G.R. No. L-32675 November 3, 1970
ESTANISLAO A. FERNANDEZ, petitioner, vs. VICENTE B. FERNANDEZ and THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Estanislao A. Fernandez, a long-time resident and known political figure in the second district of Laguna, filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to strike out the certificate of acceptance of nomination filed by respondent Vicente B. Fernandez as a candidate for delegate to the Constitutional Convention for the same district. The petition was based on two grounds: (1) that Vicente B. Fernandez was not a resident of Laguna and therefore lacked the requisite qualification, and (2) that he was a “nuisance” candidate under Section 37 of the Revised Election Code, as his candidacy was filed solely to cause confusion due to the similarity of surnames and to prejudice the petitioner’s candidacy. The COMELEC, without making definitive findings, denied the petition, stating it had no jurisdiction to rule on qualifications and that the evidence for nuisance candidacy was inconclusive. Subsequently, the Court of First Instance of Laguna, in a separate proceeding, denied Vicente B. Fernandez’s petition for inclusion in the list of qualified voters of Mabitac, Laguna, finding he had failed to establish residence there. The petitioner then filed this certiorari petition before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to reject a certificate of candidacy on the ground of lack of residence qualification.
2. Whether the respondent is a “nuisance” candidate under Section 37 of the Revised Election Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari. It set aside the COMELEC’s resolution and ordered the respondent’s certificate of acceptance of nomination stricken out. The Court held that the COMELEC has the power to refuse due course to a certificate of candidacy under Section 37 of the Revised Election Code when it is shown that the candidate lacks the bona fide intention to run and aims to cause confusion. The Court found that the respondent Vicente B. Fernandez lacked the one-year residence requirement, as evidenced by indubitable documents and his own admissions, including the decision of the Court of First Instance of Laguna. Furthermore, the Court ruled that his candidacy, given his lack of residence, his late and minimal campaign efforts, and the similarity of surnames with the well-known petitioner, demonstrated no bona fide intention to run but rather an intent to cause confusion and prevent a faithful determination of the electorate’s will, constituting him a nuisance candidate. The COMELEC therefore erred in not denying due course to his certificate.