CRISOLOGO PARDES VILLANUEVA v.

COMELEC
G.R. No. L-54718, 4 December, 1985, EN BANC (Teehankee, J.)
The will of the people cannot be frustrated by a technicality.
(Guzman v. Board of Canvassers, 48 Phil 211).
FACTS
Mendoza, on the last day for filling, filed his sworn certificate of candidacy for Vice Mayor of
Dolores Quezon for the 1980 elections. On the same day, Mendoza filed an unsworn but handwritten
letter withdrawing his candidacy. Immediately after Mendozas withdrawal, Villanueva filed his own
sworn Certificate of candidacy in substitution of Mendozas. Villanueva won. The COMELEC, however,
disregarded the votes cast in favour of Villanueva and declared the other candidate as the sole winner.
The COMELEC argued that the withdrawal of Mendoza was not valid and consequently he could
not have been substituted by Villanueva since the withdrawal by Mendoza was not sworn to as required
by Section 27 of the Election Code which provides:
... No certificate of candidacy duly filed shall be considered withdraw ...
unless the candidate files with the office which received the certificate ...
or with the commission a sworn statement of withdrawal ...

ISSUE
Whether the petitioner should be disqualified on the ground of formal or technical defects?

HELD
No. The fact that Mendozas withdrawal was not sworn is but a technicality which should not be
used to frustrate the peoples will in favour of the petitioner as the substitute candidate. In Guzman vs.
Board of Canvassers (48 Phil. 211), which is clearly applicable, mutatis mutandis, the Supreme Court
held that The will of the people cannot be frustrated by a technicality that the certificate of candidacy
had not been properly sworn to, This legal provision is mandatory and non-compliance therewith before
the election would be fatal to the status of the candidate before the electorate, but after the people have
expressed their will, the result of the election cannot be defeated by the fact that the candidate has not
sworn to his certificate or candidacy. (See also Gundan vs. Court of First Instance, 66 Phil. 125). As
likewise ruled by this Court in Canceran vs. COMELEC (107 Phil. 607), the legal requirement that a
withdrawal be under oath will be held to be merely directory and Mendozas failure to observe the
requirement should be considered a harmless irregularity. The spirit of the law rather than its
literal reading should have guided Respondent Commission in resolving the issue of last minute
withdrawal and substitution of other persons as candidates.
Note: Initially the Supreme Court dismissed Villanuevas petition. The Court considered its
dismissal when it was shown that the COMELEC proclaimed winner abandoned the position.

ADDITIONAL:
Whether the informal withdrawal of Mendoza invalidates the election of Villanueva as
vice mayor. Section 28 of the 1978 Election Code provides for such substitute candidates in case
of death, withdrawal or disqualification up to mid-day of the very day of the elections.
Mendozas withdrawal was filed on the last hour of the last day for regular filing of candidacies,
which he had filed earlier that same day. Further, the will of the electorate should be respected; it
should not be defeated through the invocation of formal or technical defects. The will of the
people cannot be frustrated by a technicality that the certificate of candidacy had not been
properly sworn to.

Statutes providing for election contests are to be liberally construed to the end that the
will of the people in the choice of public officer may not be defeated by mere technical
objections