Republic of the Philippines

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Office of the Clerk of the Commission
Manila
DABLITO JUERA HALLERA
Petitioner,

-versus- SPA No: _____________

LIGAYA LIM SAGURAN
Respondent.
x---------------------------------/

PETITION
Our ruling herein does not do away with the formal
requirement that a COC be sworn. In fact, we emphasize that
the filing of a COC is mandatory and must comply with the
requirements set forth by law. 16

[Emphasis and Underlining Ours; Footnote

Original.]
Omnibus Election Code, Secs. 73-74.
16

---Amora vs. COMELEC; G.R. No. 192280; Jan. 25,

2011

Petitioner MR. DABLITO JUERA HALLERA, through the

undersigned counsel, deferentially declares that:

NATURE OF PETITION

1. This Petition respectfully seeks to DISQUALIFY,

Respondent herein, MRS. LIGAYA LIM SAGURAN as a
candidate for the upcoming October 30, 2023 Barangay and
Sangguniang Kabataan Elections (BSKE) on the ground that the
Certificate of Candidacy (COC) she filed with, and submitted to,
COMELEC Buenavista IS NOT A SWORN COC, thus, in
violation of Section 731, Article IX. Eligibility of Candidates and
1 Section 73. Certificate of candidacy. - No person shall be eligible for any elective public
office unless he files a sworn certificate of candidacy within the period fixed herein. A
person who has filed a certificate of candidacy may, prior to the election, withdraw the
same by submitting to the office concerned a written declaration under oath. No person
shall be eligible for more than one office to be filled in the same election, and if he files
his certificate of candidacy for more than one office, he shall not be eligible for any of
them. However, before the expiration of the period for the filing of certificates of
candidacy, the person who was filed more than one certificate of candidacy may declare
under oath the office for which he desires to be eligible and cancel the certificate of
candidacy for the other office or offices. The filing or withdrawal of a certificate of
candidacy shall not affect whatever civil, criminal or administrative liabilities which a
1

candidate may have incurred.

Page
 Certificate of Candidacy, of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) or
Batas Pambansa Bilang 881, which provides, inter alia:

Section 73. Certificate of candidacy. - No person shall be

eligible for any elective public office unless he files a sworn
certificate of candidacy within the period fixed herein.

1.1. The legislative intent of Sec. 73, OEC/BP 881,

as well as its legal import as interpreted by the Supreme
Court in the above-cited case of Amora, is CRYSTAL
CLEAR.

THE PARTIES

2. Petitioner herein MR. DABLITO JUERA HALLERA, a

candidate for Barangay Kagawad (BK) in the upcoming BSKE, is
of legal age, married, Filipino, resident of Purok 1, Brgy.
Macalang, Buenavista, Agusan del Norte, Philippines ---where
summons and other processes from the Hon. Commission may
be served2.

3. Respondent herein, MRS. LIGAYA LIM SAGURAN, a

candidate for Barangay Kagawad (BK) in the upcoming BSKE, is
of legal age, married, Filipino, resident of Purok 6 Brgy.
Macalang, Buenavista, Agusan del Norte --- where summons
and other processes from the Honorable Commission may be
served3.

Statement of Material Dates and Timeliness of the Petition

4. Respondent herein filed his/her Certificate of Candidacy

(COC) for BK last August 30, 2023; but the fact that said COC
had a defective notarization was only discovered on October
6, 2023, after ATTY. ROLANDO GUALBERT C. SALISE, who
appeared to be the Lawyer-Notary Public who “notarized”
Respondent’s COC, issued an Affidavit4 stating under oath that
the signature on top of his name appearing on the subject COC
was a forgery/a counterfeit and the use of a certain MR. RAUL
CANATOY GAVERO of his notarial book and seal was un-
authorized, hence, illegal.

5. Thus, this Petition for Disqualification, is well within the

prescriptive period of “5 days…from the discovery of the
commission of the offense, but not later than the date of
proclamation” as provided under the Grounds, Period of
2 See a copy of Petitioner’s COC attached herewith as ANNEX – “A”
2

3 See a Certified True Copy of Respondent’s COC attached herewith as ANNEX – “B”
Page

4 See a copy of Atty. Salise’s October 6, 2023 Affidavit attached herewith as ANNEX – “C”
 Filing and Who may File Petitions posted by the COMELEC
on its official Facebook Account5; and, also, as provided under
The COMELEC Rules of Procedure6 Rule 25 – Disqualification
of Candidates, Sec. 3. Period to File Petition. – “The petition
shall be filed any day after the last day for filing of
certificates of candidacy but not later than the date of
proclamation”.

5.1. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that this

instant Petition is timely filed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS; CAUSE OF ACTION

6. In Buenavista, Agusan del Norte, during the COMELEC

scheduled filing of Certificate of Candidacy for the upcoming
BSKE, i.e., from August 28 – September 2, 2023, a certain MR.
RAUL C. GAVERO, who is not a lawyer, thus, not a notary
public, pretended to be ATTY. ROLANDO GUALBERT C.
SALISE. Mr. Gavero-as-the-impostor-Atty. Salise, set up an
“office” in front of the municipal building and offered notarial
services to the public.

7. Respondent herein, who was a candidate for BK of Brgy.

of Malapong, Buenavista, Agusan del Norte, negligently let the
“impostor” Mr. Gavero “notarize” his COC which was filed with,
submitted to, and received by the COMELEC Buenavista.

8. As the acts of notarizing documents, by the “impostor” Mr.

Gavero, were done in public, Mr. Rodel P. Roses, a candidate
for Punong Barangay of Barangay Poblacion 10, Buenavista,
Agusan del Norte, was curious whether or not a “non-lawyer” like
Mr. Gavero, whom Mr. Roses personally knew, could legally and
validly notarize a document, like a COC for the upcoming BSKE.

9. Mr. Roses did some research on the matter and became

aware that Mr. Gavero could not legally and validly notarize a
document according to the pertinent provisions of the 2004
Notarial Act7; more so, a Certificate of Candidacy (COC), which
“rests at the very core of the electoral process”8.
5 See https://www.facebook.com/comelec.ph/. Accessed 15/09/2023.

6 See https://www.set.gov.ph/resources/election-law/comelec-rules-of-procedure/.
Accessed 15/09/2023.

7 See 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice - Supreme Court of the Philippines

(judiciary.gov.ph). Accessed 15/09/2023.
3

8 The importance of a valid certificate of candidacy rests at the very core of the electoral
Page

process. (Bautista vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 154796, 23 October 2003)

 10. Mr. Roses advised MRS. SHIRLEY MORENO
EDOC, a candidate for Punong Barangay of Barangay Macalang
who subsequently filed a Petition for Disqualification against
his/her opponent. Mrs. Edoc advised Petitioner herein of the
implications of Mr. Gavero’s illegal and invalid notarial act, and
recommended that Petitioner secure a Certified True Copy
(CTC) of Mrs. Saguran’s COC, “purportedly notarized” by Atty.
Salise filed with COMELEC Buenavista. Petitioner obtained a
CTC-COC of Mrs. Saguran’s Respondent herein, last October 3,
20239.

11. Privy with what transpired in the filing of Mrs. Edoc’s

Petition for Disqualification against his/her opponent, Petitioner
also sought Atty. Salise and presented to the latter Mrs.
Saguran’s COC for BK of Brgy. Macalang, Buenavista, Agusan
del Norte, with Doc. No. 91; Page No. 19; Book No. 28; Series
of 2023. After examining said CTC-COC, Atty. Salise issued an
Affidavit10 on the matter stating under oath, among others, that:

1st - He did not authorize a certain Mr. Raul C.

Gavero to act in his behalf or represent him in
any capacity in any and all transactions in
Buenavista, Agusan del Norte; more
specifically/specially, to make notarial acts under
his name & notarial seal;

2nd - He did not notarize, on Aug. 29, 2023, Mrs.

Saguran’s COC for Barangay Kagawad BSKE
with Doc. No. 91; Page No. 19; Book No. 28

3rd - In his Notarial Register (NR), THERE IS NO

SUCH Doc. No. 91; Page No. 19; Book No. 28;
&

4th His signature and his seal on the subject COC

was forged and counterfeited.
4

9 Supra Note 3.
Page

10 Supra Note 4.
 5.1. Moreover, the difference and dissimilarity between
the “forged signature” and the “real signature” of Atty. Salise is
GLARING and OBVIOUS to the naked eye as manifested above.

5.2. Also, the previous Petitions already filed with the

Office of the Clerk of the Commission (OCOC) was already
acted upon by the COMELEC when it issued the corresponding
summons, like the one issued to Respondent in Cañete vs.
Sabanal SPA No. 23-202 (BRGY), to wit:

CAUSE OF ACTION; GROUND

0. The sole ground in herein Petition is that: The COC for

BK, Respondent herein, submitted to COMELEC Buenavista, is
NOT A SWORN COC in violation of Section 73 of the OEC
because of its defective notarization. Thus, ipso facto and ipso
5

jure, Respondent has not submitted a valid COC for the

Page

upcoming October 30, 2023 BSKE.

 GROUND; ARGUMENTS

0. In the afore-cited Amora case, the Supreme Court

annulled and set aside the COMELEC ruling strictly construing
the 2004 Notarial Act (NA) in this wise:

In this case, however, contrary to the declarations of the

COMELEC, Amora complied with the requirement of a
sworn COC. He readily explained that he and Atty. Granada
personally knew each other; they were not just colleagues at
the League of Municipal Mayors, Bohol Chapter, but they
consider each other as distant relatives. Thus, the alleged
defect in the oath was not proven by Olandria since the
presentation of a CTC turned out to be sufficient in this
instance. On the whole, the COMELEC should not have
brushed aside the affidavit of Atty. Granada and remained
inflexible in the face of Amora’s victory and proclamation as
Mayor of Candijay, Bohol.
[Emphasis and Underlining
Ours]

0. Instructively, in the above-cited case, despite the fact that

Amora presented before the Notary Public, Atty Granada, a mere
Community Tax Certificate (CTC), which is not “a competent
evidence of identity” as provided Section 2, (b) of the 2004 NA,
thus, in violation thereto, the Supreme Court ruled in Amora’s
favor and against the COMELEC on two grounds, namely:

1 : Atty. Granada, the Lawyer-Notary Public, submitted an

st

Affidavit stating that he personally knew Amora, hence,

Sec. 2, 2004 NA was substantially complied with; and

2 : Amora eventually won the election as municipal Mayor

nd

of Candijay, Bohol.

0. HOWEVER, the Supreme Court, ever mindful of the “un-

intended” but anticipated possible “mis-reading” of the Amora
ruling, strongly qualified the same in this wise:

Our ruling herein does not do away with the formal

requirement that a COC be sworn. In fact, we emphasize that
the filing of a COC is mandatory and must comply with the
requirements set forth by law

0. Therefore, the rule that a candidate should “file a sworn

certificate of candidacy within the period fixed” by law, i.e.
Sec. 73, OEC, is MANDATORY AND JURISDICTIONAL.

18. 1. The legislative intent and legal import of the

6

Court’s ruling re: Sec. 73, OEC, sufficiently surfaces and its
Page
 LEGAL CONSEQUENCE COGENTLY CLEAR.

0. Mrs. Balansag’s filing of her COC for PB for the BSKE ---
that was tainted by a falsified notarization, hence, legally
infirmed & defective--- is tantamount to submitting an “un-
sworn” COC. Thus, it is as if Respondent had not filed a
COC at all!

Good Faith vs. Negligence

0. Respondent could well argue that she did not know that
Mr. Gavero was not who he pretended to be, i.e., Atty. Salise,
who is a lawyer and a notary public, and, would somehow
ground her argument in good faith.

20.1. But, alas and alack for Respondent! The

OEC is a special law and an argument based on good faith,
generally, is unavailing against a malum prohibitum.

21. Moreover, the General Guidelines (COMELEC

Resolution No. 10924)11 expressly provided in Section 169,
Contents and forms of Certificate of Candidacy, the following:

The COC shall be sworn to before a Notary Public or any

official authorized to administer oath. For this purpose,
Election Officers within their areas of jurisdiction shall be
allowed to administer oath on the COC and all other related
documents, free of charge, even in their capacities as notaries
public.
[Emphasis and Underlining Ours]

22. The COMELEC even ordered their Election

Officers to administer oath on the COC free of charge; but,
Respondent herein, opted, to her own injury and damage, to let
Mr. Gavero, pretending to be Atty. Salise, notarize her COC.

23. The Revised Rules of Evidence, provides that ---

Section 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following

presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be
contradicted and overcome by other evidence:

(c) That a person intends the ordinary consequences of

his voluntary act;

(d) That a person takes ordinary care of his concerns;

[Emphasis and Underlining Ours]

--- thus: it is expected that everyone should observe

ordinary diligence, i.e., the diligence of a good father in
7
Page

11 See COMELEC Resolutions :: Commission on Elections. Accessed 07/09/2023.

 going about his/her voluntary acts in life. More so, with
regard the filing of one’s COC for public office at the
Barangay LGU level.

Mandatory vs. Directory

24. In a long line of cases, the Court consistently held that

“rules and regulations for the conduct of elections are mandatory
before, but directory, after election,” to wit:

This Court recognizes that the COMELEC is empowered by law

to prescribe such rules so as to make efficacious and
successful the conduct of elections.
However, it is a long standing principle in jurisprudence
that rules and regulations for the conduct of elections are
mandatory before the election, but when they are sought to
be enforced after the election they are held to be directory
only, if that is possible, especially where, if they are held to be
mandatory, innocent voters will be deprived of their votes
without any fault on their part. Over time, we have qualified this
doctrine to refer only to matters of form and cannot be applied
to the substantial qualifications of candidates. This was
discussed…in Mitra v. COMELEC, thus:

We have applied in past cases the principle that the manifest

will of the people as expressed through the ballot must be given
fullest effect; in case of doubt, political laws must be interpreted
to give life and spirit to the popular mandate. Thus, we have
held that while provisions relating to certificates of candidacy
are in mandatory terms, it is an established rule of interpretation
as regards election laws, that mandatory provisions, requiring
certain steps before elections, will be construed as directory
after the elections, to give effect to the will of the people.

Quite recently, however, we warned against a blanket and

unqualified reading and application of this ruling, as it may
carry dangerous significance to the rule of law and the
integrity of our elections. For one, such blanket/unqualified
reading may provide a way around the law that effectively
negates election requirements aimed at providing the electorate
with the basic information for an informed choice about a
candidate’s eligibility and fitness for office. Short of adopting a
clear cut standard, we thus made the following clarification:

We distinguish our ruling in this case from others that we have

made in the past by the clarification that COC defects beyond
matters of form and that involve material
misrepresentations cannot avail of the benefit of our ruling that
COC mandatory requirements before elections are considered
merely directory after the people shall have spoken. A
mandatory and material election law requirement involves more
than the will of the people in any given locality. Where
a material COC misrepresentation under oath is made, thereby
8

violating both our election and criminal laws, we are faced as

Page

well with an assault on the will of the people of the Philippines

 as expressed in our laws. In a choice between provisions on
material qualifications of elected officials, on the one hand, and
the will of the electorate in any given locality, on the other, we
believe and so hold that we cannot choose the electorate will.
[Emphasis w/ Underlining Ours; Underlining & Italics,
Original]
---Engle vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 215995 January 19,
2016

25. Without a scintilla of suspicion, the Respondent’s

COC for BK for BSKE Oct. 30, 2023---at this very stage,
whereby Election day is still more than a month away--- is
susceptible to be assailed via a Petition for Disqualification on
the ground that Sec. 73, OEC, was violated.

26. COMELEC Buenavista had already done its best to

9
Page

apprise every candidate, including Respondent herein, MINHEART

MELAYO ASISTIDO, through a Gen. Orientation last Aug. 22, 2023,
AM at the municipal gym, whereby the General Guidelines
(COMELEC Reso. 10924) was thoroughly discussed.

27. Respondent’s negligence was the proximate cause12 of

the damage and injury he must suffer by operation of law.

Negligence, the Court said in Layugan v. Intermediate Appellate

Court, is "the omission to do something which a reasonable
man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate
the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of
something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do…
---BJDC Cons. vs. Lanuzo, G.R. No. 161151, March 24, 2014

Dūra Lēx, Sed Lēx. The law is harsh, but it is the law.

RELIEF; PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed

that the Hon. Commission DISQUALIFY Respondent MINHEART
MELAYO ASISTIDO, as a candidate for Sangguniang Kabataan
Chairperson of Barangay Malpoc, Buenavista, Agusan del Norte, in
the upcoming October 30, 2023 BSKE, on the ground that the COC
filed with, submitted to and received by COMELEC Buenavista was
NOT a SWORN COC, thus, in violation of Section 73, OEC.

FURTHER, the Petitioner politely prays for such and other

reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Buenavista, Agusan del Norte, for Manila, Philippines. October

2, 2023.

RECHIE LOU POCONG ABRENICA

Petitioner/Reg. Voter: P-80-B
Driver’s License No. K01-19-011186

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 2nd day of October 2023

at Buenavista, Agusan del Norte, Philippines, with Affiant exhibiting her proof of
identity as indicated.
Doc. No. _____
Page No. _____
GENE ESTEBAN S. PRISCO, JR.
Book No. _____ Roll No. 72316; MCLE Compliance No. VII-0021132
Series of 2023. Notarial Com.38-04-2023 (12/31/2024)
IBP No. 205846 (2023); PTR No. 8519241 (2023)

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
10

12 Proximate cause is defined as "that cause, which, in natural and continuous

Page

sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without
which the result would not have occurred.
 I, RECHIE LOU POCONG ABRENICA, a candidate for
Sangguniang Kabataan Chairperson in the upcoming BSKE, legal
age, single, and a resident of Purok 2, Brgy. Malpoc, Buenavista,
Agusan del Norte, Philippines, after having been sworn to under the
law, do hereby depose and state that:

1. That I am the Petitioner in this Petition for Disqualification

(Special Action) before the Honorable COMELEC;

2. That I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing

Petition;

3. That the allegations therein are true and correct to the best of
my own personal knowledge and based on authentic documents on
record;

4. That I have not commenced any other action or proceedings

involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or any other tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and to the best
of my knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein;
and

5. That if I should thereafter learn that the same or similar

action or claim has been filed or pending, I shall report such fact
within five (5) days therefrom.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affixed my signature this

2nd day of October 2023 at Buenavista, Agusan del Norte,
Philippines.

RECHIE LOU POCONG ABRENICA

Affiant
Driver’s License No. K01-19-011186

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 2nd day of October 2023

at Buenavista, Agusan del Norte, Philippines, with the affiant exhibiting to me her
competent evidence of identity as above indicated. I hereby certify that I
personally examined the affiant and I am convinced that she executed this
affidavit freely and voluntarily and she understood the same.
11
Page
Doc. No. _____ GENE ESTEBAN S. PRISCO, JR.
Page No. _____ Roll No. 72316; MCLE Compliance No. VII-0021132
Book No. _____ Notarial Com.38-04-2023 (12/31/2024)
Series of 2023. IBP No. 205846 (2023); PTR No. 8519241 (2023)

12
Page