9/9/2015 Guerrero vs Comelec : 137004 : July 26, 2000 : J.

Quisumbing : En Banc

ENBANC
[G.R.No.137004.July26,2000]

ARNOLDV.GUERRERO,petitioner,vs.THECOMMISSIONON
ELECTIONS,HON.MANUELB.VILLAR,JR.,astheSpeakeroftheHouse
ofRepresentatives,11thCongress,HON.ROBERTOP.NAZARENO,as
theSecretaryGeneraloftheHouseofRepresentatives,11thCongress,
RODOLFOC.FARIASandGUILLERMOR.RUIZ,respondents.

DECISION
QUISUMBING,J.:

BeforetheCourtisapetitionforcertiorari,prohibition,andmandamus,withprayerfora
temporaryrestrainingorderand/orpreliminaryinjunction,underRule65oftheRulesof
Court.ItassailstheOrderoftheCommissiononElections,SecondDivision,datedMay
10,1998,inCOMELECCaseNo.SPA98227,whichdismissedthepetitionfiledby
hereinrespondentGuillermoC.RuiztodisqualifyrespondentRodolfoC.Fariasasa
candidatefortheelectiveofficeofCongressmaninthefirstdistrictofIlocosNorteduring
theMay11,1998elections.ItalsoassailstheResolutiondatedMay16,1998,ofthe
COMELECEnBanc,denyingthemotionforreconsiderationfiledbyrespondentRuiz
anddismissingthepetitionininterventionfiledbyhereinpetitionerArnoldV.Guerrero.

IntheSecondDivisionoftheCOMELEC,Ruizsoughttoperpetuallydisqualify
respondentFariasasacandidateforthepositionofCongressman.[1]Ruizallegedthat
FariashadbeencampaigningasacandidateforCongressmanintheMay11,1998
polls,despitehisfailuretofileaCertificateofCandidacyforsaidoffice.Ruizaverredthat
FariasfailuretofilesaidCertificateviolatedSection73oftheOmnibusElectionCode[2]in
relationtoCOMELECResolutionNo.2577,datedJanuary15,1998.Ruizaskedthe
COMELECtodeclareFariasasa"nuisancecandidate"pursuanttoSection69ofthe
OmnibusElectionCode[3]andtodisqualifyhimfromrunningintheMay11,1998
elections,aswellasinallfuturepolls.

OnMay8,1998,FariasfiledhisCertificateofCandidacywiththeCOMELEC,
substitutingcandidateChevylleV.FariaswhowithdrewonApril3,1998.

OnMay9,1998,Ruizfiledan"UrgentExParteMotionToResolvePetition"withthe
COMELEC,attachingtheretoacopyoftheCertificateofCandidacyofFarias.

OnMay10,1998,theSecondDivisionoftheCOMELECdecidedCaseNo.SPA98227,
disposingasfollows:

"WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theCommission(SecondDivision)
RESOLVEStoDISMISStheinstantpetitionforutterlackofmerit.

"SOORDERED."[4]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/137004.htm 1/6
9/9/2015 Guerrero vs Comelec : 137004 : July 26, 2000 : J. Quisumbing : En Banc

IndismissingRuizspetition,theSecondDivisionoftheCOMELECstated,"[T]hereis
none(sic)intherecordstoconsiderrespondentanofficialcandidatetospeakofwithout
thefilingofsaidcertificate.Hence,thereisnocertificateofcandidacytobecancelled,
consequently,nocandidatetobedisqualified."[5]

OnMay11,1998,theelectionspushedthroughasscheduled.Thepostelectiontallyof
votesinIlocosNorteshowedthatFariasgotatotalof56,369votesrepresentingthe
highestnumberofvotesreceivedinthefirstdistrict.Fariaswasdulyproclaimedwinner.

OnMay16,1998,Ruizfiledamotionforreconsideration,contendingthatFariascould
notvalidlysubstituteforChevylleV.Farias,sincethelatterwasnottheofficialcandidate
oftheLakasngMakabayanMasangPilipino(LAMMP),butwasanindependent
candidate.Anotherpersoncannotsubstituteforanindependentcandidate.Thus,Farias
certificateofcandidacyclaimingtobetheofficialcandidateofLAMMPinlieuofChevylle
V.Fariaswasfatallydefective,accordingtoRuiz.

OnJune3,1998,FariastookhisoathofofficeasamemberoftheHouseof
Representatives.

OnJune10,1998,petitionerhereinfiledhis"PetitionInIntervention"inCOMELECCase
No.SPA98227.PetitioneraverredthathewastheofficialcandidateoftheLiberalParty
(LP)insaidelectionsforCongressman,andstoodtobeadverselyaffectedbyCaseNo.
SPA98227.GuerrerocontendedthatFarias,havingfailedtofilehisCertificateof
Candidacyonorbeforethelastdaytherefor,beingmidnightofMarch27,1998,Farias
illegallyresortedtotheremedyofsubstitutionprovidedforunderSection77ofthe
OmnibusElectionCode[6]andthus,Fariasdisqualificationwasinorder.Guerrerothen
askedthatthepositionofRepresentativeofthefirstdistrictofIlocosNortebedeclared
vacantandspecialelectionscalledfor,butdisallowingthecandidacyofFarias.

OnJanuary6,1999,theCOMELECEnBancdismissedRuizsmotionforreconsideration
andGuerrerospetitionininterventioninCaseNo.SPA98227.Thedecretalportionof
itsResolutionreads:

"PRESCINDINGFROMTHEFOREGOINGPREMISES,thisCommission(En
Banc)RESOLVED,asitherebyRESOLVES,toAFFIRMtheOrderofthe
Commission(SecondDivision)andthereafter,DISMISSthisinstantmotionfor
reconsiderationforlackofjurisdiction(italicsintheoriginal)withoutprejudiceto
thefilingofaquowarrantocase,ifhesodesires.

"SOORDERED."[7]

Hence,theinstantpetition,anchoredonthefollowinggrounds:

A.....THERESPONDENTCOMELECGRAVELYABUSEDITSDISCRETIONAND
ACTEDINEXCESSAND/ORWITHOUTJURISDICTIONINREFUSINGTORULEON
THEVALIDITYORINVALIDITYOFTHECANDIDACYORPURPORTED
CERTIFICATEOFCANDIDACYOFPRIVATERESPONDENTFARIAS.

B.....THERESPONDENTCOMELECGRAVELYABUSEDITSDISCRETIONAND
ACTEDINEXCESSAND/ORWITHOUTJURISDICTIONINTOSSINGTHEDUTYTO
RULEONTHEVALIDITYORINVALIDITYOFTHECANDIDACYORPURPORTED

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/137004.htm 2/6
9/9/2015 Guerrero vs Comelec : 137004 : July 26, 2000 : J. Quisumbing : En Banc

CERTIFICATEOFCANDIDACYOFPRIVATERESPONDENTFARIASTOTHE
HOUSEOFREPRESENTATIVESELECTORALTRIBUNAL(HRET)CONSIDERING
THATTHELATTER(HRET)OBVIOUSLYLACKSJURISDICTIONTORULEONTHE
ISSUETHEREBYUNDULYCREATINGAVACUUMANDRENDERINGPETITIONER
WITHOUTAREMEDY.

C.....THERESPONDENTCOMELECGRAVELYABUSEDITSDISCRETIONAND
ACTEDINEXCESSAND/ORWITHOUTJURISDICTIONINNOTRENDERINGA
RULING,BASEDONTHEFACTSASSTATEDINITSASSAILEDRESOLUTION
DATEDJANUARY6,1999(Annex"B"hereof)DISQUALIFYINGPRIVATE
RESPONDENTFARIASASACANDIDATEFORCONGRESSMANOFTHEFIRST
LEGISLATIVEDISTRICTOFILOCOSNORTEDURINGTHEMAY11,1998
ELECTIONS,PREMISEDONITSFINDINGSTHAT"THEREISNONEINTHE
RECORDSTOCONSIDERRESPONDENT(FARIAS)ANOFFICIALCANDIDATETO
SPEAKOFWITHOUTTHEFILINGOFSAIDCERTIFICATE,HENCE,THEREISNO
CERTIFICATEOFCANDIDACYTOBECANCELLED,CONSEQUENTLY,NO
CANDIDATETOBEDISQUALIFIED."

D.....THERESPONDENTCOMELECGRAVELYABUSEDITSDISCRETIONAND
ACTEDINEXCESSAND/ORWITHOUTJURISDICTIONINNOTCALLINGASPECIAL
ELECTIONTOFILLUPTHEVACANTPOSITIONOFCONGRESSMANOFTHEFIRST
LEGISLATIVEDISTRICTOFILOCOSNORTEDUETOTHEDISQUALIFICATIONOF
RESPONDENTFARIASASACANDIDATETHERETOANDWHOAPPEARSTOHAVE
OBTAINEDTHEHIGHESTNUMBEROFVOTESCASTINTHEMAY11,1998
ELECTIONS.

Wefindpertinentforourresolutionthisissue:

DidtheCOMELECcommitgraveabuseofdiscretioninholdingthatthedeterminationof
thevalidityofthecertificateofcandidacyofrespondentFariasisalreadywithinthe
exclusivejurisdictionoftheElectoralTribunaloftheHouseofRepresentatives?

Initsassailedresolution,theCOMELEChadnotedthatrespondentFariashadtakenhis
oathandassumedofficeasaMemberofthe11thCongressandbyexpressmandateof
theConstitution,[8]ithadlostjurisdictionoverthecase.

PetitionerGuerreroarguesthattherefusaloftheCOMELECtoruleonthevalidityor
invalidityofthecertificateofcandidacyofFariasamountedtograveabuseofdiscretion
onitspart.HeclaimsthatCOMELECfailedinitsConstitutionaldutytoupholdand
enforcealllawsrelativetoelections.[9]HereliesonGallardov.JudgeTabamo,Jr.,218
SCRA253(1993),whichreiteratedthedoctrinelaiddowninZaldivarv.Estenzo,23
SCRA533(1968),thattheCOMELEChasexclusivechargeoftheenforcementand
administrationofalllawsrelativetotheconductofanelectoralexercise.

Aspecialcivilactionforcertiorarimaybeavailedofwhenthetribunal,board,orofficer
exercisingjudicialorquasijudicialfunctionshasactedwithoutorinexcessofjurisdiction
andthereisnoappealoranyplain,speedy,andadequateremedyintheordinarycourse
oflawforthepurposeofannullingtheproceeding.[10]Itistheproperremedytoquestion
anyfinalorder,rulinganddecisionoftheCOMELECrenderedintheexerciseofits
adjudicatoryorquasijudicialpowers.[11]Butforanactionforcertioraritoprosper,there
mustbeashowingthattheCOMELECactedwithgraveabuseofdiscretion.Thismeans
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/137004.htm 3/6
9/9/2015 Guerrero vs Comelec : 137004 : July 26, 2000 : J. Quisumbing : En Banc

suchcapriciousandwhimsicalexerciseofjudgmentasisequivalenttolackofjurisdiction
orexcessthereof,aswherethepowerisexercisedinanarbitraryanddespoticmanner
byreasonofpassionorpersonalhostility,anditmustbesopatentastoamounttoan
evasionofpositivedutyoravirtualrefusaltoperformthedutyenjoinedbylaw.[12]

Inthepresentcase,wefindnograveabuseofdiscretiononthepartoftheCOMELEC
whenitheldthatitsjurisdictionoverCaseNo.SPA98277hadceasedwiththe
assumptionofofficeofrespondentFariasasRepresentativeforthefirstdistrictofIlocos
Norte.WhiletheCOMELECisvestedwiththepowertodeclarevalidorinvalida
certificateofcandidacy,itsrefusaltoexercisethatpowerfollowingtheproclamationand
assumptionofthepositionbyFariasisarecognitionofthejurisdictionalboundaries
separatingtheCOMELECandtheElectoralTribunaloftheHouseofRepresentatives
(HRET).UnderArticleVI,Section17oftheConstitution,theHREThassoleand
exclusivejurisdictionoverallcontestsrelativetotheelection,returns,andqualifications
ofmembersoftheHouseofRepresentatives.Thus,onceawinningcandidatehasbeen
proclaimed,takenhisoath,andassumedofficeasamemberoftheHouseof
Representatives,COMELECsjurisdictionoverelectioncontestsrelatingtohiselection,
returns,andqualificationsends,andtheHRETsownjurisdictionbegins.[13]Thus,the
COMELECsdecisiontodiscontinueexercisingjurisdictionoverthecaseisjustifiable,in
deferencetotheHRETsownjurisdictionandfunctions.

However,petitionercontendsthatthejurisdictionoftheHRETasdefinedunderArticle
VI,Section17oftheConstitutionislimitedonlytothequalificationsprescribedunder
ArticleVI,Section6oftheConstitution.[14]Consequently,heclaimsthatanyissuewhich
doesnotinvolvetheseconstitutionalqualificationsisbeyondtherealmoftheHRET.The
filingofacertificateofcandidacybeingastatutoryqualificationundertheOmnibus
ElectionCodeisoutsidethepaleoftheHRET,accordingtohim.

Thiscontentionlackscogencyandisfarfrompersuasive.ArticleVI,Section17ofthe
Constitutioncannotbecircumscribedlexically.Theword"qualifications"cannotberead
asqualifiedbytheterm"constitutional."Ubilexnondistinguitnocnosdistinguire
debemos.Basicistheruleinstatutoryconstructionthatwherethelawdoesnot
distinguish,thecourtsshouldnotdistinguish.[15]Thereshouldbenodistinctioninthe
applicationofalawwherenoneisindicated.Forfirstly,thedraftersofthefundamental
law,inmakingnoqualificationintheuseofageneralwordorexpression,musthave
intendednodistinctionatall.Secondly,thecourtscouldonlydistinguishwherethereare
factsorcircumstancesshowingthatthelawgiverintendedadistinctionorqualification.In
suchacase,thecourtswouldmerelygiveeffecttothelawgiversintent.[16]

PetitionerfurtherarguesthattheHRETassumesjurisdictiononlyifthereisavalid
proclamationofthewinningcandidate.Hecontendsthatifacandidatefailstosatisfythe
statutoryrequirementstoqualifyhimasacandidate,hissubsequentproclamationisvoid
abinitio.Wheretheproclamationisnullandvoid,thereisnoproclamationatallandthe
mereassumptionofofficebytheproclaimedcandidatedoesnotdeprivetheCOMELEC
atallofitspowertodeclaresuchnullity,accordingtopetitioner.Butaswealreadyheld,
inanelectoralcontestwherethevalidityoftheproclamationofawinningcandidatewho
hastakenhisoathofofficeandassumedhispostasCongressmanisraised,thatissue
isbestaddressedtotheHRET.[17]Thereasonforthisrulingisselfevident,foritavoids
duplicityofproceedingsandaclashofjurisdictionbetweenconstitutionalbodies,with
dueregardtothepeoplesmandate.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/137004.htm 4/6
9/9/2015 Guerrero vs Comelec : 137004 : July 26, 2000 : J. Quisumbing : En Banc

WhetherrespondentFariasvalidlysubstitutedChevylleV.Fariasandwhether
respondentbecamealegitimatecandidate,inourview,mustlikewisebeaddressedto
thesoundjudgmentoftheElectoralTribunal.Onlythuscanwedemonstratefealtytothe
ConstitutionalprovisionthattheElectoralTribunalofeachHouseofCongressshallbe
the"solejudgeofallcontestsrelatingtotheelection,returns,andqualificationsoftheir
respectivemembers".[18]

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisherebyDISMISSEDforlackofmerit.Costsagainst
petitioner.

SOORDERED.

Davide,Jr.,C.J.,Bellosillo,Melo,Puno,Vitug,Kapunan,Mendoza,Panganiban,
Purisima,Pardo,Buena,GonzagaReyes,YnaresSantiago,andDeLeon,Jr.,JJ.,
concur.

[1]Annex"C,"Rollo,pp.5158.

[2]
SEC.73.Certificateofcandidacy.Nopersonshallbeeligibleforanyelectivepublicofficeunlesshefilesasworn
certificateofcandidacywithintheperiodfixedherein.

"Apersonwhohasfiledacertificateofcandidacymay,priortotheelection,withdrawthesamebysubmittingtotheoffice
concernedawrittendeclarationunderoath.

"Nopersonshallbeeligibleformorethanoneofficetobefilledinthesameelection,andifhefileshiscertificateofcandidacy
formorethanoneoffice,heshallnotbeeligibleforanyofthem.However,beforetheexpirationoftheperiodforthefilingof
certificatesofcandidacy,thepersonwhohasfiledmorethanonecertificateofcandidacymaydeclareunderoaththeofficefor
whichhedesirestobeeligibleandcancelthecertificateofcandidacyfortheotherofficeoroffices.

"Thefilingorwithdrawalofcertificateofcandidacyshallnotaffectwhatevercivil,criminaloradministrativeliabilitieswhich
acandidatemayhaveincurred."
[3]"SEC.69.Nuisancecandidates.TheCommissionmay,motupropriooruponaverifiedpetitionofaninterestedparty,
refusetogiveduecoursetoorcancelacertificateofcandidacy,ifitisshownthatsaidcertificatehasbeenfiledtoputthe
electionprocessinmockeryordisreputeorcauseconfusionamongthevotersbythesimilarityofthenamesoftheregistered
candidatesorbyothercircumstancesoractswhichclearlydemonstratethatthecandidatehasnobonafideintentiontorunfor
theofficeforwhichthecertificateofcandidacyhasbeenfiledandthuspreventafaithfuldeterminationofthetruewillofthe
electorate."
[4]SupraNote1,at43.
[5]Id.at4243.
[6]SEC.77.Candidatesincaseofdeath,disqualificationorwithdrawalofanother.Ifafterthelastdayforthefilingof
certificatesofcandidacy,anofficialcandidateofaregisteredoraccreditedpoliticalpartydies,withdrawsorisdisqualifiedfor
anycause,onlyapersonbelongingto,andcertifiedby,thesamepoliticalpartymayfileacertificateofcandidacytoreplace
thecandidatewhodied,withdreworwasdisqualified.Thesubstitutecandidatenominatedbythepoliticalpartyconcernedmay
filehiscertificateofcandidacyfortheofficeaffectedinaccordancewiththeprecedingsectionsnotlaterthanmiddayofthe
dayoftheelection.Ifthedeath,withdrawalordisqualificationshouldoccurbetweenthedaybeforetheelectionandmidday
ofelectionday,saidcertificatemaybefiledwithanyboardofelectioninspectorsinthepoliticalsubdivisionwhereheisa
candidate,or,inthecaseofcandidatestobevotedforbytheentireelectorateofthecountry,withtheCommission."
[7]Rollo,p.49.
[8]Art.VI,Sec.17provides:"TheSenateandtheHouseofRepresentativesshalleachhaveanElectoralTribunalwhichshall
bethesolejudgeofallcontestsrelatingtotheelection,returnsandqualificationsoftheirrespectiveMembers.EachElectoral
TribunalshallbecomposedofnineMembers,threeofwhomshallbeJusticesoftheSupremeCourttobedesignatedbythe
ChiefJustice,andtheremainingsixshallbeMembersoftheSenateortheHouseofRepresentatives,asthecasemaybe,who

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/137004.htm 5/6
9/9/2015 Guerrero vs Comelec : 137004 : July 26, 2000 : J. Quisumbing : En Banc
shallbechosenonthebasisofproportionalrepresentationfromthepoliticalpartiesandthepartiesororganizationsregistered
underthepartylistsystemrepresentedtherein.TheseniorJusticeintheElectoralTribunalshallbeitsChairman."

[9]
"Art.IXC,Sec.2.TheCommissiononElectionsshallexercisethefollowingpowersandfunctions:
(1)Enforceandadministeralllawsandregulationsrelativetotheconductofanelection,plebiscite,initiative,referendum,and
recall.xxx"
[10]Suntayv.CojuangcoSuntay,300SCRA760,766(1998)citingSempiov.CourtofAppeals,263SCRA617(1996).
[11]Loongv.CommissiononElections,305SCRA832,852(1999)citingFilipinasEngineeringandMachineShopv.Ferrer,
135SCRA25(1985)Reyesv.RegionalTrialCourtofOrientalMindoro,Br.XXXIX,244SCRA41,45(1995).
[12]Cuisonv.CourtofAppeals,289SCRA159,171(1998)citingEsguerrav.CourtofAppeals,267SCRA380(1997).
[13]Aquinov.CommissiononElections,248SCRA400,417418(1995)RomualdezMarcosv.CommissiononElections,
248SCRA300,340341(1995).
[14]Art.VI,Sec.6provides:"NopersonshallbeaMemberoftheHouseofRepresentativesunlessheisanaturalborncitizen
ofthePhilippinesand,onthedayoftheelection,isatleasttwentyfiveyearsofage,abletoreadandwrite,and,exceptthe
partylistrepresentatives,aregisteredvoterinthedistrictinwhichheshallbeelected,andaresidentthereofforaperiodofnot
lessthanoneyearimmediatelyprecedingthedayoftheelection."
[15]Olfatov.CommissiononElections,103SCRA741,778(1981).
[16]SocialSecuritySystemv.CityofBacolod,115SCRA412,415(1982).
[17]Lazatinv.CommissiononElections,157SCRA337,338(1988).
[18]CONST.,Art.VI,Section17.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/137004.htm 6/6