8/29/2018 SUPREME  COURT  REPORTS  ANNOTTED  VOLUME  717

G.R.  No.  206698February.  25,
   *
    2014.

LUIS R. VILLAFUERTE, petitioner, vs.COMMISSIONON
ELECTIONS  and  MIGUEL  R.  VILLAFUERTE,  respondents.

Election   Law;   Certificates   of   Candidacy   (COC);   Omnibus   Election

Code;Section   73   ofthe   OmnibusElection   Code   statesthatno   person   shall
beeligibleforanyelectivepublicofficeunlesshefilesa   sworn   Certificateof
Candidacy within  the  period fixed  herein.—  Section 73  of  the   Omnibus
Election   Code   statesthatno   person   shallbe   eligible   forany   elective   public
officeunlesshefilesasworn COC within theperiod fixed herein.

Same;Same;Misrepresentation;Forthepetition   to   denyduecourseor
cancelthe   Certificate   ofCandidacy   (COC)ofone   candidate   to   prosper,the
candidate   must   have   made   a   material   misrepresentation   involving   his
eligibility orqualification forthe office to which he seekselection,such as the
requisite   residency,   age,   citizenship   or   any   other   legal   qualification
necessary   to   run   for   local   elective   office   as   provided   in   the   Local
GovernmentCode (LGC).— Forthe petition to deny due course orcancel the
COC   of   one   candidate   to   prosper,   the   candidate   must   have   made   a
materialmisrepresentation involving his eligibility or qualification for the
office   to   which   he   seeks   election,   such   as   the   requisite   residency,   age,
citizenship  orany  otherlegalqualification   necessary   to   run  forlocalelective
office   as   provided   in   the   Local   Government   Code.   Hence,   petitioner’s
allegation that respondent’s nickname “LRAY JR.M IGZ”  written in his
COC   is   a   material   misrepresentation   is   devoid   of   merit.   Respondent’s
nickname   written   in   the   COC   cannotbe   considered   a   materialfactwhich
pertainsto hiseligibility and thusqualification to run forpublicoffice.

Same;   Same;   Same;   Omnibus   Election   Code   (OEC);   The   false

representation   underSection   78   ofthe   OmnibusElection   Code   mustconsist
ofa   deliberate   attemptto   mislead,misinform,or   hide   a   factwhich   would
otherwise render a candidate ineligible.— The false representation under
Section   78   mustconsistof   a   deliberate   attemptto   mislead,misinform,or
hideafactwhich would otherwiserendera

_______________
 * EN BANC.

313

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165848321a8c77fb958003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/14
8/29/2018 SUPREME  COURT  REPORTS  ANNOTTED  VOLUME  717

candidate   ineligible.Aswe   said,respondent’snickname   isnotconsidered   a

materialfact,and there is no substantialevidence showing thatin writing the
nickname “LRAY  JR.M IGZ” in hisCOC,respondenthad the intention to
deceive   the   votersasto   hisidentity   which   hasan   effecton   hiseligibility
orqualification fortheofficeheseeksto assume.

Same;Same;Itbearsstressing thatSection 74 requires,among others, 
thata candidate shalluse in a Certificate ofCandidacy (COC)the name by 
which he has been baptized,unless the candidate has changed his name 
through court­approved proceedings,and thathemayincludeonenickname 
orstagenamebywhich heisgenerallyorpopularlyknown in thelocality.— 
Itbears stressing thatSection 74 requires,among others,thata candidate 
shalluse in a COC the name by which he has been baptized,unless the 
candidate has changed his name through court­approved proceedings,and 
thathemay includeonenicknameorstagenameby which heisgenerally or 
popularly known in the locality, which respondent did. As we have 
discussed,the name which respondentwrote in his COC to appearin the 
ballot,is notconsidered a materialmisrepresentation underSection 78 of the 
Omnibus Election Code,as itdoes notpertain to his qualification or eligibility
to run for an elective public office. By invoking the case of Villarosa which 
is in the nature of an election protest relating to the proclamation of 
Villarosa,petitioner should have instead filed an election protestand prayed 
thatthe votesforrespondentbe declared asstray votes, and notapetition to 
deny duecourseorcanceltheCOC.

SPECIALCIVILACTIONintheSupremeCourtCertiorari.and
Prohibition.
The  facts  are  stated  in  the  opinion  of  the  Court.
Ma.  CeciliaI.asOlivfor  petitioner.
CallejaLw  Officefor  private  respondent.

PERALTA, J.:

Assailedviapetitionforcertiora andprohibitwithprayeron
for  the  issuance  of  a  writ  of  preliminary  injunction

314

and/ortemporarestrainingyorderistheResolution
   [1]dated April 1, 2013issued 
bytheCommissionElections(COMELEC)EnBanc, 
 whichaffirmedtheResolution [2]datedJanuary15,2013ofitsFirst 
 DivisiondismissingpetitionerLuisR.Villafuerte’sverifiedpetition 
todenyduecoursetoorcancelthecertificateofcandidacyof Miguel 
illafuR.Vrespondent)rte(.
Petitionerandrespondentwereboth candidatesforthe 
GubernatorialpositionoftheProvinceofCamarinesSurintheMay 13,2013 
localand nationalelectioOnsOctober.25,2012,
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165848321a8c77fb958003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/14
8/29/2018 SUPREME  COURT  REPORTS  ANNOTTED  VOLUME  717

petitionfiledwithrtheCOMELEC a VerifiedPetition
   [3]todeny 
duecoursetoorcancelthecertificateofcandidacy(COC) of 
respondent,allegingthatrespondentintentionallyandmaterially misrepresented
a false and deceptive name/ 
nicknamethatwouldmisleadthevoterswhenhedeclaredunder oathinhisCOC 
that“L­RAY JR.­MIGZ”washisnicknameor 
stagenameandthatthenameheintendedtoappearontheofficial 
ballotwasVILLAFUERTE,L­RAY JR.­MIGZNP;thatrespondent 
deliberatelyomittedhisfirstname“MIGUEL”andinserted,instead “LRAY 
JR.,”whichisthenicknameofhisfather,theincumbent Governor of 
Camarines,“LRayillafuerte,SurV.” Jr
In hisAnswerwithSpecialnd AffirmativeDefenses,
   [4] 
respondentdeniedthecommissionofany materialmisrepresentation 
andassertd,amongothers,thathehadbeenusingthenickname “LRAY JR. 
MIGZ”andnotonly“MIGZ”;thathechoiceof
name/word  to  appear  on  the  ballot  was  solely  his

_______________
[1]Rollo,pp.79­88;Per   Curiam;Signed   by   Chairman   Sixto   S.Brillantes,Jr.,
Commissioners   Lucenito   N.Tagle,Elias   R.Yusoph,Christian   RobertS.Lim   and   M
ariaGraciaCielo M .Padaca;Docketed asSPA CaseNo.13­154 (DC)(F).
[2]Id.,atpp.46­49;Per   Curiam;Signed   by   Presiding   Commissioner   Rene   V.
Sarmiento,Armando C.Velasco and Christian RobertS.Lim.
[3]Rollo,pp.89­112.
[4]Id.,atpp.126­137.

315

choiceorpreference;andthatthepresumpthattheionvoterswould
beconfused   thesimplefactthathisnamewouldbeplacedfirstin   the   ballot
was misplaced.
On January15,2013,theCOMELEC’sFirstDivisiondeiedthe
petition  for  lack  of  merit  and  disposed  as  follows:
x x x no compelling reason why the COC ofrespondentshould be denied due
course   to   orcancelled   on   the   sole   basisofan   alleged   irregularity   in   his
name/nickname.   Laws   and   jurisprudence   on   the   matter   are   clear   that
materialmisrepresentation   in   the   COC   pertains   only   to   qualifications   ofa
candidate,such   as   citizenship,residency,registration   as   a   voter,age,etc.
Nothing   has   been   mentioned   about   a   candidate’s   name/nickname   as   a
ground to deny duecourseorcancelhis/herCOC.W hen thelanguageofthe law
is clear and explicit, there is no room for interpretation, only application. [5]
 PetitionfileamotiondrforeconsiderawittheionCOMELEC   En

Banc,whichdeniedthesameina Resolution datedApril1, 2013.

TheCOMELEC   foundthatitsFirstDivisiondidnoterrin
denyingthepetitionasexistinglawand jurisprudenceareclearin
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165848321a8c77fb958003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/14
8/29/2018 SUPREME  COURT  REPORTS  ANNOTTED  VOLUME  717

providingthatmisrepresentinationcertificateofcandidacyis 
materialwhenitreferstoa qualificationforelectiveofficeand 
afectshecandidate’s eligibiliandthaty;misrepresentofation non­
materialfactisnotagroundtodenyduecoursetoorcancel 
certificateofcandidacyunderSection78oftheOmnibusElection 
Code.Itfoundthatpetitioner’s allegationsdidnotpertainto 
respondent’qualificationsoreligibilityfortheofficetowhiche 
soughttobeelectedThecandidate’s.useofa nameornicknameis nota 
groundtodenyduecoursetoorcancelcertificateof candidacy.

_______________
[5]Id.,atp.48.

316

Dissatisfied,petitionerfiledtheinstantpeitionforcertiora and prohibition 

alleging the following issues:

I
RespondentCOM ELEC palpably and seriously committed grave abuse
of   discretion   amounting   to   lack   and/or   in  excess   of   jurisdiction   when  it
whimsically and capriciously limited the groundsprovided in Section 78 in
relation   to   Section   74   of   the   Omnibus   Election   Code   to   a   candidate’s
qualifications   only   and   excluding   as   a   ground   a   candidate’s   material
representation thatisFALSE on hisidentity which rendershim ineligible to be
voted   foras   a   candidate,because   a   FALSE   representation   ofones’true
name/nicknameasacandidateisadeliberateattemptto   misinform,mislead,   and
deceive the electorate and notwithstanding that Section 78 of the Omnibus
Election   Code   expressly   states   that   “any”   material   misrepresentation   in
violation   ofSection   74   ofthe   same   Code   is   a   ground   forcancellation
ofaCertificateofCandidacy.

II
RespondentCOM   ELEC   committed   seriouserrorsand   patentgraveabuse
ofdiscretion amounting to lack and/orin excessofjurisdiction in failing or
refusing  to   apply  prevailing  jurisprudenceand   law,wherein   itwasheld:that
cancellation ofCOC  isnotbased on thelack ofqualification although itmay
relate to qualification based on a “finding thata candidate made a material
representation   that   is   false”;   thereby   disregarding   the   well­entrenched
rulings   of   this   Honorable   Courtthatmaterialmisrepresentation   may   also
include ineligibilitiesto run foroffice orto assume office and isnotlimited to
qualifications;utterly ignoring the ruling of this Honorable Courtthat votes
 castin favorofa candidate using a nickname in violation ofSection 74 are
STRAY votes,and in turning a blind eye to its constitutionaland statutory
duty and responsibility to protectthe rights ofthe voters and the integrity
oftheelectoralprocessesin ourcountry,among others.

317

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165848321a8c77fb958003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/14
8/29/2018 SUPREME  COURT  REPORTS  ANNOTTED  VOLUME  717

III
Respondent   COM   ELEC   whimsically,   capriciously   and   despotically
allowed herein respondentM IGUEL to use“LRAY JR.­M IGZ”and thereby
illegally disregarded the effectsofR.A.8436 asamended by R.A.9369 or the
Automation   Law   and   the   requirement   therein   for   the   alphabetical
arrangementof the names of the candidates and for allowing respondent M
iguel   to   deliberately   and   misleadingly   omit   his   baptismal   first   name   M
IGUEL which ismandatorily required by Section 74 to be included in his
COC and forrespondentM iguelto use more than one nickname forwhich
heisnotgenerally orpopularly known in CamarinesSur.

IV
M aterialmisrepresentation as contemplated by law is NOT to protect
respondent   as   a  candidate,   but   M   ORESO,   to  protect   the   right   of   other
candidatesunderthe   Automation   Law,and   more   importantly   to   protectthe
electoratefrom being misinformed,misled and deceived. [6]

Themainissueforesolutioniswhetherrespondentcommitteda 
materialmisrepresentationunderSection78 of theOmnibus
Election Code so as to justify the cancellation of his PetitionfilerdthepetitionunderSection78 
oftheOmnibus
ElectionCode claimingthatrespondentcommittedmaterial 
misrepresentationwhenthelatterdeclaredinhisCOC thathis name/nicknametobe 
printed the officialballotwas VILLAFUERTE,LRAY JR.­
MIGZinsteadofhisbaptismname,l VILLAFUERTE, M IGUEL­
MIGZ;thatsuchdeclarationmade underoath 
constitutesmaterialmisrepresentationevenifthe 
materialmisrepresentationdidnotrefertohisqualificationsbut 
referredtohiseligibilitytobevalidlyvotedforasa candidand,te consequen,tlyo his 
eligibility to assume office.

_______________
[6]Id.,atpp.15­17.(Underscoring omitted).

318

W e find no meritgumenint.he ar 
Section73oftheOmnibusElectiCondestatesthatnoperson
 shallbeeligibleforanyelectivepublicofficeunlesshefilesasworn COC 
withintheperiodfixedhereinSection.74thereofenumerates the contents of the
COC, to wit:
Sec.   74.   Contents   of   certificate   of   candidacy.—   The   certificate   of
candidacy shallstatethattheperson filing itisannouncing hiscandidacy for the
office stated therein and thathe iseligible forsaid office;ifforM ember of the
Batasang   Pambansa,the   province,including   its   componentcities,   highly
urbanized city ordistrictorsectorwhich he seeks to represent;the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165848321a8c77fb958003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/14