Villanueva v COMELEC

G.R. No. L-54718. May 31, 1983

Facts:
January 4, 1980 the last day for the filing of certificates of
candidacy for the January 30, 1980 elections: One Narciso
Mendoza, Jr. filed with the Election Registrar of Dolores, Quezon, his
sworn certificate of candidacy for the office of Vice-mayor of the said
municipality. Subsequently, however, but on the same day, Mendoza
filed an unsworn letter withdrawing his said certificate of candidacy.
January 25, 1980 herein petitioner filed with the Election Registrar
his sworn COC in Substitution of the aforementioned Narciso Mendoza,
Jr. for the office of vice-mayor of said municipality.
January 31, 1980 the Municipal Board of Canvass proclaimed
Vivencio Lirio as duly elected Vice Mayor. Respondent Board
considered all the votes cast in favor of petitioner as stray votes on
the ground that his COC was not given due course by the COMELEC
and his name was not included in the certified list of official
candidates.
February 6, 1980 Petitioner filed with the COMELEC a petition to
annul the proclamation of the respondent.
Comelec issued a statement denying the said petition upon the
reasoning that petitioner could not have filed his candidacy in
substitution of Mendozas because the withdrawal of the latter had
produced no legal effect, the same not having been made under
oath as required by Section 27 of the Election Code and even
assuming the efficacy of said withdrawal, the same was not
made after the last day for filing of COCs as provided under
Section 28 of the said code, but on the very same last day.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner is qualified as a substitute candidate for the vice-
mayor position? - NO

Held:

There is absolutely no vagueness or ambiguity of the above provision, as to

the need of a sworn statement of withdrawal or cancellation of a duly filed
COC. That the withdrawal of Mendozas COC was not made under oath is not
disputed. As such, the withdrawal produces no legal effect for failure to
comply with the clear and unequivocal mandate of the law. Mendoza,
therefore, for all legal intents and purposes, remained to be a candidate for
vice mayor of Dolores, Quezon.
Even assuming that the questioned withdrawal is effective, under a liberal
construction of the law as invoked by petitioner, which should not be the
case when the terms of the statute are clear and unmistakable, still
petitioner may not derive comfort therefrom for Mendoza's withdrawal was
made on January 4, 1980, on the very last day for filing certificates of
candidacy. Substitution of a candidate by reason of withdrawal is proper only
when such withdrawal is made after the last day for filing of certificates of
candidacy.

While it may be true as persistently pointed out by the petitioner that a

certificate of candidacy duly filed may be withdrawn or cancelled at any time
before the day of election, it does not necessarily follow that such
withdrawn or cancelled certificate of candidacy may be the subject
of substitution by another's certificate of candidacy. For substitution
to take place, the withdrawal must be effected after the last day for filing of
certificates of candidacy. If the withdrawal was made prior to or on the said
last day, as what happened in the instant case, substitution is not allowed.
Hence, the person filing a certificate of candidacy is filing said certificate in
his own right, not as substitute candidate, and the filing to make the
certificate of candidacy valid must not be after the last day for filing ordinary
certificates of candidacy, which is January 4, 1980.

By and large, petitioner was, therefore, not a candidate, either in substitution

of Mendoza or in his own right, as he filed his certificate of candidacy on
January 25, 1980, long after the last day for filing certificates of candidacy.