G.R. No. 135886 - VICTORINO SALCEDO II, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ERMELITA CACAO SALCEDO. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, this Commission (SECOND DIVISION) RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to CANCEL the Certificate of Candidacy of respondent for the position of Municipal Mayor of Sara, Iloilo in the May 11, 1998 elections. [9] However, in its e n banc Resolution dated October 6, 1998, the Comelec overturned its previous resolution, ruling that private respondent's certificate of candidacy did not contain any material misrepresentation. It disposed of the case in this manner - The record shows that respondent Ermelita C. Salcedo married Neptali Salcedo on September 21, 1986. Under Article 370 of the Civil Code, the respondent may use her husband's surname. Hence, there is no material misrepresentation nor usurpation of another's name. At any rate, its has been said that the "filing of a certificate of candidacy is a technicality that should be enforced before the election, but can be disregarded after the electorate has made the choosing" (Collado vs. Alonzo, 15 SCRA 526). This rule is in consonance with the policy announced in many decisions that "the rules and regulations, for the conduct of elections, are mandatory before the elections, but when it is sought to enforce them after the elections, they are held to be directory only" (Lambonao vs. Tero, 15 SCRA 716). Futhermore, the municipal board of canvassers proclaimed the respondent last May 13, 1998, as the duly elect mayor of the municipality of Sara, Province of Iloilo. Any defect in the respondent's cerficate of candidacy should give way to the will of the electorate. WHEREFORE, the COMMISSION resolves to GRANT the instant Motion for Reconsideration. We REVERSE the resolution (Second Division) promulgated on August 12, 1998, cancelling the certificate of candidacy of the respondent Ermelita C. Salcedo. The proclamation of Ermelita C. Salcedo, as mayor of Sara, Iloilo, remains valid, there being no legal ground to set it aside. [10] This last resolution of the Comelec prompted petitioner to repair to this Court by way of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, claiming that public respondent's ruling was issued in grave abuse of its discretion. Contrary to petitioner's contention, we are of the opinion that the main issue in this case is not whether or not private respondent is entitled to use a specific surname in her certificate of candidacy, [11] but whether the use of such surname constitutes a material misrepresentation under section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code (the "Code") so as to justify the cancellation of her certificate of candidacy. We hold that it does not. Every person aspiring to hold any elective public office must file a sworn certificate of candidacy. [12] One of the things which should be stated therein is that the candidate is eligible for the office. [13] In case there is a material misrepresentation in the certificate of candidacy, the Comelec is authorized to deny due course to or cancel such certificate upon the filing of a petition by any person pursuant to section 78 o