MAYOR BARBARA RUBY C.

TALAGA v COMELEC On election day on May 10, 2010, the name of

and RODERICK A. ALCALA Ramon remained printed on the ballots but the votes
cast in his favor were counted in favor of Barbara
G.R. No. 196804 || G.R. No. 197015 || October 9, Ruby as his substitute candidate, resulting in Barbara
2012 || BERSAMIN, J.: Ruby being ultimately credited with 44,099 votes as
against Castillo’s 39,615 votes.
Case: A disqualification of a substitute who was
proclaimed the winner of a mayoralty election; and the Castillo promptly filed a petition in the City Board of
ascertainment of who should assume the office Canvassers (CBOC) seeking the suspension of
following the substitute’s disqualification. Barbara Ruby’s proclamation.

FACTS: On November 26, 2009 and December 1, It was only on May 13, 2010 when the COMELEC En
2009, Ramon Talaga (Ramon) and Philip M. Castillo Banc, upon the recommendation of its Law
(Castillo) respectively filed their CoCs for the position Department, gave due course to Barbara Ruby’s CoC
of Mayor of Lucena City to be contested in the and CONA, thereby including her in the certified list of
scheduled May 10, 2010 national and local elections. candidates. Consequently, the CBOC proclaimed
Barbara Ruby as the newly-elected Mayor of Lucena
City.
Castillo filed with the COMELEC a petition to Cancel
Certificate of Candidacy of Ramon Y. Talaga, Jr. as
Mayor for Having Already Served Three (3) Castillo filed a Petition for Annulment of Proclamation
Consecutive Terms as a City Mayor of Lucena.  He with the COMELEC. He alleged that Barbara Ruby
alleged that Ramon, despite knowing that he had could not substitute Ramon because his CoC had
been elected and had served three consecutive terms been cancelled and denied due course; and Barbara
as Mayor of Lucena City, still filed his CoC for Mayor Ruby could not be considered a candidate because
of Lucena City. the COMELEC En Banc had approved her
substitution three days after the elections; hence, the
votes cast for Ramon should be considered stray.
In the meantime, on December 23, 2009, the Court
promulgated the ruling in Aldovino, Jr. v. Commission
on Elections, holding that preventive suspension, ISSUES:
being a mere temporary incapacity, was not a valid
ground for avoiding the effect of the three-term limit The core issue involves the validity of the substitution
rule. by Barbara Ruby as candidate for the position of
Mayor of Lucena City in lieu of Ramon, her husband.
Pursuant, however, to the new ruling of the Supreme
Court in respect of the issue on the three (3)-term Ancillary to the core issue is the determination of who
limitation, respondent acknowledges that he is now among the contending parties should assume the
DISQUALIFIED to run for the position of Mayor of contested elective position.
Lucena City having served three (3) (albeit
interrupted) terms as Mayor of Lucena City prior to RULING: The petitions lack merit.
the filing of his certificate of candidacy for the 2010
elections.
1. Existence of a valid CoC is a condition
sine qua non for a valid substitution
7. In view of the foregoing premises and new
jurisprudence on the matter, respondent respectfully
submits the present case for decision declaring him The filing of a CoC within the period provided by law
as DISQUALIFIED to run for the position of Mayor of is a mandatory requirement for any person to be
Lucena City. considered a candidate in a national or local election.
This is clear from Section 73 of the Omnibus Election
Code, to wit:
Notwithstanding his express recognition of his
disqualification to run as Mayor of Lucena City in the
May 10, 2010 national and local elections, Ramon did Section 73. Certificate of candidacy — No person
not withdraw his CoC. shall be eligible for any elective public office unless he
files a sworn certificate of candidacy within the period
fixed herein.
Barbara Ruby filed her own CoC for Mayor of Lucena
City in substitution of Ramon, attaching thereto the
Certificate of Nomination and Acceptance (CONA) Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code specifies
issued by Lakas-Kampi-CMD, the party that had the contents of a COC, viz:
nominated Ramon.
The evident purposes of the requirement for the filing sworn CoC as required by Section 73 of the Omnibus
of CoCs and in fixing the time limit for filing them are, Election Code.
namely: (a) to enable the voters to know, at least 60
days prior to the regular election, the candidates from 2. Declaration of Ramon’s disqualification
among whom they are to make the choice; and (b) to rendered his CoC invalid; hence, he was not
avoid confusion and inconvenience in the tabulation a valid candidate to be properly substituted
of the votes cast. .
In the light of the foregoing rules on the CoC, the
There are two remedies available to prevent a Court concurs with the conclusion of the COMELEC
candidate from running in an electoral race. One is En Banc that the Castillo petition was in the nature of
through a petition for disqualification and the other a petition to deny due course to or cancel a CoC
through a petition to deny due course to or cancel a under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code.
certificate of candidacy. The Court differentiated the
two remedies in Fermin v. Commission on Elections,
thus wise: Miranda v. Abaya has clarified that a candidate who is
disqualified under Section 68 can be validly
substituted pursuant to Section 77 because he
A petition for disqualification, on the one hand, can be remains a candidate until disqualified; but a person
premised on Section 12 or 68 of the Omnibus Election whose CoC has been denied due course or cancelled
Code, or Section 40 of the Local Government Code. under Section 78 cannot be substituted because he is
On the other hand, a petition to deny due course to or not considered a candidate.1âwphi1
cancel a CoC can only be grounded on a statement of
a material representation in the said certificate that is
false. The petitions also have different effects. While a To be sure, the cause of Ramon’s ineligibility (i.e., the
person who is disqualified under Section 68 is merely three-term limit) is enforced both by the Constitution
prohibited to continue as a candidate, the person and statutory law. Article X, Section 8 of the 1987
whose certificate is cancelled or denied due course Constitution provides:
under Section 78 is not treated as a candidate at all,
as if he/she never filed a CoC. Section 8. The term of office of elective local officials,
except barangay officials, which shall be determined
In the event that a candidate is disqualified to run for by law, shall be three years and no such official shall
a public office, or dies, or withdraws his CoC before serve for more than three consecutive terms.
the elections, Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of
Code provides the option of substitution, to wit: time shall not be considered as an interruption in the
continuity of his service for the full term for which he
was elected.
Section 77. Candidates in case of death,
disqualification or withdrawal. — If after the last day
for the filing of certificates of candidacy, an official All told, a disqualified candidate may only be
candidate of a registered or accredited political party substituted if he had a valid certificate of candidacy in
dies, withdraws or is disqualified for any cause, only a the first place because, if the disqualified candidate
person belonging to, and certified by, the same did not have a valid and seasonably filed certificate of
political party may file a certificate of candidacy to candidacy, he is and was not a candidate at all. If a
replace the candidate who died, withdrew or was person was not a candidate, he cannot be substituted
disqualified. under Section 77 of the Code.

Considering that a cancelled CoC does not give rise 3. Elected Vice Mayor must succeed
to a valid candidacy, there can be no valid substitution and assume the position of Mayor
of the candidate under Section 77 of the Omnibus due to a permanent vacancy in the office
Election Code. It should be clear, too, that a
candidate who does not file a valid CoC may not be On the issue of who should assume the office of
validly substituted, because a person without a valid Mayor of Lucena City, Castillo submits that the
CoC is not considered a candidate in much the same doctrine on the rejection of the second-placer
way as any person who has not filed a CoC is not at espoused in Labo, Jr. v. Commission on
all a candidate. Elections should not apply to him because Ramon’s
disqualification became final prior to the elections.
Likewise, a candidate who has not withdrawn his CoC Instead, he cites Cayat v. Commission on Elections,
in accordance with Section 73 of the Omnibus where the Court said:
Election Code may not be substituted. A withdrawal of
candidacy can only give effect to a substitution if the The law expressly declares that a candidate
substitute candidate submits prior to the election a disqualified by final judgment before an election
cannot be voted for, and votes cast for him shall not
be counted. This is a mandatory provision of law. On the other hand, the COMELEC En Banc properly
Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6646, The Electoral disqualified Barbara Ruby from assuming the position
Reforms Law of 1987, states: of Mayor of Lucena City. To begin with, there was no
valid candidate for her to substitute due to Ramon’s
Sec. 6. Effect of Disqualification Case.— Any ineligibility. Also, Ramon did not voluntarily withdraw
candidate who has been declared by final judgment to his CoC before the elections in accordance with
be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes Section 73 of the Omnibus Election Code. Lastly, she
cast for him shall not becounted. If for any reason a was not an additional candidate for the position of
candidate is not declared by final judgment before an Mayor of Lucena City because her filing of her CoC
election to be disqualified and he is voted for and on May 4, 2010 was beyond the period fixed by law.
receives the winning number of votes in such election, Indeed, she was not, in law and in fact, a candidate.
the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial
and hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest and, A permanent vacancy in the office of Mayor of Lucena
upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, City thus resulted, and such vacancy should be filled
may during the pendency thereof order the pursuant to the law on succession defined in Section
suspension of the proclamation of such candidate 44 of the LGC, to wit:
whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong.
Section 44. Permanent Vacancies in the Offices of the
Section 6 of the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987 Governor, Vice-Governor, Mayor, and Vice-Mayor. –
covers two situations. The first is when the If a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the
disqualification becomes final before the elections, governor or mayor, the vice-governor or vice-mayor
which is the situation covered in the first sentence of concerned shall become the governor or mayor.
Section 6. The second is when the disqualification
becomes final after the elections, which is the WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the petitions.
situation covered in the second sentence of Section 6.

The present case falls under the first situation.

Section 6 of the Electoral Reforms Law governing the
first situation is categorical: a candidate disqualified
by final judgment before an election cannot be voted
for, and votes cast for him shall not be counted. The
Resolution disqualifying Cayat became final on 17
April 2004, way before the 10 May 2004 elections.
Therefore, all the 8,164 votes cast in Cayat’s favor
are stray. Cayat was never a candidate in the 10 May
2004 elections. Palileng’s proclamation is proper
because he was the sole and only candidate, second
to none.

The only time that a second placer is allowed to take

the place of a disqualified winning candidate is when
two requisites concur, namely: (a) the candidate who
obtained the highest number of votes is disqualified;
and (b) the electorate was fully aware in fact and in
law of that candidate’s disqualification as to bring
such awareness within the realm of notoriety but the
electorate still cast the plurality of the votes in favor of
the ineligible candidate. Under this sole exception, the
electorate may be said to have waived the validity and
efficacy of their votes by notoriously misapplying their
franchise or throwing away their votes, in which case
the eligible candidate with the second highest number
of votes may be deemed elected. But the exception
did not apply in favor of Castillo simply because the
second element was absent. The electorate of
Lucena City were not the least aware of the fact of
Barbara Ruby’s ineligibility as the substitute. In fact,
the COMELEC En Banc issued the Resolution finding
her substitution invalid only on May 20, 2011, or a full
year after the decisions.