Tagolino vs.

House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal

G.R. No. 202202 March 19, 2013 Perlas-Bernabe
Petitioners Respondents
 Silverio Tagolino  House of Rep Electoral Tribunal (HRET)
 Lucy Torres-Gomez
Procedural History
 Petitioner filed a petition for quo warranto before the HRET to oust respondent Lucy Torres
from her congressional seat claiming that: (1) she failed to comply w/ the 1-yr residency
requirement, (2) she didn’t validly substitute for Richard Gomez since his CoC was void ab
initio, (3) respondent Lucy Torres’ CoC was void since she failed to show valid proof of her
identity before the notarizing officer.
 HRET dismissed the petition for quo warranto and declared that respondent Lucy was a
qualified candidate for the position of Leyte Representative (4 th Legislative District). This
decision is HRET Case No. 10-031.
 Hence, this instant petition.
Facts of the Case
 In 2009, Richard Gomez filed his Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) w/ the COMELEC seeking
congressional office as the Rep for the 4th Legislative District of Leyte under the Liberal
Party.
 Buenaventura Juntilla, one among the opposing candidates, filed a petition alleging that
Gomez who was actually a resident of Colgate St., East Greenhills, San Juan City,
misrepresented in his CoC that he resided in Ormoc City. Juntilla asserted that Gomez
failed to meet the 1-yr residency requirement under Sec. 6 Art. 6 of the Const. He also
prayed in said petition that Gomez’ CoC be denied due course and/or cancelled.
 COMELEC First Division granted the petition in a resolution w/out any qualification. Hence,
Gomez was “disqualified” on the ground for lack of residency requirement.
 Thereafter, respondent Lucy filed her CoC as the Liberal Party’s official substitute candidate
for Gomez (respondent’s husband) for the same congressional post.
 The COMELEC Law Dept. made a recommendation to allow the substitution of private
respondent.
 COMELEC En Banc issued a resolution approving, among others, the said
recommendation of its Law Dept.
 On May 10, 2010, the national and local elections took place. Gomez, whose name
remained on the ballots, garnered 101,250 votes while his opponents Codilla and herein
petitioner Silverio Tagolino obtained 76,549 and 493 votes, respectively. In view of the
substitution, Gomez’ garnered votes were credited to respondent Lucy and she was
proclaimed the duly-elected Rep of the 4th District of Leyte.
Issues Ruling
1. W/N the HRET gravely abused its discretion in finding that Richard Gomez Yes
was validly substituted by respondent Lucy Torres as candidate for Leyte
Representative in view of the former’s failure to meet the 1-yr residency
requirement provided under Sec. 6 Art. 6 of the Const.
2. W/N…
3. W/N…
4. W/N…
5. W/N…
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis
1. The Omnibus Election Code (OEC) provides that a candidate’s bid for public office can be
assailed under Sec. 78 of the OEC thru a denial of due course to and/or cancellation of a
CoC. This is premised on a person’s false misrepresentation of any of the material
qualifications required for the office aspired for. If the COMELEC finds that a candidate
 made such a false misrepresentation, it is empowered by the law to deny due course to or
cancel his CoC. It also follows that a cancelled CoC is considered void ab initio and thus,
cannot give rise to a valid candidacy. Hence under Sec. 78 of the OEC, such a person who
commits this is not treated as a candidate at all – as if he never filed a CoC.
2. Sec. 77 of the OEC provides that there be an “official candidate” for a substitution to
proceed. A candidate is any person seeking an elective public office who has filed a CoC w/
the COMELEC. The CoC is the document which formally accords upon a person the status
of an official candidate for the elections. Needless to say, w/out a valid CoC one is not
considered a candidate. It then follows that a person whose CoC has been denied due
course to and/or cancelled does not have a valid CoC. And w/out it, such a person cannot
be validly substituted in the elections.

3. The Court wants to point out that although COMELEC First Division didn’t explicitly state
the denial of due course to and/or cancellation of Gomez’ CoC (since they only say that his
CoC is “disqualified”), this should not have prevented COMELEC En Banc from declaring
the invalidity of respondent Lucy’s substitution of Gomez. Court also wants to stress that the
basis for Gomez’ “disqualification” is his failure to comply with the residency requirement
under Sec. 6 Art. 6 of the Const., which is a ground for a denial of due course to and/or
cancellation of a CoC under Sec. 78 of the OEC.

4. With this, the HRET should NOT have dismissed the petition and adopted the COMELEC
En Banc’s erroneous finding that Gomez’ CoC was only “disqualified”, not cancelled per se.
5. 

Disposition
The petition is GRANTED. The decision rendered in HRET Case No. 10-031 is reversed and set
aside.
Separate Opinions
N/A