G.R. No. 262622 and G.R. No. 262682. February 14, 2023.
PRYDE HENRY A. TEVES, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ROEL R. DEGAMO, AND GREGO “RUEL” DEGAMO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 262682] GREGO “RUEL” G. DEGAMO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ROEL R. DEGAMO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

These consolidated petitions stem from a disqualification case against Ruel Gaudia Degamo (Ruel) as a nuisance candidate. Roel R. Degamo (Roel) and Pryde Henry A. Teves (Teves) were also candidates for Governor of Negros Oriental in the May 9, 2022 elections. On October 13, 2021, Roel filed a petition before the COMELEC to declare Ruel a nuisance candidate (SPA No. 21-085 (DC)), alleging Ruel filed his Certificate of Candidacy using the name “Ruel Degamo” to confuse voters, as Ruel is allegedly a “Gaudia” and not a “Degamo,” and that he lacked the bona fide intention to run, being an air conditioner mechanic without political machinery. The COMELEC Second Division granted Roel’s petition on December 16, 2021, declaring Ruel a nuisance candidate and cancelling his Certificate of Candidacy. Ruel filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The May 9, 2022 elections proceeded with Ruel’s name on the ballot. Teves received the highest votes (301,319), followed by Roel (281,773), and Ruel (49,953). Due to the COMELEC En Banc’s delay in resolving the Motion for Reconsideration, Roel filed a Petition for Mandamus with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 261178), which was granted, ordering the COMELEC to resolve the motion. On September 1, 2022, the COMELEC En Banc denied Ruel’s Motion for Reconsideration and affirmed the Second Division’s Resolution, ordering that votes cast for Ruel be counted in favor of Roel. Teves and Ruel then filed these separate Petitions for Certiorari assailing the COMELEC En Banc’s Resolution.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the declaration of Ruel Gaudia Degamo as a nuisance candidate and in ordering that the votes cast for him be credited in favor of Roel R. Degamo.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petitions and AFFIRMED the COMELEC En Banc’s Resolution. The Court held that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. It found that Ruel was a nuisance candidate because his candidacy was intended to cause confusion among voters by using the surname “Degamo” and the nickname “Ruel,” which is phonetically and visually similar to “Roel,” the name of a legitimate candidate. The Court agreed with the COMELEC’s finding that Ruel lacked a bona fide intention to run for office, noting his lack of financial means, political machinery, and prior government experience. The Court also upheld the COMELEC’s application of the “dominant surname” rule, citing jurisprudence (Santos v. COMELEC), which states that when a nuisance candidate uses a surname similar to a legitimate candidate, causing confusion, the votes for the nuisance candidate should be credited to the legitimate candidate to give effect to the electorate’s will. The Court rejected Teves’s argument that crediting Ruel’s votes to Roel after the proclamation violated due process, ruling that the COMELEC retains jurisdiction to rule on disqualification cases even after elections and proclamation, and such rulings relate back to the date of filing the Certificate of Candidacy.