GR 134293; (June, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 134293 June 21, 1999
KAISER B. RECABO, JR., petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and FRANCISCO R. REYES, JR., respondents.
FACTS
Francisco R. Reyes, Jr. filed his certificate of candidacy for Vice-Mayor of Mainit, Surigao del Norte on March 27, 1998, as the official candidate of LAKAS NUCD-UMDP, supported by a certificate of nomination signed by the party’s national chairman and secretary general. Subsequently, Kaiser B. Recabo, Jr. also filed a certificate of candidacy for the same position on April 2, 1998, claiming to be the official candidate of the same party and a substitute for Candelaria B. Recabo. The certificate of nomination for Candelaria, which Recabo relied upon for his substitution, was signed only by one local party representative, Gov. Francisco T. Matugas, with the space for the other required signatory, Roberto Z. Barbers, left blank.
ISSUE
Whether the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion in cancelling the certificate of candidacy of Kaiser B. Recabo, Jr.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the COMELEC’s resolutions. The legal logic is anchored on the validity of the nomination and the consequent right of substitution. The certificate of nomination for Candelaria B. Recabo was invalid because it lacked the joint signature of both designated party representatives as expressly required by the document’s wording (“WE, GOV. FRANCISCO T. MATUGAS and ROBERTO Z. BARBERS…”). This invalidity rendered Candelaria an independent candidate, as she was not validly nominated by the political party. Under Section 11 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2977, which implements the Omnibus Election Code, no substitution is permitted for an independent candidate. Therefore, Kaiser B. Recabo, Jr. could not validly substitute for her. The COMELEC correctly gave due course to the certificate of candidacy of Francisco R. Reyes, Jr., who filed earlier with a valid nomination. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion, as the COMELEC acted within its constitutional mandate to enforce election laws, including the power to deny due course to or cancel certificates of candidacy. The fact that Recabo obtained more votes was immaterial, as the cancellation of his certificate was based on a valid legal ground preceding the election.