ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
May-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11219 May 7, 1958 - PACITA SALABARIA VDA. DE SUATARON v. HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY

    103 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-11580 May 9, 1958 - MARCELINO GABRIEL v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    103 Phil 651

  • G.R. No. L-11231 May 12, 1958 - ROSARIO CARBONNEL v. JOSE PONCIO

    103 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. L-9531 May 14, 1958 - WARNER BARNES & CO. v. GUILLERMO C. REYES

    103 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. L-11578 May 14, 1958 - GERONIMO AVECILLA v. HON. NICASIO YATCO

    103 Phil 666

  • G.R. No. L-11629 May 14, 1958 - CELEDONIO E. ESCUDERO v. ANTONIO G. LUCERO

    103 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. L-10559 May 16, 1958 - IN RE: YU NEAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. L-10657 May 16, 1958 - NUMERIANO L. VALERIANO, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION KERR, ET AL.

    103 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-11285 May 16, 1958 - VICENTE SAPTO v. APOLONIA FABIANA

    103 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-11924 May 16, 1958 - ISIDORO CEBRERO v. JOSE TALAMAN

    103 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-8776 May 19, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO CRUZ

    103 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. L-11539 May 19, 1958 - ARING BAGOBA v. ENRIQUE A. FERNANDEZ

    103 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-11305 May 21, 1958 - DOMINADOR P. CANLAS, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-12375 May 21, 1958 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO.

    103 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. L-8317 May 23, 1958 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUAN ABAD, ET AL.

    103 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. L-10286 May 23, 1958 - LUIS E. ARRIOLA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-10704 May 23, 1958 - SIMEON TAN LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 736

  • G.R. No. L-11036 May 23, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO TOLENTINO

    103 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. L-11060 May 23, 1958 - A. U. VALENCIA & Co. v. HERMINIA C. LAYUG, ET AL.

    103 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. L-11152 May 23, 1958 - BENITO CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-11442 May 23, 1958 - MANUELA T. VDA. DE SALVATIERRA v. LORENZO C. GARLITOS

    103 Phil 757

  • G.R. No. L-11504 May 23, 1958 - ELISEO SAULOG v. N. BAENS DEL ROSARIO

    103 Phil 765

  • G.R. No. L-7451 May 26, 1958 - HACIENDA LUISITA v. BOARD OF TAX APPEALS

    103 Phil 770

  • G.R. No. L-10610 May 26, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SILVELA

    103 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-11361 May 26, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX SEMAÑADA

    103 Phil 790

  • G.R. No. L-8190 May 28, 1958 - GONZALO GARCIA v. CONSOLACION MANZANO

    103 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-9328 May 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROSIO PAUNIL, ET AL.

    103 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-10322 May 28, 1958 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JACINTA ALVAREZ

    103 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. L-10574 May 28, 1958 - PANAY ELECTRIC CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

    103 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. L-10931 May 28, 1958 - FLORENClA R. SORIANO v. ONG HOO

    103 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-10972 May 28, 1958 - IN RE: PERFECTO GOTAUCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-10989 May 28, 1958 - PONCIANO GACHO v. SERGIO OSMEÑA

    103 Phil 837

  • G.R. No. L-11112 May 28, 1958 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. LUZON SURETY COMPANY

    103 Phil 853

  • G.R. No. L-11271 May 28, 1958 - PAZ TY SIN TEI v. JOSE LEE DY PIAO

    103 Phil 858

  • G.R. No. L-11311 May 28, 1958 - MARTA C. ORTEGA v. DANIEL LEONARDO

    103 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-11412 May 28, 1958 - MAURICIA VDA. DE VILLANUEVA v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

    103 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-11427 May 28, 1958 - DIMAS REYES v. FIDEL D. DONES

    103 Phil 884

  • G.R. No. L-11491 May 28, 1958 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. BIENVENIDA JOCSON LAGNITON

    103 Phil 889

  • G.R. No. L-11538 May 28, 1958 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL. v. JEA COMMERCIAL, ET AL.

    103 Phil 894

  • G.R. No. L-11640 May 28, 1958 - CLAUDIO DEGOLLACION v. LI CHUI

    103 Phil 904

  • G.R. No. L-11744 May 28, 1958 - PILAR GIL VDA. DE MURCIANO v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    103 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. L-12196 May 28, 1958 - ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF BATAAN v. AMBROSIO T. DOLLETE

    103 Phil 914

  • G.R. Nos. L-12214-17 May 28, 1958 - MALIGAYA SHIP WATCHMEN AGENCY v. ASSOCIATED WATCHMEN AND SECURITY UNION (PTWO)

    103 Phil 920

  • G.R. No. L-12222 May 28, 1958 - UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    103 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. L-12289 May 28, 1958 - LIM SIOK HUEY v. ALFREDO LAPIZ

    103 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-12348 May 28, 1958 - MARIANO CORDOVA v. GREGORIO NARVASA

    103 Phil 935

  • G.R. No. L-13069 May 28, 1958 - JOVENCIO A. REYES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

    103 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-12287 May 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FORTUNATO ORTIZ, ET AL.

    103 Phil 944

  • G.R. No. L-7955 May 30, 1958 - JOAQUIN LOPEZ v. ENRIQUE P. OCHOA

    103 Phil 950

  • G.R. No. L-8439 May 30, 1958 - CO CHO CHIT v. HANSON, ORTH & STEVENSON, INC., ET AL.

    103 Phil 956

  • G.R. No. L-10642 May 30, 1958 - IN RE: ALFREDO ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 964

  • G.R. Nos. L-10837-38 May 30, 1958 - ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY v. ISABEL IYA

    103 Phil 972

  • G.R. No. L-10952 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENIGNO V. LINGAD

    103 Phil 980

  • G.R. No. L-11073 May 30, 1958 - MELECIO ARCEO v. ANDRES E. VARELA

    103 Phil 990

  • G.R. No. L-11374 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSCORO PINUILA

    103 Phil 992

  • G.R. No. L-11444 May 30, 1958 - VICENTE ROULLO v. MARGARITO LUMAYNO

    103 Phil 1004

  • G.R. No. L-11498 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN J. RODRIGUEZ

    103 Phil 1008

  • G.R. Nos. L-11531-33 May 30, 1958 - MARIA CONCEPCION v. PAYATAS ESTATE IMPROVEMENT CP. INC.

    103 Phil 1016

  • G.R. No. L-12053 May 30, 1958 - ROBERTA C. DIAZ v. JESUS Y. PEREZ

    103 Phil 1023

  • G.R. No. L-12081 May 30, 1958 - LORENZO LERMA v. VICTORIANO L. REYES, ET AL.

    103 Phil 1027

  • G.R. No. L-12530 May 30, 1958 - CONSOLIDATED LABOR ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HERMOGENES CALUAG

    103 Phil 1032

  • G.R. No. L-12567 May 30, 1958 - TAN GIN SAN v. ROSALIA A. TAN CARPIZO

    103 Phil 1042

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-13069   May 28, 1958 - JOVENCIO A. REYES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL. <br /><br />103 Phil 940

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-13069. May 28, 1958.]

    JOVENCIO A. REYES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and GODOFREDO S. REYES, Respondents.

    Ramon C. Aquino for Petitioner.

    Dominador D. Dayot for the respondent Commission on Elections.

    Constante P. Pimentel for respondent Godofredo Reyes.


    SYLLABUS


    1. ELECTION; CANDIDACY; CANDIDATE’S FAILURE TO HOLD CAMPAIGN MEETINGS; DOES NOT SHOW BAD FAITH. — Good faith is always to be presumed. A candidate may believe that mere announcement of his candidacy, by the filing of his certificate is sufficient; failure to hold campaign meetings or to distribute posters may be caused by a desire not to stoop to the usual forms of winning votes and this may have been impelled by the highest principles of ethics and the desire to give the electorate freedom of choice without resort to the common system of campaigning. A candidate may feel it below his dignity to engage in the common forms of campaigning; this feeling is not inconsistent with good faith. It is therefore, an abuse of discretion on the part of the Commission en Elections to conclude that because petitioner has refused to follow the common and ordinary form of campaigning his candidacy has been attended by bad faith.

    2. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; TO GIVE DUE COURSE TO A CANDIDACY; CANNOT GO BEYOND ITS POWER. — The Commission on Elections cannot go beyond its powers and arrogate unto itself the dangerous prerogative of determining whether to give course to a candidacy or not, on its own belief or impressions, even when a candidate has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications prescribed by law. Such an arrogation of powers is beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission.


    D E C I S I O N


    LABRADOR, J.:


    Jovencio A. Reyes, Petitioner, is a registered candidate in the 1957 general elections, for the position of Congressman, Second District of Ilocos Sur, his certificate of candidacy having been filed on August 20, 1957. Upon the filing of said certificate of candidacy, the Commission informed him that it would be given due course. But on September 22, 1957, Godofredo S. Reyes, another candidate for the position of Congressman of said district, file a petition with the Commission praying that the certificate of candidacy of petitioner herein be declared cancelled for the reason that it was presented in bad faith. Thereupon the Commission on Elections, in accordance with the established practice in such cases, ordered an investigation, after which it decided that petitioner’s certificate of candidacy was filed in bad faith, in view of the following findings that it made after the investigation:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Respondent Jovencio A. Reyes has not been campaigning for his candidacy; that he has no posters and streamers announcing his candidacy except one 6" x 10" poster, on an acacia tree along the road leading to the Poblacion of Santiago, Ilocos Sur, hometown of the respondent; that there is absolutely no political activity of Atty. Jovencio A. Reyes in any of the towns and municipal districts comprising the second congressional district of Ilocos Sur, except in the form of letters mailed from Manila, applying for permits to hold political meetings in the towns of Santa, Narvacan, Candon, and Sta. Lucia that from the date of the filing of his certificate of candidacy up to October 27, 1957, he has not held even one political meeting or rally in any of the twenty-three towns and municipal districts of the second congressional district of Ilocos Sur, not even in his hometown, Santiago, Ilocos Sur, or that his wife’s town, Sta. Maria, Ilocos Sur; that he has not been conducting house to house campaign; that many people interviewed declared that they have not seen Atty. Jovencio A. Reyes for quite a long time, for he is actually residing in Quezon City." (Exhibit "2" for Respondent Commission.)

    When the petition was presented we granted a preliminary injunction, requiring respondent Commission to give due course to the certificate of candidacy.

    The case was called for hearing on November 9 at which all the parties appeared. Petitioner appeared in person, and as a lawyer argued his case, and the Court had opportunity to see his person and inquire into his qualifications. We are satisfied that he is fully qualified for the position.

    Petitioner claims that the action of the Commission in refusing to give due course to his candidacy is both in excess of the Commission’s jurisdiction and an abuse of discretion on its part. We find that the respondent Commissions’ refusal is not due to any disqualification or lack of competence, or absence of the requisite qualifications of petitioner, but because the commission believes that petitioner has not shown interest in campaigning for his candidacy, not having held meetings or having distributed sufficient posters within the district to appraise the electorate of his candidacy. We do not agree with the Commission in its conclusion that petitioner’s candidacy has been inspired by bad faith. Good faith is always to be presumed. A candidate, may believe that mere announcement of his candidacy, by the filing of his certificate, is sufficient. Failure to hold campaign meetings or to distribute posters may be caused by a desire not to stoop to the usual forms of winning votes, and this may have been impelled by the highest principles of ethics and the desire to give the electorate freedom of choice without resort to the common system of campaigning. A candidate may feel it below his dignity to engage in the common forms of campaigning; this feeling is not inconsistent with good faith. It is, therefore, an abuse of discretion on the part of the Commission on Elections to conclude that because petitioner has refused to follow the common and ordinary form of campaigning his candidacy has been attended by bad faith.

    Furthermore, the Commission has gone beyond its powers and arrogated unto itself the dangerous prerogative of determining whether to give course to a candidacy or not, on its own belief or impressions, even when a candidate has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications prescribed by law. This Court has made itself clear that such an arrogation of powers is beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission, when through Mr. Justice Concepcion, we said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Sections 36 and 37 of the Revised Election Code give the Commission no discretion to give or not to give due course to petitioner’s certificate of candidacy. On the contrary, the Commission has, admittedly, the ministerial duty to receive said certificate of candidacy. Of what use would it be to receive it, if the certificate were not to be given due course? Moreover, the Constitution fixes the qualification for the office of the President. All possessors of such qualifications are, therefore, deemed legally fit, at least, to aspire to such office and to run therefor provided that they comply with the requirements of the law. Lastly, the power of decision of the Commission is limited to purely ‘administrative questions.’ (Art. X, section 2, Constitution of the Philippines.) It has no authority to decide matters ‘involving the right to vote’. It may not even pass upon the legality of a given vote (Nationalista Party v. Commission on Elections, 47 Off. Gaz., 2851). How could it, therefore, assert the greater and more far-reaching authority to determine who — among those possessing the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution, who have complied with the procedural requirements relative to the filing of certificates of candidacy — should be allowed to enjoy the full benefits intended by law therefor? (Abcede v. Hon. Domingo Imperial, Et Al., Supra, p. 136.)

    As in the above case, this case should be distinguished from the case of Ciriaco S. Garcia v. Imperial, G. R. No. L-12930, October 22, 1957, wherein we sustained the power of the Commission to refuse to give course to petitioner’s certificate of candidacy because it would tend to prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate because of the confusion between the name of the petitioner and the candidate of the Nacionalista Party. In the case at bar, no such confusion would arise because of the great difference between the name of the petitioner herein and that of the other Respondent.

    Wherefore, the petition is hereby granted, and the preliminary injunction made absolute. With costs against respondent Godofredo S. Reyes.

    Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-13069   May 28, 1958 - JOVENCIO A. REYES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL. <br /><br />103 Phil 940


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED