EN BANC

[G.R. No. 209285. June 28, 2016.]

NOE B. NEO AND CECILIA A. EDOLOVERIO, petitioners, vs.

ANTONIO P. YAPHA, JR. AND COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS ,
respondents.

ARLENE E. ZAMBO, intervenor.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated
JUNE 28, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 209285 (Noe B. Neo and Cecilia A. Edoloverio v.
Antonio P. Yapha, Jr. and Commission on Elections; Arlene E.
Zambo, intervenor.) — This Petition for Certiorari 1 assails the Commission
on Elections Second Division Resolution 2 dated January 24, 2013 and the
Commission on Elections En Banc Resolution 3 dated August 8, 2013. The
assailed Resolutions denied the Petition (to Deny Due Course to or Cancel
Certificate of Candidacy) filed against Antonio P. Yapha, Jr. (Yapha) for Vice
Mayor of Toledo City, Cebu in the 2013 National and Local Elections.
On October 3, 2012, Yapha filed his Certificate of Candidacy for Vice
Mayor of Toledo City for the 2013 National and Local Elections. 4 His
Certificate stated that his period of residence in Toledo City was one (1) year
and two (2) months as of May 13, 2013. 5
On October 9, 2012, Noe B. Neo (Neo) and Cecilia A. Edoloverio
(Edoloverio), both registered voters of Toledo City, filed before the
Commission on Elections a Petition (to Deny Due Course to or Cancel
Certificate of Candidacy) 6 against Yapha. They alleged that Yapha was a
resident of the Municipality of Pinamungahan, Cebu, not of Toledo City. 7
Documents were presented as evidence to support the Petition: 8
(1) Yapha's Certificate of Candidacy 9 for Vice Mayor of Toledo City
in the 2013 National and Local Elections;
(2) The Certificate of Candidacy 10 of Yapha's wife, Estrella Yapha,
for Mayor of the Municipality of Pinamungahan in the 2013
National and Local Elections; and
(3) A Certification 11 dated October 5, 2012 by the City Assessor of
Toledo City attesting that Yapha does not own any landholdings
in Toledo City for taxation purposes.
In his Verified Answer, 12 Yapha alleged that he had been indeed a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 long-time resident of Pinamungahan, but he already transferred residence to
Poblacion, Toledo City as of March 5, 2011. 13 He explained that
Pinamungahan was only one town away from Toledo City. Both places were
part of the Third District of Cebu, of which Yapha was a Member of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan from 1995 to 1998 and a Representative in the
House of Representatives from 1998 to 2007. 14 He alleged that he had
become familiar with Toledo City from having conducted numerous medical
missions in the area. 15
Yapha further alleged that he was a lessee of a house located in
Magasaysay Street, Poblacion, Toledo City and owned by Catalina Benitez,
and that he started buying and selling real properties in Toledo City. 16 He
also presented the Affidavits 17 of some residents of Poblacion, Toledo City,
as well as the Affidavit 18 of Poblacion's Barangay Captain, attesting that he
had been residing in Toledo City since 2011.
The Commission on Elections Second Division issued the Resolution 19
dated January 24, 2013 in favor of Yapha. It held that the two lease
agreements in Toledo City were sufficient to establish Yapha's intention to
abandon Pinamungahan and to remain in Toledo City. 20 Citing Sabili v.
Commission on Elections, 21 the Second Division held that "property
ownership is not a requirement to seek an elective post." 22 Further, Yapha's
decision to move his domicile to Toledo City and his wife's decision to retain
her domicile in Pinamungahan "cannot be used to negate the former's
intention to move domiciles." 23
On February 20, 2013, Neo and Edoloverio moved for reconsideration
of this Resolution. 24 In the interim, the 2013 National and Local Elections
were held on May 13, 2013. Yapha garnered 38,295 votes and was
proclaimed the Vice Mayor of Toledo City. 25 CAIHTE

On August 8, 2013, the Commission on Elections En Banc issued the

Resolution 26 denying the Motion for Reconsideration. It held that Yapha was
able to sufficiently present evidence that he had transferred his residence
from Pinamungahan to Toledo City more than a year before the 2013
National and Local Elections. 27 It found that as early as 2011, Yapha already
"manifested his intention through his acts, activities and utterances that he
is making Poblacion, Toledo City his new domicile of choice" 28 by the
conduct of medical missions in the area:
There is no doubt that [Yapha] transferred his residence from
Poblacion, Pinamungahan, Cebu to Magsaysay St., Poblacion, Toledo
City since March 2011, more than a year prior to the 2013 National
and Local Elections. Records would show that [Yapha] leased a house
in Poblacion, Toledo City where his family is presently residing. He
owns several real properties in the area. Further, as early as 2011, he
already manifested his intention through his acts, activities and
utterances that he is making Poblacion, Toledo City his new domicile
of choice. Among these acts are the conduct of several public service
activities such as medical, surgical and dental missions different
barangays of Toledo City. 29 (Citations omitted)
Aggrieved, petitioners Noe B. Neo and Cecilia A. Edoloverio filed before
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 this Court a Petition for Certiorari 30 under Rule 64 to assail the Second
Division Resolution 31 dated January 24, 2013 and the En Banc Resolution 32
dated August 8, 2013. Respondent Antonio P. Yapha, Jr. submitted his
Comment 33 on the Petition, to which petitioners submitted their Reply. 34
On August 26, 2014, Arlene E. Zambo filed a Motion for Leave to
Intervene, 35 alleging that she was respondent's opponent in the 2013
National and Local Elections and garnered 28,720 votes. 36 This Court
granted the Motion and allowed her to intervene. 37
The parties were subsequently required to submit their respective
memoranda. 38
For this Court's resolution is the issue of whether the Commission on
Elections committed grave abuse of discretion when it found that respondent
was able to establish his residence in Toledo City for at least one (1) year
before the 2013 National and Local Elections.
The minimum qualifications for Vice Mayor under Section 39 (a) of the
Local Government Code are that (1) he or she must be a citizen of the
Philippines; (2) a registered voter in the municipality or city where he or she
intends to run; and (3) be able to read and write Filipino or any local dialect.
39 He or she must also be "a resident therein for at least one (1) year
immediately preceding the day of the election." 40
The issue of residence is primarily one of intent, or animus, 41 which
must be determined on a case-to-case basis. Certain indicators may be
applied, such as voter registration 42 or the existence of a contract of lease,
43 but these are by no means conclusive evidence of one's residence. They
may only serve as guideposts to determine intent. There are, however, no
pre-determined indicators that would otherwise establish one's residence or
domicile. 44 aScITE

Since intent is a state of mind, the intent to abandon one's domicile of

origin must be manifested through overt acts. 45 The requisites for
abandonment are succinctly stated in Romualdez-Marcos v. Commission on
Elections: 46
[D]omicile of origin is not easily lost. To successfully effect a change
of domicile, one must demonstrate:
1. An actual removal or an actual change of domicile;
2. A bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of
residence and establishing a new one; and
3. Acts which correspond with the purpose. 47
There are no particular overt acts that can conclusively determine
one's residence. There must be an examination of a person's "acts,
activities, and utterances." 48 The context of every act, activity, and
utterance must be considered. A context-based, nuanced approach is
necessary as domicile is ultimately a factual matter without any
predetermined factual requisites. This Court has made it clear that there are
no shortcuts to determine the issue of residence: "There is no hard and fast
rule by which to determine where a person actually resides." 49
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Petitioners allege that respondent materially misrepresented the fact
of his residence in his Certificate of Candidacy since he was never a resident
of Toledo City and that he remained a resident of Pinamungahan. 50 They
claim, in particular, that respondent's wife and family remained residents of
Pinamungahan, that he was unable to establish physical presence in Toledo
City, and that his Contract of Lease for a house in Toledo City was invalidly
notarized. 51
To support their allegations, petitioners presented the following:
(1) Estrella Yapha's Certificate of Candidacy 52 for Mayor of the
Municipality of Pinamungahan;
(2) the Certificates of Candidacy 53 of Jeffrey Anthony Yapha and
Ma. Honeylette Yapha-Lingad, Yapha's grandchildren, for different
elective positions in Pinamungahan;
(3) a Certification 54 dated October 5, 2012 from the Toledo City
Assessor's Office stating that respondent and Estrella Yapha have
no registered landholdings in Toledo City;
(4) Affidavits of Clarification 55 from Eric C. Cruzpero and Edwin G.
Ricaña stating that although they executed affidavits for
respondent because they were his political supporters, they had
no personal knowledge as to whether he actually resided in
Toledo City;
(5) the Affidavit 56 of Mary Jane P. Lapera, Catalina Benitez's
companion and helper, claiming that respondent never resided in
the house;
(6) the Affidavit 57 of Jose Dexter Baroman, a resident of Poblacion,
Pinamungahan, Cebu, attesting that respondent and his family
actually live in Poblacion, Pinamungahan; and
(7) a Certification 58 dated August 7, 2014 issued by Jeoffrey S.
Joaquin, Clerk of Court VII of the Office of the Clerk of Court,
Regional Trial Court, stating that the notarial book where
respondent's Contract of Lease was notarized was not among
those reported to his office.
Respondent, for his part, does not deny that he used to be a resident
of Pinamungahan. 59 However, he states that he has since transferred to
Toledo City before running for office in the 2013 National and Local
Elections. 60
Respondent presented the following evidence to prove that he
successfully made Toledo City his domicile of choice:
(1) Affidavits of Eric S. Cruzpero, 61 Edwin G. Ricaña, 62 and Clemen
C. Tayona, 63 residents of Toledo City, attesting that respondent
resided at Magsaysay Street, Poblacion, Toledo City since March
2011;
(2) pictures 64 of the medical missions respondent conducted in
Toledo City from July 2011 to October 2011;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 (3) a Contract of Lease 65 dated March 5, 2011 between respondent
and Catalina Benitez for the lease of a portion of the house in
Magsaysay Street, Poblacion, Toledo City;
(4) the Affidavit 66 of Catalina Benitez attesting that she leased her
house to respondent in March 2011;
(5) a Deed of Conditional Sale 67 dated January 20, 2011 for a
parcel of land in Poog, Toledo City;
(6) a Deed of Absolute Sale 68 dated February 15, 2010 for a parcel
of land in Poblacion, Toledo City;
(7) a Voter Certification Record 69 dated September 24, 2012 that
respondent was registered to vote in Toledo City;
(8) the Affidavit of Faustino G. Barcenas, 70 Barangay Captain of
Poblacion, Toledo City, attesting to respondent's physical
presence in the city since March 2011; and
(9) a Joint Affidavit 71 of several residents of Toledo City attesting
that respondent had been conducting medical missions in the
area and may be approached at his house in Poblacion, Toledo
City for free medical assistance.
HEITAD

Weighed against respondent's evidence, petitioners' evidence is weak.

Petitioners presented the Affidavit of only one (1) resident of Pinamungahan,
attesting that respondent still resided there. Their Affidavits of Clarification
only pertained to Eric C. Cruzpero and Edwin G. Ricaña's Affidavits.
Petitioners were not able to dispute the Affidavits of Clemen C. Tayona,
Barangay Captain Faustino G. Barcenas, and the Joint Affidavit of 17
residents of Toledo City, all attesting that respondent resided in Magsaysay
Street, Poblacion, Toledo City since March 2011. The weight of evidence is
considerably in respondent's favor.
Property ownership is not a requirement to vote and be voted upon. 72
A candidate may only be leasing a room or a house, but it does not make
him or her any less of a resident of an area. 73 Petitioner's Certification from
the City Assessor of Toledo City only shows that respondent has no
registered landholding for taxation purposes. It does not prove that he is not
a resident of Toledo City.
The defective notarization of the Contract of Lease does not make the
contract invalid or, as petitioners insist, "fake." 74 It merely converts the
contract from a public document to a private document that is nonetheless
binding between respondent and his lessor, Catalina Benitez. 75 The
invalidity of the notarization does not prove the absence of a lease contract
between respondent and Catalina Benitez in March 2011.
The Affidavit of Mary Jane P. Lapera, Catalina Benitez's companion and
helper, is contradictory to Catalina Benitez's Affidavit. The owner of the
house attests that respondent is a resident, while the house helper attests
that he is not. On this score, the evidence is in equipoise. Weighed against
the Affidavits of other Toledo City residents, the evidence presented
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 inevitably leads to the conclusion that respondent established residence in
Toledo City, in a rented house along Magsaysay Street.
For purposes of election laws, the residence of the husband may be
different from that of the wife. 76
Petitioners maintain that since respondent's wife, Estrella Yapha,
remained a resident of Pinamungahan, he must also be a resident of
Pinamungahan, citing Articles 68 and 69 of the Family Code. 77
However, these provisions of the Family Code state the duties and
obligations of a husband and a wife and their personal relationship with each
other. It does not, in any way, determine the qualifications of a candidate for
an elective position.
Limbona v. Commission on Elections 78 affirmed the disqualification of
a candidate for mayor of Pantar, Lanao del Norte for her failure to prove her
residency. Limbona's domicile of origin was Maguing, Lanao del Norte, while
her husband lived in Rapasun, Marawi City. The evidence she presented to
prove that she lived in Pantar or that she intended to stay in Pantar
indefinitely was found by this Court to be "self-serving and unsubstantiated";
79 hence, she was presumed to have lived in the residence of her husband in

Rapasun, Marawi City. aDSIHc

Considering that Pinamungahan is only one (1) kilometer away from

Toledo City, 80 it is not impossible to believe that respondent and his wife
live separately and see each other occasionally. Unlike in Limbona,
respondent presented Affidavits of Toledo City residents and a Contract of
Lease to prove his residency in Toledo City. Petitioners did not present
concrete evidence other than Jose Dexter Baroman's Affidavit to prove that
respondent still goes home to Pinamungahan.
Respondent did not deny that he used to be a resident of
Pinamungahan. As petitioners point out, his wife and grandchildren ran for
local elective positions there in the 2013 National and Local Elections. This
does not mean, however, that respondent lost his prerogative to transfer to
another place with which he had become intimately acquainted and serve,
and where he believed his service was needed.
Both Pinamungahan and Toledo City are part of the Third Legislative
District of Cebu, of which respondent served as Member of Sangguniang
Panlalawigan from 1995 to 1998 81 and Representative from 1998 to 2007.
82 It stands to reason that respondent has been familiar with the needs and
concerns of the Third District, including Toledo City, since 1995.
The purpose of residency is "to give candidates the opportunity to be
familiar with the needs, difficulties, aspirations, potentials for growth[,] and
all matters vital to the welfare of their constituencies; likewise, it enables the
electorate to evaluate the office seekers' qualifications and fitness for the job
they aspire for." 83 Residency is required "to exclude a stranger or
newcomer, unacquainted with the conditions and needs of a community and
not identified with the latter, from an elective office to serve that
community." 84
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Taken in this context, respondent has more than fulfilled the purpose of
residency. During his stint as Member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and
Representative of the Third Legislative District of Cebu, he would have been
a familiar presence in the political and socio-civic activities of Toledo City
since 1995. His constituents in Toledo City were likely the same constituents
that he had previously served in the Third District.
Respondent is a doctor by profession and has conducted numerous
medical missions in the area. Petitioners have not denied that he has made
several socio-civic contributions in Toledo City throughout the years.
Residency, within the realm of election laws, does not require a
candidate to be born and raised in the place he or she intends to run. It only
requires that the candidate has lived in the area to be familiar with its needs
and concerns. While respondent was previously a resident of Pinamungahan,
he is not prohibited from moving to Toledo City and running for office there,
as long as he fulfills the requirements of law. In Sabili:
[T]here is nothing wrong in an individual changing residences so he
could run for an elective post, for as long as he is able to prove with
reasonable certainty that he has effected a change of residence for
election law purposes for the period required by law. 85
Therefore, the Commission on Elections did not commit grave abuse of
discretion in finding that respondent was able to establish his residency in
Toledo City at least one (1) year before elections.
Be that as it may, this Petition has now become moot and academic.
A case is moot and academic if the issues presented cease to become
justiciable due to supervening events so that the court's resolution would
have no practical or legal value. 86
The conduct of the 2016 National and Local Elections and the
subsequent proclamation of the newly-elected Vice Mayor of Toledo City
have already rendered this case moot.
In Malaluan v. Commission on Elections, 87 the expiration of the term of
office in an election protest effectively renders the case moot, unless the
resolution of the case on its merits still presents some practical value to the
parties. In Timbol v. Commission on Elections , 88 this Court has qualified the
exceptions to which this Court will resolve a case on its merits despite being
moot:
(1) [T]here was a grave violation of the Constitution; (2) the
case involved a situation of exceptional character and was of
paramount public interest; (3) the issues raised required the
formulation of controlling principles to guide the Bench, the Bar and
the public; and (4) the case was capable of repetition yet evading
review. 89
No violation of the Constitution was alleged. It is not of exceptional
character or of paramount public interest, considering the numerous
decisions 90 on this issue. Even if the case was not rendered moot by
supervening events, the Petition would still have been dismissed for lack of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 merit.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED for being moot and academic."
Del Castillo, J., on leave. (59)ETHIDa

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) FELIPA B. ANAMA

Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo , pp. 14-28. The Petition was filed under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court.
2. Id. at 29-39. The Resolution was signed by Presiding Commissioner Lucenito N.
Tagle and Commissioners Elias R. Yusoph and Maria Gracia Cielo M.
Padaca of the Second Division.
3. Id. at 41-45. The En Banc Resolution was signed by Chairperson Sixto S.
Brillantes, Jr., Commissioners Lucenito N. Tagle, Elias R. Yusoph, Christian
Robert S. Lim, Maria Gracia Cielo M. Padaca, Al A. Parreño, and Luie Tito F.
Guia.
4. Id. at 30.
5. Id.
6. Id. at 187-192.
7. Id. at 30.

8. Id. at 187-192.
9. Id. at 193.
10. Id. at 194.
11. Id. at 196.
12. Id. at 197-206.

13. Id. at 198.

14. Id.
15. Id. at 199-200.
16. Id.

17. Id. at 213-222 and 228.

18. Id. at 227.
19. Id. at 29-39.
20. Id. at 36.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 21. 686 Phil. 649 (2012) [Per J. Sereno, En Banc].
22. Rollo , p. 36, citing Sabili v. Commission on Elections 686 Phil. 649 (2012) [Per
J. Sereno, En Banc], in turn citing Fernandez v. House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal , 623 Phil. 628 (2009) [Per J. Leonardo-de Castro, En
Banc].

23. Id. at 38.

24. Id. at 68.
25. Id. at 238.
26. Id. at 41-45.
27. Id. at 44.

28. Id.
29. Id.
30. Id. at 14.
31. Id. at 29.
32. Id. at 41.

33. Id. at 83-94.

34. Id. at 162-183.
35. Id. at 232-237.
36. Id. at 238.

37. Id. at 298.

38. Id. at 308.
39. LOC. GOV. CODE. sec. 39 (a) provides:
SECTION 39. Qualifications. — (a) An elective local official must be a citizen
of the Philippines; a registered voter in the Barangay, municipality, city, or
province or, in the case of a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan,
Sangguniang Panlungsod, or Sanggunian bayan, the district where he
intends to be elected; a resident therein for at least one (1) year
immediately preceding the day of the election; and able to read and write
Filipino or any other local language or dialect.
40. LOC. GOV. CODE, sec. 39 (b) provides:
SECTION 39. Qualifications. . . .

xxx xxx xxx

(b) Candidates for the position of governor, vice-governor or member of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan, or Mayor, vice-mayor or member of the
Sangguniang Panlungsod of highly urbanized cities must be at least
twenty-three (23) years of age on election day.
41. Limbona v. Commission on Elections , 578 Phil. 364, 374 (2008) [Per J. Ynares-
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Santiago, En Banc].
42. See Mamba-Perez v. Commission on Elections , 375 Phil. 1106 (1999) [Per J.
Mendoza, En Banc].
43. See Mitra v. Commission on Elections , 636 Phil. 753 (2010) [Per J. Brion, En
Banc].
44. J. Leonen, Concurring Opinion in Poe-Llamanzares v. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 221698-700, March 8, 2016
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2016/march2016/221697_leonen.pdf> 98 [Per J. Perez,
En Banc].
45. Id. at 96.
46. 318 Phil. 329 (1995) [Per J. Kapunan, En Banc].
47. Id. at 386, citing 18 Am Jur 219-220.

48. Faypon v. Quirino , 96 Phil. 294, 298 (1956) [Per J. Padilla, Second Division].
49. Limbona v. Commission on Elections , 578 Phil. 364, 374 (2008) [Per J. Ynares-
Santiago, En Banc]. See also J. Leonen, Concurring Opinion in Poe-
Llamanzares v. Commission on Elections , G.R. No. 221698-700, March 8,
2016 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2016/march2016/221697_leonen.pdf> 96 [Per J. Perez,
En Banc].

50. Rollo , p. 16.

51. Id. at 16-18.
52. Id. at 276.
53. Id. at 278 and 280.
54. Id. at 282.

55. Id. at 283-284.

56. Id. at 295.
57. Id. at 296.
58. Id. at 304.

59. Id. at 84.

60. Id. at 85.
61. Id. at 101.
62. Id. at 102.
63. Id. at 103.

64. Id. at 104-107.

65. Id. at 108.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 66. Id. at 110.
67. Id. at 111-112.
68. Id. at 113.
69. Id. at 114.
70. Id. at 115.

71. Id. at 116-117.

72. Fernandez v. Commission on Elections , 623 Phil. 628, 655 (2009) [Per J.
Leonardo-de Castro, En Banc].
73. Mitra v. Commission on Elections , 636 Phil. 753, 781 (2010) [Per J. Brion, En
Banc].
74. Rollo , p. 300.
75. See Fernandez v. Commission on Elections , 623 Phil. 628, 654 (2009) [Per J.
Leonardo-de Castro, En Banc], citing Mallari v. Alsol , 519 Phil. 139, 149
(2006) [Per J. Carpio, Third Division].

76. Marcos v. Commission on Elections , 318 Phil. 329, 393-394 (1995) [Per J.
Kapunan, En Banc].

77. FAMILY CODE, arts. 68 and 69 provide:

Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual
love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.

Art. 69. The husband and wife shall fix the family domicile. In case of
disagreement, the court shall decide.
78. 578 Phil. 364 (2008) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, En Banc].

79. Id. at 375.

80. Rollo , p. 100.

81. Rollo , p. 95.

82. Id. at 96.

83. Torayno v. Commission on Elections , 392 Phil. 342, 345 (2000) [Per J.
Panganiban, En Banc].

84. Gallego v. Verra , 74 Phil. 453, 459 (1941) [Per J. Ozaeta, En Banc].
85. 686 Phil. 649, 676 (2012) [Per J. Sereno, En Banc], citing Japzon v.
Commission on Elections, 596 Phil. 354, 374-375 (2009) [Per J. Chico-
Nazario, En Banc], in turn citing Aquino v. Commission on Elections , 318
Phil. 467, 500-501 (1995) [Per J. Kapunan, En Banc].

86. See Timbol v. Commission on Elections , G.R. No. 206004, February 24, 2015,
751 SCRA 456, 462 [Per J. Leonen, En Banc], citing COCOFED-Philippine
Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. v. Commission on Elections , 716 Phil.
19, 28 (2013) [Per J. Brion, En Banc]; Baldo, Jr. v. Commission on Elections,
607 Phil. 281, 286-287 (2009) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, En Banc]; Garcia v.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Commission on Elections, 328 Phil. 288, 292 (1996) [Per J. Francisco, En
Banc]; and De la Victoria v. Commission on Elections , 276 Phil. 610 (1991)
[Per J. Griño-Aquino, En Banc].

87. 324 Phil. 676 (1996) [Per J. Hermosisima, Jr. En Banc].

88. G.R. No. 206004, February 24, 2015, 751 SCRA 456 [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].

89. Id. at 462, citing Alliance for Rural and Agrarian Reconstruction, Inc. v.
Commission on Elections, 723 Phil. 160, 184 (2013) [Per J. Leonen, En
Banc].

90. See Aquino v. Commission on Elections , 318 Phil. 467 (1995) [Per J. Kapunan,
En Banc]; Domino v. Commission on Elections , 369 Phil. 798 (1999) [Per
C.J. Davide, Jr., En Banc]; Perez v. Commission on Elections, 375 Phil. 1106
(1999) [Per J. Mendoza, En Banc]; Torayno v. Commission on Elections ,
392 Phil. 342 (2000) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc]; Papandayan, Jr. v.
Commission on Elections, 430 Phil. 754 (2002) [Per J. Mendoza, En Banc];
Fernandez v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal , 623 Phil. 628
(2009) [Per J. Leonardo-de Castro, En Banc]; Mitra v. Commission on
Elections, 636 Phil. 753 (2010) [Per J. Brion, En Banc]; Jalosjos v.
Commission on Elections, 704 Phil. 641 (2013) [Per C.J. Sereno, En Banc];
and Jalover v. Osmeña , G.R. No. 209286, September 23, 2014, 736 SCRA
267 (2014) [Per J. Brion, En Banc].

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com