CRISOLOGO PARDES VILLANUEVA v.

COMELEC
G.R. No. L-54718, 4 December, 1985,

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 Mendoza’s withdrawal, Villanueva filed his own
sworn Certificate of candidacy in substitution of Mendoza’s. 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?

RULING:

No. The fact that Mendoza’s withdrawal was not sworn is but a
technicality which should not be used to frustrate the people’s will in favor 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 Mendoza’s
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 Villanueva’s 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. Mendoza’s 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.