AL., Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-7210. September 26, 1956.] OLIMPIA OBISPO and FELICIANO CARPIO, Petitioners, vs. REMEDIOS OBISPO, CONRADO ALINEA and THE COURT OF APPEALS (Second Division), Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8818. September 27, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VENANCIO C. MANGAMPO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-9167. September 27, 1956.] WE WA YU, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CITY OF LIPA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8373. September 28, 1956.] ALEJANDRO MERCADER, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MANILA POLO CLUB and ALEX D. STEWART, Defendant-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8557. September 28, 1956.] THE CITY OF MANILA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FRANCISCO REYES, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8771. September 28, 1956.] JOSE C. GONZALES, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. AURELIA DATU, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8919. September 28, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellees, vs. AGUSTIN MANGULABNAN alias GUINITA, DIONISIO SARMIENTO, ARCADIO BALMEO, PATRICIO GONZALES, FLORENTINO FLORES, CRISPIN ESTRELLA, FELIPE CALISON, PEDRO VILLAREAL, CLAUDIO REYES, �PETER DOE� and �JOHN DOE� Defendant, AGUSTIN MANGULABNAN, Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8949. September 28, 1956.] ADRIANO PAJARILLO, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. ANDRES MANAHAN, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-9203. September 28, 1956.] In the matter of the petition to change and correct entry in the Civil Registry of Manila. ALBERTO T. CHOMI, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MANILA, Respondent-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-9281. September 28, 1956.] PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS (PAFLU) and MAJESTIC AND REPUBLIC THEATERS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PAFLU), Petitioners, vs. Hon. EDILBERTO BAROT, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila and REMA, INCORPORATED, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9398. September 28, 1956.] AURORA REYES, assisted by her guardian ad litem, GABRIEL REYES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. BETTY SANTOS DE LA ROSA and JAIME DE LA ROSA, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-9819. September 28, 1956.] FIDEL DEL ROSARIO, Petitioner, vs. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and JUAN SANTOS, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9966. September 28, 1956.] CHIONG TIAO BING and CHIONG TIAO SIONG who is a minor and herein represented by his Father CHIONG PHAI HUN, Petitioners-Appellees, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, Respondent-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-6296. September 29, 1956.] CU UNJIENG SONS, INC., Petitioner, vs. THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS and THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9204. September 29, 1956.] AUGUSTO R. ILLAROSA and AUGUSTO ILLAROSA, JR., Petitioners, vs. ON. JOSE TEODORO, SR., Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros, Branch II, and AMADO S. PARRE�O, Judicial Administrator of the Estate of the late spouses WENCESLAO B. PARRE�O and VIRGINIA VILLANUEVA, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9516. September 29, 1956.] GREGORIO CARLOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. P. J. KIENER CONSTRUCTION, LTD., Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-9534. September 29, 1956.] MANILA STEAMSHIP CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. INSA ABDULHAMAN (MORO) and LIM HONG TO, Respondents.