G.R. No. 234345, June 22, 2021
SARIPODEN ARIMAN GURO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND SOMERADO MALOMALO GURO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Private respondent Somerado Malomalo Guro filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Municipal Mayor of Lumbaca-Unayan, Lanao del Sur on October 16, 2015, for the May 2016 National and Local Elections. He declared under oath that he was a registered voter of Barangay Poblacion Dilausan in that municipality and eligible for the office. Petitioner Saripoden Ariman Guro, the incumbent mayor running for re-election, filed a Petition for Disqualification against private respondent on April 29, 2016. The petition alleged that private respondent was not a registered voter of the municipality based on the posted certified voters’ list and was therefore not qualified to be a candidate. Private respondent, in his Verified Answer, argued the petition was moot because the COMELEC’s Election and Barangay Affairs Department had recommended the inclusion of his name in a supplemental list of voters, he had voted on Election Day, and he had won and been proclaimed Mayor. The COMELEC First Division dismissed the petition, finding it was filed beyond the 25-day prescriptive period for a petition under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC En Banc affirmed this dismissal. Petitioner assailed the COMELEC’s resolution before the Supreme Court via certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion for dismissing the petition on technical grounds instead of deciding the merits concerning the alleged violation of election laws.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Petition for Disqualification on the ground that it was filed beyond the reglementary period.

RULING

No, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the COMELEC’s dismissal. The petition filed by petitioner was in the nature of a petition to deny due course or cancel a Certificate of Candidacy under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, grounded on an alleged material misrepresentation (that private respondent was a registered voter). Under COMELEC rules, such a petition must be filed within five days from the last day for filing COCs, but not later than twenty-five days from the filing of the COC in question. Private respondent filed his COC on October 16, 2015, while petitioner filed his disqualification petition on April 29, 2016—196 days later, far beyond the reglementary period. The Court distinguished this case from precedents like Aznar v. Commission on Elections and Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections, where it relaxed procedural rules due to overriding public interest involving questions of citizenship or disloyalty to the Republic. The ground here—misrepresentation as to being a registered voter—is not of the same fundamental level as citizenship. The Court also found no analogous supervening event or peculiar circumstances, as present in cases like Hayudini v. Commission on Elections or Caballero v. Commission on Elections, that would warrant a liberal construction of the rules. Therefore, the COMELEC correctly applied the reglementary period strictly and did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition on technical grounds. The petition was dismissed and the COMELEC Resolution was affirmed.