G.R. No.

L-54718 May 3l, 1983

CRISOLOGO VILLANUEVA Y PAREDES, petitioner,

vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF DOLORES
QUEZON, AND VIVENCIO G. LIRIO, respondents.

Crisologo P. Villanueva in his own behalf.

The Solicitor General for respondents. Danosos, Lirio, Bautista & Asso. for private respondents.

DE CASTRO, J.:

Petitioner Crisologo Villanueva seeks in this petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction to set
aside Resolution No. 9192 of respondent Commission on Elections dated February 21, 1980,
denying his petition for annulment of the proclamation of respondent Vivencio Lirio as the elected
vice-mayor of Dolores, Quezon, as well as Resolution No. 9885 of said Commission dated July 31,
1980, denying his motion for reconsideration and supplemental motion for reconsideration.

It appears that on January 4, 1980, which is the last day for the firing of certificates of candidacy in
the January 30, 1980 elections, one Narciso Mendoza, Jr. filed with the Election Registrar of
Dolores, Quezon, his sworn certificate of candidacy for the office of vice-mayor of said municipality.
Subsequently, however, but on the same day, Mendoza filed an unsworn letter withdrawing his said
certificate of candidacy.

On January 25, 1980, herein petitioner filed with the Election Registrar of Dolores, Quezon, his
sworn "Certificate of Candidacy in Substitution" of the aforementioned Narciso Mendoza, Jr. for the
office of vice-mayor of said municipality.

On January 31, 1980, the respondent Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed, on the basis of
the results of its canvass, respondent Vivencio Lirio as the duly elected vice-mayor of Dolores,
Quezon. Respondent Board considered all the votes cast in favor of petitioner as stray votes on the
ground that his certificate of candidacy was not given due course by the Commission on Elections,
Manila, and his name was not included in the certified list of official candidates.

On February 6, 1980, petitioner filed with the COMELEC a petition to annul the proclamation of
respondent. He likewise prayed that COMELEC should order the official counting of the votes that
may have been cast in his favor and thereafter, to proclaim him as the duly elected vice-mayor of
Dolores, Quezon.

On February 21, 1980, COMELEC issued the herein questioned resolution denying the said petition,
upon the reasoning that petitioner could not have filed his candidacy in substitution of Mendoza's
because the withdrawal of the latter had produced no legal effect, the same not having been made
under oath as required by Section 27 of the Election Code, and even assuming the efficacy of said
withdrawal, the same was made not after the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy as
provided under Section 28 of said Code, but on the very same last day. COMELEC reaffirmed its
stand upon petitioner's filing of a motion for reconsideration and supplemental motion for
reconsideration. Hence, the present recourse.
Petitioner insists that the withdrawal of Narciso Mendoza's certificate of candidacy was valid and
effective, and therefore, his certificate of candidacy in substitution of Mendoza's was, likewise, valid
and effective. Petitioner further alleged that there is sufficient legal basis for the annulment of the
proclamation of respondent Lirio, petitioner having supposedly polled the highest number of votes for
vice-mayor of Dolores, Quezon.

The law on the matter of withdrawal or cancellation of certificates of candidacy is Section 27 of the
1978 Election Code, which provides:

Sec. 27. Withdrawal or cancellation of certificates of candidacy. - No certification of

candidacy duly filed shall be considered withdrawn or cancelled unless the candidate
files with the office which received the certificate of candidacy or with the
Commission, a sworn statement of withdrawal or cancellation at any time before the
day of election. (Emphasis supplied)

There is absolutely no vagueness or ambiguity of the above provision, as to the need of a sworn
statement of withdrawal or cancellation of a duly filed certificate of candidacy. That the withdrawal of
Mendoza's certificate of candidacy was not made under oath is not disputed. As such, the
withdrawal produces no legal effect for failure to comply with the clear and unequivocal mandate of
the law. Mendoza, therefore, for all legal intents and purposes, remained to be a candidate for vice.
mayor of Dolores, Quezon, up to January 30, 1980, the date of the elections, as correctly ruled by
the COMELEC.

Even assuming that the questioned withdrawal is effective, under a liberal construction of the law as
invoked by petitioner, which should not be the case when the terms of the statute are clear and
unmistakable, still petitioner may not derive comfort therefrom for Mendoza's withdrawal was made
on January 4, 1980, on the very last day for filing certificates of candidacy. Substitution of a
candidate by reason of withdrawal is proper only when such withdrawal is made after the last day for
filing of certificates of candidacy. This is as, likewise, clearly provided by Section 28 of the 1978
Election Code.

Sec. 28. Candidates in case of death, withdrawal or disqualification of another. —

If, after the last day for filing certificates of candidacy, a candidate with a certificate of
candidacy duly filed should die, withdraw or be disqualified for any cause, any voter
qualified for the office may file his certificate of candidacy for the office for which the
deceased, the candidate who has withdrawn, or disqualified person was a candidate
in accordance with the preceding sections on or before mid-day of the day of the
election, and if the death, withdrawal or disqualification should occur between the
day before the election and the mid-day of election day, said certificate may filed with
any election committee in the political subdivision where he is a candidate: Provided,
however, That if the candidate who died, withdrew or was disqualified is the official
candidate of a political party, group or aggrupation, only a person belonging to, and
certified by, the same political party, group or aggrupation may file a certificate of
candidacy for the same office.

While it may be true as persistently pointed out by the petitioner that a certificate of candidacy duly
filed may be withdrawn or cancelled at any time before the day of election, it does not necessarily
follow that such withdrawn or cancelled certificate of candidacy may be the subject of substitution by
another's certificate of candidacy. For substitution to take place, the withdrawal must be
effected after the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy. If the withdrawal was made prior to or
on the said last day, as what happened in the instant case, substitution is not allowed. Hence, the
person filing a certificate of candidacy is filing said certificate in his own right, not as substitute
candidate, and the filing to make the certificate of candidacy valid must not be after the last day for
filing ordinary certificates of candidacy, which is January 4, 1980.

By and large, petitioner was, therefore, not a candidate, either in substitution of Mendoza or in his
own right, as he filed his certificate of candidacy on January 25, 1980, long after the last day for filing
certificates of candidacy. Whatever votes may have been cast in his favor are necessarily
considered stray votes. [Section 155 (15), Election Code] There is thus no legal basis for the
annulment of respondent Lirio's proclamation as vice-mayor.

In view of the foregoing, the COMELEC did not commit any error in issuing Resolution Nos. 9192
and 9885. In such a case, this Court cannot properly exercise its limited jurisdiction to review
decisions, orders or rulings of the COMELEC, which under the present Constitution has been
narrowed down to one of review by certiorari which may be invoked only when there is grave abuse
of discretion, or lack or excess of jurisdiction (Aratuc v. COMELEC, 88 SCRA 251), or patent errors
of law.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is dismissed, without special pronouncement as to cost.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin,
Vasquez, Relova, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions

FERNANDO, C.J., dissenting:

On the ground that the bona fides of petitioner Crisologo Villanueva y Parades as a substitute
candidate cannot, in his opinion be successfully assailed. It follows that the votes cast in his favor
must be counted. Such being the case, there is more than sufficient justification for his proclamation
as Vice Mayor assuming that he did poll a greater number of votes than private respondent Vivencio
Lirio.

TEEHANKEE, J., dissenting:

I am constrained to dissent from the majority decision penned by Mr. Justice