CAYAT V.

COMELEC
FACTS:
Cayat and Palileng were the only candidates for the mayoralty post
in Buguias, Benguet in the 10 May 2004 local elections. Cayat filed his
certificate of candidacy on 5 January 2004. On 26 January 2004, Palileng filed
a petition for disqualification against Cayat before the COMELEC Regional
Election Office for having been convicted by final judgement for the crime of
forcible acts of lasciviousness. Atty. Julius D. Torres (Atty. Torres), COMELEC
Provincial
Election
Supervisor
for Baguio-Benguet, served summons
on Cayat by telegram through the Telecommunications Office on 26 January
2004. However, Cayat did not personally receive the telegram. In its
Resolution of 12 April 2004, the COMELEC First Division found no compelling
reason
to
disturb
Atty.
Torres
findings
and
consequently
cancelled Cayats certificate of candidacy. From the definition of moral
turpitude, it can be determined that the acts of Cayat involved moral
turpitude. Therefore, the respondent is convicted of a crime involving moral
turpitude. Applying Sec. 40(a) of the Local Government Code, it is
recommended that Cayat be disqualified from running as Mayor of
the Municipality of Buguias, Benguet. Cayat filed a motion for reconsideration
before the COMELEC En Banc on 16 April 2004. Cayat argued that the
COMELEC First Division Resolution of 12 April 2004 is void because the
COMELEC did not acquire jurisdiction over him. In an order dated 9 May
2004,
the
COMELEC
First
Division
dismissed Cayats motion
for
reconsideration for failure to pay the required filing fee. In the local elections
held on10 May 2004, Cayats name remained on the COMELECs list of
candidates. In the Certificate of Canvass of Votes dated 12 May
2004, Cayat received 8,164 votes. Palileng, on the other hand, received
5,292 votes. Cayat was thus proclaimed the duly elected Mayor
of Buguias, Benguet. Cayat took his oath of office on 17 May 2004.
Bayacsan, elected Vice-Mayor of Buguias, Benguet, filed his petition-inintervention. For his part, Bayacsan prayed that he be declared as the
rightful Mayor of Buguias, Benguet.

ISSUES:
WON the orders cancelling Cayats Certificate of Candidacy is valid
WON Palileng, the other mayoralty candidate or Bayacsan, the elected ViceMayor should be declared the Mayor

HELD:
1. The order of the COMELEC cancelling the COC of Cayat is valid.
Cayat has filed his motion for reconsideration beyond the three-day period
from the promulgation of the decision. Clearly, the COMELEC First Divisions
Resolution of 12 April 2004 cancelling Cayats Certificate of Candidacy due to
disqualification became final on 17 April 2004, or 23 days before the 10 May
2004 elections . In addition, Cayat made a fatal error: he failed to pay the
required filing fee for his motion for reconsideration. Cayats motion for
reconsideration is merely pro forma because Cayat failed to pay the
prescribed filing fee within the prescribed period. This brings us to the
conclusion that it is as if no motion for reconsideration had been filed,
resulting in the 12 April 2004 Resolution of the COMELECs First Division
attaining finality. The COMELEC First Divisions 12 April 2004 Resolution
declaring Cayats disqualification became final on 17 April 2004, long before
the 10 May 2004 local elections.
2. Palileng is the rightful Mayor.
There is no doubt as to the propriety of Palilengs proclamation for two basic
reasons.
First,
the
COMELEC
First
Divisions
Resolution
of 12
April
2004 cancelling Cayats certificate
of
candidacy
due
to disqualification became final
and executory on 17
April
2004
when Cayat failed to pay the prescribed filing fee. Thus, Palileng was
the only candidate
for
Mayor
of Buguias, Benguet in
the 10
May
2004 elections. Twenty
three
days
before election
day, Cayat was
already disqualified by final judgment to run for Mayor in the 10 May
2004 elections. As the only candidate, Palileng was not a second placer. On
the contrary, Palileng was the sole and only placer, second to none. The
doctrine on the rejection of the second placer, which triggers the rule on
succession, does not apply in the present case because Palileng is not a
second-placer but the only placer. Consequently, Palilengs proclamation as
Mayor of Buguias, Benguet is beyond question.
Second, there are specific requirements for the application of the doctrine on
the rejection of the second placer. The doctrine will apply in Bayacsans favor,
regardless of his intervention in the present case, if two conditions
concur: (1) the decision on Cayats disqualification remained pending
on election day, 10 May 2004, resulting in the presence of two mayoralty
candidates for Buguias, Benguet in the elections; and (2) the decision
on Cayats disqualification became final only after the elections.

Labo, Jr. v. COMELEC,[22] which enunciates the doctrine on the rejection of the
second placer, does not apply to the present case because in Labo there was
no final judgment of disqualification before the elections. The doctrine on the
rejection of the second placer was applied in Labo and a host of other
cases because the judgment declaring the candidates disqualification
in Labo and the other cases had not become final before the elections. To
repeat, Labo and the other cases applying the doctrine on the rejection of
the second placer have one common essential condition the disqualification
of the candidate had not become final before the elections. This essential
condition does not exist in the present case.
Thus, in Labo, Labos disqualification became final only on 14 May 1992,
three days after the 11 May 1992 elections. On election day itself, Labo was
still legally a candidate. In the present case, Cayat was disqualified by final
judgment 23 days before the 10 May 2004 elections. On election
day, Cayat was
no
longer
legally
a
candidate
for
mayor. In
short, Cayats candidacy for Mayor of Buguias, Benguet was legally nonexistent in the 10 May 2004 elections.
The law expressly declares that a candidate disqualified by final
judgment before an election cannot be voted for, and votes cast for him shall
not be counted. This is a mandatory provision of law. Section 6 of Republic
Act No. 6646, The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987, states:
Sec. 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. Any candidate who has
been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be
voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted.If for
any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before
an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the
winning number of votes in such election, the Court or
Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the
action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or
any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the
suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the
evidence of his guilt is strong.
Cayats proclamation on 12 May 2004 is void because the decision
disqualifying Cayat had already become final on 17 April 2004. There is no
longer any need to ascertain whether there was actual knowledge by the
voters of Cayats disqualification when they cast their votes on election
day because the law mandates that Cayats votes shall not be counted.
To allow a candidate disqualified by final judgment 23 days before the
elections to be voted for and have his votes counted is a blatant violation of
a mandatory provision of the election law. It creates confusion in the results
of the elections and invites needless new litigations from a candidate whose

disqualification had long become final before the elections. The doctrine on
the rejection of the second placer was never meant to apply to a situation
where a candidates disqualification had become final before the elections.
In short, the COMELEC First Division Resolution of 12 April
2004 cancelling Cayats certificate of candidacy, on the ground that he is
disqualified for having been sentenced by final judgment for an offense
involving moral turpitude, became final on 17 April 2004. This constrains us
to rule against Cayats proclamation as Mayor of Buguias, Benguet. We also
rule against Bayacsans petition-in-intervention because the doctrine on the
rejection of the second placer does not apply to this case.