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 of Leyte’s Fifth District, 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 in Tacloban City. Simultaneously, she attempted to file an affidavit withdrawing her mayoral candidacy. The Provincial Election Supervisor refused to accept the withdrawal, advising her to file it instead with the Municipal Election Officer in Baybay, where her first certificate was filed. With only minutes left before the midnight deadline and facing a two-hour travel time to Baybay, petitioner faxed the withdrawal affidavit to Baybay, where it was received by the election officer at 12:28 a.m. on March 1, 2001, twenty-eight minutes past the deadline. The original was received later that afternoon.
Respondents Felipe V. Montejo and Arvin V. Antoni filed petitions to deny due course or cancel Go’s certificates of candidacy, arguing she was ineligible for both offices. The COMELEC Law Department, without a formal hearing, recommended her disqualification. The COMELEC En Banc subsequently promulgated Resolution No. 3982, declaring Go disqualified for filing two certificates and for the late withdrawal, and ordered the cancellation of her name from the lists of candidates for both positions.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying petitioner for filing certificates of candidacy for two positions and for submitting her affidavit of withdrawal twenty-eight minutes after the statutory deadline.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the COMELEC resolutions. The legal logic is twofold. First, on the issue of multiple candidacies, Section 73 of the Omnibus Election Code prohibits a person from being eligible for more than one office in the same election if they file multiple certificates. However, it allows a candidate to declare under oath, before the filing deadline, the single office they desire and to cancel the other certificate. Petitioner made a timely and earnest effort to comply with this provision by attempting to file her withdrawal simultaneously with her gubernatorial candidacy. The refusal of the Provincial Election Supervisor to accept it, based on a COMELEC resolution, created an unreasonable obstacle. Her subsequent fax filing, though technically late, constituted substantial compliance. The twenty-eight-minute delay, caused by the official’s erroneous advice and the geographical impracticality, was a minor, inconsequential deviation not amounting to a disregard of the law’s essence.
Second, the COMELEC violated due process. It disqualified petitioner without conducting the scheduled hearing, depriving her of the opportunity to present evidence and be heard. The summary cancellation based solely on a departmental report and recommendation, without affording her this basic procedural right, constituted grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that election laws should be liberally construed to give effect to the will of the electorate, and technicalities should not frustrate a bona fide candidate’s legitimate intent. The disqualification was therefore set aside.