G.R. No. L-6457 / March 2, 1911
THE UNITED STATES vs. ISIDRO MADAMBA

FACTS

Isidro Madamba was appointed by the provincial board as municipal president of Dingras, Ilocos Norte, to fill a vacancy. He accepted, qualified, and assumed office. On August 2, 1909, Madamba tendered his written resignation to the provincial board to become a candidate for the same office in the general election scheduled for November 2, 1909. The provincial board accepted his resignation on August 18, and he was notified on August 25, after which he ceased performing his duties and receiving emoluments. He then publicly announced his candidacy. He was prosecuted and convicted by the Court of First Instance for violating paragraph 8, section 29, and paragraph 20, section 30, of the Election Law, as amended, for announcing his candidacy while holding an appointive public office within 90 days preceding the election. He was fined P200.

ISSUE

Whether Madamba violated the Election Law by announcing his candidacy for an elective office while holding an appointive public office within 90 days preceding the general election, considering he had tendered his written resignation on August 2, 1909, which was 91 days before the November 2 election.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Madamba. The Court held that under the amended paragraph 8, section 29 of the Election Law ( Act No. 1948 ), the tender in writing of a resignation within the time fixed (i.e., at least 90 days before the election) constitutes compliance with the law. Since Madamba tendered his resignation on August 2, which was 91 days before the November 2 election (excluding both dates), he complied with the statutory requirement. From August 2, he ceased to be the municipal president by appointment for purposes of the election prohibition and was merely a de facto officer until his resignation was formally accepted. The legislative intent of the amendment was precisely to cover such situations, allowing appointed officials to resign in time to become eligible candidates. Therefore, Madamba did not violate the law.