G.R. No. 147741 . May 10, 2001.
REP. MA. CATALINA L. GO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FELIPE V. MONTEJO and ARVIN V. ANTONI, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ma. Catalina L. Go, the incumbent Representative, filed a certificate of candidacy for Mayor of Baybay, Leyte on February 27, 2001. The following day, at 11:47 p.m., she filed a certificate of candidacy for Governor of Leyte with the Provincial Election Supervisor (PES) in Tacloban City. Simultaneously, she tendered an affidavit withdrawing her mayoral candidacy. The PES refused to accept the withdrawal, advising her to file it instead with the Municipal Election Officer (MEO) in Baybay, where the original certificate was filed. With only minutes left before the midnight deadline and facing a two-hour travel time, petitioner faxed the withdrawal affidavit to Baybay. The MEO received the fax at 12:28 a.m. on March 1, 2001, 28 minutes past the deadline, and the original copy later that afternoon.
Respondents Montejo and Antoni filed petitions to deny due course or cancel her certificates of candidacy, arguing she was ineligible for both positions for filing multiple certificates without a timely withdrawal. The COMELEC Law Department, without a formal hearing, recommended her disqualification. The COMELEC En Banc adopted this, issuing a resolution disqualifying her for both offices, citing the late filing of the withdrawal affidavit.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying petitioner for governor due to the 28-minute delay in filing her withdrawal affidavit.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the COMELEC resolution. The legal logic centers on the directory nature of procedural deadlines in election laws when no fraud is present and substantial compliance is achieved. The Court ruled that the deadline for filing withdrawals under Section 73 of the Omnibus Election Code is directory, not mandatory. Petitioner’s attempt to file simultaneously with her new candidacy demonstrated a clear intent to withdraw, and the minimal 28-minute delay, caused by the PES’s erroneous refusal to accept the document, constituted a harmless irregularity. It did not affect the electoral process’s integrity or mislead voters. The COMELEC’s strict, literal enforcement, which disqualified a candidate with a substantial following, was unreasonable. Furthermore, the COMELEC violated due process by disqualifying her based on a summary recommendation without affording her a proper hearing to present evidence. The disqualification was thus void for grave abuse of discretion.