G.R. No. 164858 November 16, 2006
HENRY P. LANOT, substituted by MARIO S. RAYMUNDO, Petitioner, CHARMIE Q. BENAVIDES, Petitioner-Intervenor, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and VICENTE P. EUSEBIO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, including mayoral candidate Henry P. Lanot, filed a petition for disqualification against respondent Vicente P. Eusebio, a rival candidate for Mayor of Pasig City, for allegedly campaigning outside the designated period in violation of Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code. The alleged premature campaign activities included addressing a crowd during a medical mission, issuing press releases, installing billboards and posters, and distributing shoes to schoolchildren. The COMELEC First Division, adopting the Regional Director’s recommendation, issued a Resolution on May 5, 2004, disqualifying Eusebio, ordering the deletion of his name from the list of candidates, and directing that votes for him be considered stray.
Subsequently, COMELEC Chairman Benjamin Abalos issued an Advisory on May 10, 2004, enjoining the implementation of the First Division’s Resolution. The COMELEC En Banc later issued Resolutions on May 21, 2004, and August 20, 2004, which effectively set aside the First Division’s disqualification order and directed the proclamation of the winning candidate without prejudice to the final outcome of Eusebio’s disqualification case. Lanot, and later his purported substitute Mario Raymundo, assailed these COMELEC actions via a petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the First Division’s Resolution disqualifying respondent Eusebio.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition. The legal logic centered on the interpretation of Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code in relation to the definition of a “candidate.” The Court held that a person only officially becomes a “candidate,” and thus subject to campaign regulations like Section 80, upon the filing of a certificate of candidacy. The alleged premature acts committed by Eusebio occurred before he filed his certificate of candidacy on December 29, 2003. Therefore, at the time of those acts, he was not yet legally considered a candidate. Consequently, he could not be held liable for premature campaigning under Section 80. The COMELEC En Banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ultimately dismissing the disqualification case based on this correct legal interpretation. The Court further noted that the death of the original petitioner, Lanot, rendered the petition for disqualification moot and academic, as such a proceeding is purely personal and does not survive the death of the petitioner.