GR 187478; (December, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 187478 ; December 21, 2009
Representative DANILO RAMON S. FERNANDEZ, Petitioner, vs. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and JESUS L. VICENTE, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Danilo Ramon S. Fernandez filed his Certificate of Candidacy for Representative of the First District of Laguna for the May 2007 elections, declaring his residence as Sta. Rosa City, Laguna, with a residency period of one year and two months. Private respondent Jesus L. Vicente filed a petition for quo warranto before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) after the elections, alleging that Fernandez lacked the constitutional one-year residency requirement. Vicente contended that Fernandez was actually a resident of Pagsanjan (Fourth District) or Cabuyao, Laguna, and that his lease contract for the Sta. Rosa address was executed only in March 2007.
The HRET ruled in favor of Vicente, declaring Fernandez ineligible for lack of residency and ordering him to vacate his office. The HRET gave more weight to the evidence presented by the private respondent, including testimonies that Fernandez was rarely seen at the Sta. Rosa address and that he maintained residences outside the First District. Fernandez filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting him to file the present petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the HRET.
ISSUE
Whether the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring petitioner Danilo Ramon S. Fernandez ineligible for the position of Representative for lack of the required one-year residency in the legislative district.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition and REVERSED the HRET’s decision. The Court found that the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion in its appreciation of the evidence regarding Fernandez’s residency. The legal logic centers on the nature of residency for election purposes, which denotes “domicile” or a permanent home where one intends to return. The Court held that the HRET erroneously focused on the lease contract’s execution date and isolated testimonies, while disregarding the totality of evidence presented by Fernandez.
Fernandez demonstrated animus manendi (intent to reside) and animus revertendi (intent to return) in Sta. Rosa City. Evidence included his consistent voter registration transfer to Sta. Rosa in 2006, his family’s actual stay at the leased residence, his business establishment in the area, and the sale of his property in Cabuyao. The lease contract, though executed in March 2007, covered a period beginning February 2006, aligning with his declared residency commencement. The Court emphasized that residency is a factual matter, but the HRET’s conclusion was reached arbitrarily, capriciously, and whimsically, as it ignored compelling proof of compliance with the constitutional requirement. The will of the electorate, which overwhelmingly voted for Fernandez, must be respected absent clear and convincing evidence of ineligibility.