[ G.R. No. L-2539. May 28, 1949 ] 83 Phil. 758
[ G.R. No. L-2539. May 28, 1949 ]
JOSE P. MONSALE, PROTESTANT AND APPELLEE, VS. PAULINO M. NICO, PROTESTEE AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
OZAETA, J.:
This is an appeal by the protestee from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo declaring the protestant elected municipal mayor of Miagao as a result of the general elections held on November 11, 1947. It appears that the protestant withdrew his certificate of candidacy on October 10, 1947, but, on November 1, attempted to revive it by withdrawing his withdrawal. The Commission on Elections, however, ruled on November 8 that the protestant could no longer be a candidate in spite of his desire to withdraw his withdrawal. A canvass of the election returns showed that the protestee Paulino M. Nico received 2,291 votes; another candidate, Gregorio Fagutao, 126, votes; and the protestant Jose F. Monsale, none, evidently because the votes cast in his favor had not been counted for the reason that he was not a registered candidate. Consequently, Nico was proclaimed elected. The pivotal question presented in this appeal is whether a candidate who has withdrawn his certificate of candidacy may revive it, either by withdrawing his letter of withdrawal or by filing a new certificate of candidacy, after the deadline provided by law for the filing of such certificate. Section 31 of the Revised Election Code (Republic Act No. 180) provides that “no person shall be eligible unless, within the time fixed by law, he files a duly signed and sworn certificate of candidacy.” Section 36 provides that “at least sixty days before a regular election, and thirty days at least before a special election, the * * * certificates of candidacy for municipal offices shall be filed with the municipal secretary, who shall immediately send copies thereof to the polling places concerned, to the secretary of the provincial board, and to the Commission on Elections.” Section 38 further provides that “if, after the expiration of the time limit for filing certificates of candidacy, a candidate with a certificate of candidacy duly filed should die or become disqualified, any legally qualified citizen may file a certificate of candidacy for the office for which the deceased or disqualified person was a candidate in accordance with the preceding sections on or before midday of the day of the election, and, if the death or disqualification should occur between the day before the election and the midday of election day, said certificate may be filed with any board of inspectors of the political division where he is a candidate or, in the case of candidates to be voted for by the entire electorate, with the Commission on Elections.” In the present case the protestant withdrew his certificate of candidacy on October 10, 1947, and requested the Commission on Elections that it “be considered as though it has never been filed at all.” There is no question as to the right of a candidate to withdraw or annul his own certificate of candidacy, there being no legal prohibition against such withdrawal. Therefore, on October 10, or thirty-one days before the election, the protestant ceased to be a candidate by his own voluntary act, and as a matter of fact the boards of election inspectors of the municipality of Miagao were duly notified of his withdrawal. His letter to the Commission on Elections dated November 6, 1947, which he subscribed and swore to before a notary public on November 1, whereby he withdrew his withdrawal of his certificate of candidacy, can only be considered as a new certificate of candidacy which, having been filed only four days before the election, could not legally be accepted under the law, which expressly provides that such certificate should be filed at least sixty days before the election. The evident purposes of the law in requiring the filing of certificates of candidacy and in fixing a time limit therefore are (a) to enable the voters to know, at least sixty days before a regular election, the candidates among whom they are to make the choice, and (b) to avoid confusion and inconvenience in the tabulation of the votes cast; for if the law did not confine the choice or election by the voters to the duly registered candidates, there might be as many persons voted for as there were voters, and votes might be cast even for unknown or fictitious persons as a mark to identify the votes in favor of a candidate for another office in the same election. The only instance wherein the law permits the filing of a certificate of candidacy after the expiration of the time limit for filing it is when a candidate with a certificate of candidacy duly filed dies or becomes disqualified. The Commission on Elections was, therefore, right in holding as it did that the protestant “can no longer be a candidate in spite of his desire to withdraw his withdrawal,” In the case of Clutario vs. Commission on Elections, G. R. No. L-1704, this court sustained the ruling of said commission upon similar facts that “by his own voluntary act and deed petitioner has nullified his certificate of candidacy and in the light of the election laws such certificate of candidacy has been definitely withdrawn, hence non existing.” Under section 174 of the Revised Election Code, “a petition contesting the election of a provincial or municipal officer-elect shall be filed with the Court of First Instance of the province by any candidate voted for in said election and who has presented a certificate of candidacy.” This clearly implies that a candidate voted for who has not presented a certificate of candidacy has no right to contest the election. In other words, the herein protestant not being a registered candidate, has no standing before the court. The judgment appealed from is reversed and the protest is ordered dismissed, with costs against the appellee. So ordered. Moran, C. J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.