Lawyerly

GR No. 205136

2014-12-02

PEREZ, J.

Under the express provision of Sec. 77 of B. P. Blg. 881, not just any person, but only "an official candidate of a registered or accredited political party" may be substituted.[21] In the case at bar, Kimberly was an official nominee of the Liberal Party;[22] thus, she can be validly substituted.

GR No. 193237

2012-10-09

DOMINADOR G. JALOSJOS v. COMELEC

CARPIO, J.

In Bautista v. Commission on Elections,[45] the Court stated that a cancelled CoC does not give rise to a valid candidacy. A person without a valid CoC cannot be considered a candidate in much the same way as any person who has not filed any CoC cannot at all be a candidate.[46] Hence, the cancellation of Jalosjos' CoC rendered him a non-candidate in the May 10, 2010 elections.

GR No. 193237

2012-10-09

DOMINADOR G. JALOSJOS v. COMELEC

CARPIO, J.

In Bautista v. Commission on Elections,[45] the Court stated that a cancelled CoC does not give rise to a valid candidacy. A person without a valid CoC cannot be considered a candidate in much the same way as any person who has not filed any CoC cannot at all be a candidate.[46] Hence, the cancellation of Jalosjos' CoC rendered him a non-candidate in the May 10, 2010 elections.

GR No. 196804

2012-10-09

MAYOR BARBARA RUBY C. TALAGA v. COMELEC

BERSAMIN, J.

The evident purposes of the requirement for the filing of CoCs and in fixing the time limit for filing them are, namely: (a) to enable the voters to know, at least 60 days prior to the regular election, the candidates from among whom they are to make the choice; and (b) to avoid confusion and inconvenience in the tabulation of the votes cast. If the law does not confine to the duly-registered candidates the choice by the voters, there may be as many persons voted for as there are voters, and votes may be cast even for unknown or fictitious persons as a mark to identify the votes in favor of a candidate for another office in the same election.[28] Moreover, according to Sinaca v. Mula,[29] the CoC is: x x x in the nature of a formal manifestation to the whole world of the candidate's political creed or lack of political creed. It is a statement of a person seeking to run for a public office certifying that he announces his candidacy for the office mentioned and that he is eligible for the office, the name of the political party to which he belongs, if he belongs to any, and his post-office address for all election purposes being as well stated.

GR No. 189755

2012-07-04

EMETERIA LIWAG v. HAPPY GLEN LOOP HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

SERENO, J.

The basic statutory construction principle of ejusdem generis states that where a general word or phrase follows an enumeration of particular and specific words of the same class, the general word or phrase is to be construed to include or to be restricted to things akin to or resembling, or of the same kind or class as, those specifically mentioned.[34]

GR No. 192856

2011-03-08

FERNANDO V. GONZALEZ v. COMELEC

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

We have declared that not even this Court has authority under any law to impose upon and compel the people to accept a loser, as their representative or political leader.[66] The wreath of victory cannot be transferred from the disqualified winner to the repudiated loser.[67] The COMELEC clearly acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the proclamation of private respondent Lim who lost by a wide margin of 29,292 votes, after declaring Gonzalez, the winning candidate, disqualified to run as Member of the House of Representatives.

GR No. 190582

2010-04-08

ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS CHAIR v. COMELEC

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Respondent also argues that Ang Ladlad made untruthful statements in its petition when it alleged that it had nationwide existence through its members and affiliate organizations. The COMELEC claims that upon verification by its field personnel, it was shown that "save for a few isolated places in the country, petitioner does not exist in almost all provinces in the country."[21]

GR NO. 164036

2007-10-19

SPS. SANTIAGO AND MA. CONSUELO CARLOS v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

At the outset, it must be noted that the three assailed orders are only interlocutory and can only be assailed through an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65,[14] where it must be shown that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing these orders amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It is well-settled that an act of a court or tribunal may only be considered to have been done in grave abuse of discretion when the same was performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[15] Considering the circumstances of this case, we agree that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.

GR NO. 165983

2007-04-24

JOY CHRISMA B. LUNA v. COMELEC

CARPIO, J.

It would have been different if there was a petition to deny due course to or cancel Hans Roger's certificate of candidacy. For if the COMELEC cancelled Hans Roger's certificate of candidacy after the proper proceedings, then he is no candidate at all and there can be no substitution of a person whose certificate of candidacy has been cancelled and denied due course.[15] However, Hans Roger's certificate of candidacy was never cancelled or denied due course by the COMELEC.

GR NO. 154463

2006-09-05

CEBU METAL CORPORATION v. GREGORIO ROBERT SALILING

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

It is well settled that an act of a court or tribunal may only be considered to have been done in grave abuse of discretion when the same was performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[19] The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined or to a ct at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary power and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.[20]

GR NO. 149739

2006-07-14

STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE v. CA

CORONA, J.

Neither of the assailed resolutions amounted to abuse of discretion which must be so patent and gross as to amount to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of the law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.[29]

GR NO. 163295

2006-01-23

FRANCIS G. ONG v. JOSEPH STANLEY ALEGRE

GARCIA, J.

Not to be overlooked is the Court's holding in Miranda vs. Abaya,[22] that a candidate whose certificate of candidacy has been cancelled or not given due course cannot be substituted by another belonging to the same political party as that of the former, thus:While there is no dispute as to whether or not a nominee of a registered or accredited political party may substitute for a candidate of the same party who had been disqualified for any cause, this does not include those cases where the certificate of candidacy of the person to be substituted had been denied due course and cancelled under Section 78 of the Code.

GR No. 157526

2004-04-28

EMILIANA TORAL KARE v. COMELEC

PANGANIBAN, J.

We reiterate that this Court has no authority under any law to impose upon and compel the people of Malinao, Albay, to accept Ceriola as their mayor.[27] The law on succession under Section 44 of Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code, would then apply. This provision relevantly states:"SECTION 44. Permanent Vacancies in the Offices of the Governor, Vice-Governor, Mayor, and Vice Mayor.

GR Nos. 154796-97

2003-10-23

RAYMUNDO A. BAUTISTA v. COMELEC

CARPIO, J.

Bautista was aware when he filed his certificate of candidacy for the office of Punong Barangay that he lacked one of the qualifications - that of being a registered voter in the barangay where he ran for office. He therefore made a misrepresentation of a material fact when he made a false statement in his certificate of candidacy that he was a registered voter in Barangay Lumbangan.[42] An elective office is a public trust. He who aspires for elective office should not make a mockery of the electoral process by falsely representing himself. The importance of a valid certificate of candidacy rests at the very core of the electoral process.[43] Under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, false representation of a material fact in the certificate of candidacy is a ground for the denial or cancellation of the certificate of candidacy. The material misrepresentation contemplated by Section 78 refers to qualifications for elective office. A candidate guilty of misrepresentation may be (1) prevented from running, or (2) if elected, from serving, or (3) prosecuted for violation of the election laws.[44]

	GR No. 205136 2014-12-02	OLIVIA DA SILVA CERAFICA v. COMELEC PEREZ, J.
Under the express provision of Sec. 77 of B. P. Blg. 881, not just any person, but only "an official candidate of a registered or accredited political party" may be substituted.[21] In the case at bar, Kimberly was an official nominee of the Liberal Party;[22] thus, she can be validly substituted.
	GR No. 193237 2012-10-09	DOMINADOR G. JALOSJOS v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
In Bautista v. Commission on Elections,[45] the Court stated that a cancelled CoC does not give rise to a valid candidacy. A person without a valid CoC cannot be considered a candidate in much the same way as any person who has not filed any CoC cannot at all be a candidate.[46] Hence, the cancellation of Jalosjos' CoC rendered him a non-candidate in the May 10, 2010 elections.
	GR No. 193237 2012-10-09	DOMINADOR G. JALOSJOS v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
In Bautista v. Commission on Elections,[45] the Court stated that a cancelled CoC does not give rise to a valid candidacy. A person without a valid CoC cannot be considered a candidate in much the same way as any person who has not filed any CoC cannot at all be a candidate.[46] Hence, the cancellation of Jalosjos' CoC rendered him a non-candidate in the May 10, 2010 elections.
	GR No. 196804 2012-10-09	MAYOR BARBARA RUBY C. TALAGA v. COMELEC BERSAMIN, J.
The evident purposes of the requirement for the filing of CoCs and in fixing the time limit for filing them are, namely: (a) to enable the voters to know, at least 60 days prior to the regular election, the candidates from among whom they are to make the choice; and (b) to avoid confusion and inconvenience in the tabulation of the votes cast. If the law does not confine to the duly-registered candidates the choice by the voters, there may be as many persons voted for as there are voters, and votes may be cast even for unknown or fictitious persons as a mark to identify the votes in favor of a candidate for another office in the same election.[28] Moreover, according to Sinaca v. Mula,[29] the CoC is: x x x in the nature of a formal manifestation to the whole world of the candidate's political creed or lack of political creed. It is a statement of a person seeking to run for a public office certifying that he announces his candidacy for the office mentioned and that he is eligible for the office, the name of the political party to which he belongs, if he belongs to any, and his post-office address for all election purposes being as well stated.
	GR No. 189755 2012-07-04	EMETERIA LIWAG v. HAPPY GLEN LOOP HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SERENO, J.
The basic statutory construction principle of ejusdem generis states that where a general word or phrase follows an enumeration of particular and specific words of the same class, the general word or phrase is to be construed to include or to be restricted to things akin to or resembling, or of the same kind or class as, those specifically mentioned.[34]
	GR No. 192856 2011-03-08	FERNANDO V. GONZALEZ v. COMELEC VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We have declared that not even this Court has authority under any law to impose upon and compel the people to accept a loser, as their representative or political leader.[66] The wreath of victory cannot be transferred from the disqualified winner to the repudiated loser.[67] The COMELEC clearly acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the proclamation of private respondent Lim who lost by a wide margin of 29,292 votes, after declaring Gonzalez, the winning candidate, disqualified to run as Member of the House of Representatives.
	GR No. 190582 2010-04-08	ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS CHAIR v. COMELEC DEL CASTILLO, J.
Respondent also argues that Ang Ladlad made untruthful statements in its petition when it alleged that it had nationwide existence through its members and affiliate organizations. The COMELEC claims that upon verification by its field personnel, it was shown that "save for a few isolated places in the country, petitioner does not exist in almost all provinces in the country."[21]
	GR NO. 164036 2007-10-19	SPS. SANTIAGO AND MA. CONSUELO CARLOS v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
At the outset, it must be noted that the three assailed orders are only interlocutory and can only be assailed through an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65,[14] where it must be shown that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing these orders amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It is well-settled that an act of a court or tribunal may only be considered to have been done in grave abuse of discretion when the same was performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[15] Considering the circumstances of this case, we agree that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.
	GR NO. 165983 2007-04-24	JOY CHRISMA B. LUNA v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
It would have been different if there was a petition to deny due course to or cancel Hans Roger's certificate of candidacy. For if the COMELEC cancelled Hans Roger's certificate of candidacy after the proper proceedings, then he is no candidate at all and there can be no substitution of a person whose certificate of candidacy has been cancelled and denied due course.[15] However, Hans Roger's certificate of candidacy was never cancelled or denied due course by the COMELEC.
	GR NO. 154463 2006-09-05	CEBU METAL CORPORATION v. GREGORIO ROBERT SALILING CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is well settled that an act of a court or tribunal may only be considered to have been done in grave abuse of discretion when the same was performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[19] The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined or to a ct at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary power and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.[20]
	GR NO. 149739 2006-07-14	STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE v. CA CORONA, J.
Neither of the assailed resolutions amounted to abuse of discretion which must be so patent and gross as to amount to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of the law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.[29]
	GR NO. 163295 2006-01-23	FRANCIS G. ONG v. JOSEPH STANLEY ALEGRE GARCIA, J.
Not to be overlooked is the Court's holding in Miranda vs. Abaya,[22] that a candidate whose certificate of candidacy has been cancelled or not given due course cannot be substituted by another belonging to the same political party as that of the former, thus:While there is no dispute as to whether or not a nominee of a registered or accredited political party may substitute for a candidate of the same party who had been disqualified for any cause, this does not include those cases where the certificate of candidacy of the person to be substituted had been denied due course and cancelled under Section 78 of the Code.
	GR No. 157526 2004-04-28	EMILIANA TORAL KARE v. COMELEC PANGANIBAN, J.
We reiterate that this Court has no authority under any law to impose upon and compel the people of Malinao, Albay, to accept Ceriola as their mayor.[27] The law on succession under Section 44 of Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code, would then apply. This provision relevantly states:"SECTION 44. Permanent Vacancies in the Offices of the Governor, Vice-Governor, Mayor, and Vice Mayor.
	GR Nos. 154796-97 2003-10-23	RAYMUNDO A. BAUTISTA v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
Bautista was aware when he filed his certificate of candidacy for the office of Punong Barangay that he lacked one of the qualifications - that of being a registered voter in the barangay where he ran for office. He therefore made a misrepresentation of a material fact when he made a false statement in his certificate of candidacy that he was a registered voter in Barangay Lumbangan.[42] An elective office is a public trust. He who aspires for elective office should not make a mockery of the electoral process by falsely representing himself. The importance of a valid certificate of candidacy rests at the very core of the electoral process.[43] Under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, false representation of a material fact in the certificate of candidacy is a ground for the denial or cancellation of the certificate of candidacy. The material misrepresentation contemplated by Section 78 refers to qualifications for elective office. A candidate guilty of misrepresentation may be (1) prevented from running, or (2) if elected, from serving, or (3) prosecuted for violation of the election laws.[44]

JOEL G. MIRANDA v. ANTONIO M. ABAYA