G.R. No. L-10981; April 25, 1958
ANACLETO LUISON, protestant-appellant, vs. FIDEL A. D. GARCIA, protestee-appellee.

FACTS

In the November 8, 1955 elections, Anacleto M. Luison and Fidel A. D. Garcia were candidates for mayor of Tubay, Agusan. The Commission on Elections, after investigation, issued Resolution No. 23 declaring Garcia ineligible because his certificate of candidacy was filed by the local Liberal Party branch and signed only by a candidate for vice mayor. The COMELEC implemented this by striking Garcia’s name from the candidate list and instructing boards of inspectors and canvassers to treat votes for him as stray. Garcia filed a prohibition action in the Court of First Instance of Agusan, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; he did not appeal. He also filed a motion for reconsideration of Resolution No. 23, which was denied, and he did not appeal this ruling. Despite this, Garcia continued his candidacy. The board of inspectors counted votes for Garcia as valid, and the municipal board of canvassers proclaimed him mayor-elect with 869 votes against Luison’s 675. Luison filed a quo warranto petition challenging Garcia’s eligibility, which was dismissed; that case (G.R. No. L-10916) was appealed to the Supreme Court. Luison also filed the present election protest on the same ground of ineligibility. The trial court dismissed the protest, finding Garcia’s certificate in substantial compliance with the law and that COMELEC erred. Luison appealed.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether, given that protestee Garcia is ineligible and protestant Luison obtained the next highest number of votes, Luison can be declared entitled to hold the office.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that Luison cannot be declared elected. The general rule is that when a plurality or majority of votes are cast for an ineligible candidate, the candidate receiving the next highest number of votes is not entitled to be declared elected; the electors have failed to make a choice, and the election is a nullity. Philippine law does not authorize such a declaration and seems to prohibit it. An election protest to disqualify on grounds of ineligibility differs from a protest based on fraud or irregularities. In the former, while the protestee may be ousted, the protestant will not be seated; in the latter, the protestant may assume office after the protestee is unseated. The quo warranto case (G.R. No. L-10916) had already been decided, declaring Garcia ineligible, and that resolution was final and res judicata. Therefore, the protest was dismissed.