GR 30834; (May, 1971) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-30834. May 29, 1971.
JOSE FAJURA, petitioner, vs. HON. CASTRENSE C. VELOSO, As Judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, and EDMUNDO FLORES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Jose Fajura and respondent Edmundo Flores were candidates for barrio captain in the January 14, 1968 elections in Barrio Indag-an, Miagao, Iloilo. Flores was proclaimed winner with 103 votes against Fajura’s 56. Fajura timely filed an election protest in the Municipal Court of Miagao, alleging the illegal transfer of the polling place, intimidation by the mayor and police, and electoral fraud, seeking to annul Flores’s election and proclamation.
The Municipal Court dismissed the protest. It found that Fajura’s certificate of candidacy was filed on his behalf by five registered voters, as permitted by the Revised Barrio Charter. However, one endorser, Lucila Montalban, executed a sworn withdrawal of her signature two days before the election. The court held this withdrawal nullified Fajura’s certificate, rendering him not a legal candidate and his votes stray. Thus, even if fraud were proven, Fajura could not be declared elected. On appeal, the Court of First Instance affirmed this dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the unilateral withdrawal of one endorser’s signature from a certificate of candidacy filed on behalf of a candidate nullifies that candidacy, thereby depriving the candidate of standing to contest the election results.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative and set aside the lower courts’ orders. The legal logic is clear: a certificate of candidacy duly filed by five registered voters under the barrio charter and accepted by the candidate—evidenced by his active candidacy, receipt of votes, and pursuit of an election protest—cannot be unilaterally nullified by a withdrawal without the candidate’s express consent. The governing statutes (Revised Barrio Charter and Revised Election Code) contain no express provision allowing such a unilateral withdrawal by endorsers to invalidate a candidacy retroactively. Recognizing such a right, especially based on a questionable withdrawal repudiated by the endorser herself as obtained by trickery, would be contrary to public interest and the electorate’s will. The candidate’s standing to contest the election is thus preserved. The Court also rejected the procedural claim regarding non-joinder of barrio councilors, as the protest specifically targeted only the barrio captain’s position. The case was remanded to the municipal court for trial on the merits.