vilanueva vs comelec digest

2
[G.R. No. L-54718. December 4, 1985.] CRISOLOGO VILLANUEVA Y PARDES, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF DOLORES, QUEZON, VIVENCIO G. LIRIO, respondents. FACTS: On January 25, 1980, Petitioner filed a certificate of candidacy for Vice Mayor of Dolores for the January 30 elections in substitution for his companion Mendoza who withdrew candidacy without oath upon filing on January 4. Petitioner won in the election but Respondent Board disregarded all his votes and proclaimed Respondent Candidate as the winner on the presumption that Petitioner’s candidacy was not duly approved by Respondent. Petitioner filed a petition for the annulment of the proclamation but was dismissed by Respondent Commission on the grounds that Mendoza’s unsworn withdrawal had no legal effect, and that assuming it was effective, Petitioner’s candidacy was not valid since Mendoza did not withdraw after January 4. ISSUE: W/N Petitioner should be disqualified on the ground of formal or technical defects. HELD: No. The fact that Mendoza’s withdrawal was not sworn is a technicality, which should not be used to frustrate the people’s

Upload: alfred-g-sy

Post on 07-Feb-2016

195 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

DESCRIPTION

Stat Con

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Vilanueva vs COMELEC Digest

[G.R. No. L-54718. December 4, 1985.]

CRISOLOGO VILLANUEVA Y PARDES, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF DOLORES, QUEZON, VIVENCIO G. LIRIO, respondents.

FACTS:

On January 25, 1980, Petitioner filed a certificate of candidacy for Vice Mayor of Dolores for the January 30 elections in substitution for his companion Mendoza who withdrew candidacy without oath upon filing on January 4. Petitioner won in the election but Respondent Board disregarded all his votes and proclaimed Respondent Candidate as the winner on the presumption that Petitioner’s candidacy was not duly approved by Respondent. Petitioner filed a petition for the annulment of the proclamation but was dismissed by Respondent Commission on the grounds that Mendoza’s unsworn withdrawal had no legal effect, and that assuming it was effective, Petitioner’s candidacy was not valid since Mendoza did not withdraw after January 4.

ISSUE:

W/N Petitioner should be disqualified on the ground of formal or technical defects.

HELD:

No. The fact that Mendoza’s withdrawal was not sworn is a technicality, which should not be used to frustrate the people’s will in favor of Petitioner as the substitute candidate. Also, his withdrawal right on the very same day that he filed his candidacy should be considered as having been made substantially and in truth after the last day, even going by the literal reading of the provision by Respondent Commission. The spirit of the law rather than its literal reading should have guided Respondent Commission in resolving the issue of last-minute withdrawal and substitution of other persons as candidates.