G.R. No. L-16132; March 30, 1960
RICARDO CANCERAN, FAUSTINO DY, VICENTE TALOSIG, DOMINGO MADDARA, RAMON ALBANO, FEDERICO RAMONES, ENRIQUE DUMATAY, and EULOGIO DAMATAN, petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

FACTS

On August 26, 1959, petitioner Eulogio Damatan, as local chapter chairman of the Nacionalista Party in Cauayan, Isabela, filed with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) a collective certificate of candidacy for mayor and councilors, including the petitioners. The petitioners had been nominated and proclaimed as official candidates in a party convention on June 15, 1959, and had begun campaigning. On October 9, 1959, the Municipal Treasurer informed them that the COMELEC had ordered the suspension of the distribution of their certificate of candidacy. Upon inquiry, petitioner Ricardo Canceran learned that the COMELEC, by its resolution of October 6, 1959, had declared the certificate null and void on two grounds: (1) it was not subscribed under oath by the party chapter secretary, and (2) it failed to state that the persons named were the official candidates of the Nacionalista Party. The secretary, petitioner Vicente Talosig, did not sign due to his honest belief that he was no longer authorized to do so because he was himself a candidate for councilor. On October 15, 1959, the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which the COMELEC denied on October 20, 1959, although it allowed Damatan to file a substitute certificate for his own candidacy. The petitioners then appealed by certiorari, and the Supreme Court issued a preliminary mandatory injunction.

ISSUE

Whether the collective certificate of candidacy filed by the petitioners substantially complies with the requirements of Section 35 of the Revised Election Code.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and made the preliminary injunction permanent.
1. On the first ground (lack of secretary’s signature): The failure of the party secretary to sign the certificate was due to an honest mistake or misinterpretation of the law. Following the doctrine in Gardiner vs. Romulo, when the law does not provide that a departure from a form is fatal, and such departure is due to an honest mistake, not used for fraud or intimidation, and the will of the electorate is clear, the law is directory and the irregularity is harmless.
2. On the second ground (failure to certify official nomination): The omission did not constitute a grave departure warranting nullification. The certificate, filed by the party chairman announcing the candidacy of the listed individuals who belong to the Nacionalista Party, conveyed the impression that they were the party’s officially nominated candidates. Furthermore, the timely filing of the motion for reconsideration, which included the party chairman and secretary as movants, effectively cured this defect, as held in Gabaldon vs. Commission on Elections.
3. Consideration of Election Results: The Court noted that three of the petitioner-candidates (Eulogio Damatan, Vicente Talosig, and Federico Ramones) were elected in the November 10, 1959 elections. To nullify the certificate would frustrate the will of the electorate.
The Court held that the certificate of candidacy in question substantially complied with Section 35 of the Revised Election Code.