Qualification Of Local Elective Officials

Torayno v. COMELEC
G.R. NO. 137329 (August 9, 2000)
FACTS: This case involves a petition for quo warranto filed against the respondent on the
ground that he was not able to fulfill the requirement of residency of 1-yr in Cagayan de Oro City
when he ran for mayor. Respondent previously served as governor of Misamis Oriental for 3
consecutive terms before he registered as a voter in Cagayan de Oro City and subsequently ran
for mayor.

HELD: Respondent was able to fulfill the residency requirement needed for him to qualify as a
mayoralty candidate. He bought a house in Cagayan de Oro City in 1973. He actually resided
there before he registered as a voter in that city in 1997.

Villarosa vs. HRET

G.R. No. 143351, September 14, 2000

FACTS:
Quintos contested the proclamation of Amelita Villarosa. Issue: whether JTV votes should be
counted in favor of Villarosa. JTV is the nickname of Villarosas husband, who is the incumbent
representative of Occidental Mindoro.

HELD:
Villarosas use of JTV as her nickname was a clever ploy to make a mockery of the election
process. HRET did not commit grave abuse of discretion in holding that the only issue for its
determination was whether "JTV" votes or variations thereof should be counted in favor of
VILLAROSA and in ruling that such votes are stray votes.

Maruhom v. COMELEC
G.R. NO. 139397 (May 5, 2000)
FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent were candidates for mayor. Because of several
irregularities, anomalies and electoral frauds, the petitioner was illegally proclaimed as the
winner. Petitioner filed a case with the COMELEC to annul the proclamation, but later withdrew
it. He also filed an election protest with the RTC. Petitioner orally moved for dismissal of the
protest, but it was denied. The court ordered the Revision Committee to convene and start the
revision of the ballots. Petitioner alleges that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in
dismissing the petition.

HELD: The SC held that the summary dismissal of petitioners Motion to Dismiss was not a
grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. The filing of the motion to dismiss, in fact, appears
to be part of a perfidious plot to prevent the early termination of the proceedings as evidenced
by a confluence of events clearly showing a pattern of delay employed by petitioner to avert the
revision ballots. Also, a motion to dismiss is not a prohibited pleading in an election contest filed
before the regular courts.