GR 23637; (December, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-23637 December 24, 1965
MARCELINO G. COLLADO, petitioner-appellant, vs. JUAN A. ALONZO, respondent-appellee.
FACTS
Petitioner Marcelino G. Collado and respondent Juan A. Alonzo were candidates for mayor of Ballesteros, Cagayan, in the November 1963 election. Alonzo won. Collado filed a quo warranto petition to disqualify Alonzo on two grounds: (1) Alonzo filed his certificate of candidacy on September 13, 1963, which was allegedly beyond the statutory period as it was within the 60-day period preceding the November 12, 1963 election; and (2) Alonzo incurred excessive or unlawful campaign expenditures by promising in his campaign speeches to donate his salary as mayor for the education of indigent but deserving students. The Court of First Instance of Cagayan dismissed the petition.
ISSUE
1. Whether Alonzo’s certificate of candidacy was filed out of time.
2. Whether Alonzo’s promise to donate his future salary constituted unlawful or excessive campaign expenditures under the Election Law.
RULING
1. No. The certificate was filed on time. The statute requires filing at least 60 days before the regular election. Alonzo filed on September 13, 1963, which is exactly 60 days before the November 12, 1963 election, thus complying with the law. The Commission on Elections had also set September 13, 1963, as the deadline. Furthermore, the filing of a certificate of candidacy is a technicality that should be enforced before, but disregarded after, the electorate has made its choice.
2. No. The promise did not constitute unlawful or excessive expenditures. It was not an expenditure during the campaign. It also did not violate Section 49 of the Election Law prohibiting expenditures to induce a person to vote or withhold a vote, as the promise was not made to a particular person or persons, the beneficiaries (indigent students) were unknown and not necessarily voters at the time of the election, and its long-range effect is akin to general election promises supporting public projects. The promise is distinguishable from an offer to serve for less than the fixed salary, which is prohibited, because Alonzo intended to collect his salary and only thereafter donate it, so it could not be said that any specific voter was directly influenced by a pecuniary offer.
The appealed decision is affirmed.