G.R. No. L-54230 October 30, 1980
FELINO MAQUINAY, petitioner, vs. HON. ILDEFONSO M. BLEZA, Judge, Court of First Instance of Cavite, Branch V and NILO DE GUZMAN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Felino Maquinay, the official KBL candidate, was proclaimed Mayor of Carmona, Cavite, following the January 30, 1980 elections. Respondent Nilo de Guzman, his NP opponent, filed an election protest (Electoral Protest Case No. B-80-1) before the Court of First Instance of Cavite, presided by respondent Judge Ildefonso M. Bleza. The protest sought to nullify the canvassing and proclamation, alleging various irregularities including fake voters, substitute voting, terrorism, and erroneous ballot appreciation. Maquinay moved to dismiss the protest, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the protest failed to allege expressly that De Guzman had duly filed his certificate of candidacy, as required by COMELEC Resolution No. 1451. He also contended the protest was principally anchored on a “failure of election,” a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the COMELEC.
The respondent judge denied the motion to dismiss. He ruled the protest contained sufficient jurisdictional facts, noting that De Guzman’s allegation of possessing “all the qualifications… as a candidate for Mayor” implicitly included the filing of a certificate of candidacy. The judge further found the protest detailed ample allegations of fraud and irregularities in the vote counting, warranting a trial. The claim of “failure of election” was deemed merely incidental, not the principal anchor of the protest. Maquinay then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition to reverse the denial and enjoin further proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance acquired jurisdiction over the election protest despite the protestant’s failure to allege expressly that he had duly filed his certificate of candidacy.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the respondent judge’s jurisdiction. The legal logic is that jurisdictional facts in a pleading need not be alleged with ritualistic precision. While COMELEC Resolution No. 1451 requires the protestant to be a candidate “who had duly filed a certificate of candidacy,” the Court applied the principle that substance prevails over form. De Guzman’s protest explicitly stated he was a candidate who possessed all qualifications for the office and that the COMELEC had canvassed votes showing he garnered 1,729 votes. These factual averments necessarily implied and constituted substantial compliance with the requirement of having filed a certificate of candidacy, as one cannot be a legitimate candidate voted upon without having done so. The Court cited precedents holding that the absence of a literal allegation is not fatal if the jurisdictional fact can be inferred from the statements within the pleading. Furthermore, the Court noted that the COMELEC itself, in a prior related resolution dismissing a petition for failure of election, had explicitly stated its order was “without prejudice to the filing of an election protest,” thereby guiding De Guzman to the judicial forum. Thus, the respondent judge correctly assumed jurisdiction, and the protest raised genuine issues of fraud and irregularities proper for a full hearing on the merits. The temporary restraining order was lifted.