G.R. No. L-13066 - APRIL 1958 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-13066April 30, 1958 Consuelo Fa. Alvear vs. Commission on Elections G.R. No. L-12646April 30, 1958 Victoria D. Miailhe, et al. vs. Rufino P. Halili, et al. G.R. No. L-11868April 30, 1958 Sergio G. Martinez vs. Municipal Mayor of Labason, et al. G.R. No. L-11782April 30, 1958 Republic vs. Isidro R. Villarosa G.R. No. L-11617April 30, 1958 Jose M. Garcia vs. Manuel M. Muñoz, et al. G.R. Nos. L-11519 and L-11520April 30, 1958 Ines Porciuncula, etc., et al. vs. Nicolas E. Adamos, et al. G.R. No. L-11326April 30, 1958 People of the Phil. vs. Venancio Manangco G.R. No. L-11135April 30, 1958 H.E. Heacock Co. vs. National Labor Union, et al. G.R. No. L-11068April 30, 1958 J. Mariano De Santos vs. Catalino Concepcion, et al. G.R. No. L-11052April 30, 1958 Milagros Tejuco vs. E.R. Squibb and Son Philippine Corporation, et al. G.R. No. L-11050April 30, 1958 Cesar Vargas, et al. vs. Vicente S. Tuason, et al. G.R. No. L-10849April 30, 1958 People of the Phil. vs. Victoriano Bueno G.R. No. L-10792April 30, 1958 Enrique T. Jocson, et al. vs. Empire Insurance Company G.R. No. L-10718April 30, 1958 M. M. Delos Reyes vs. Coronet, Inc. G.R. No. L-10582April 30, 1958 Constantino Manansala vs. Antonio Heras, et al. G.R. No. L-10566April 30, 1958 Ricardo Gurrea vs. Jose Manuel Lezama, et al. G.R. No. L-10215April 30, 1958 Andres E. Varela vs. Cristina Marajas, et al. G.R. No. L-9064-67April 30, 1958 People of the Phil. vs. Soriano L. Alcaraz, et al. G.R. No. L-12202April 28, 1958 Filomeno Dizon vs. Nicasio Yatco, et al. G.R. No. L-12120April 28, 1958 People of the Phil. vs. Simplicio Agito G.R. No. L-11584April 28, 1958 Manuel Araneta, et al. vs. Commonwealth Insurance Co., et al. G.R. No. L-11381April 28, 1958 Atkins Kroll and Co., Inc. vs. City of Manila, et al. G.R. No. L-11262April 28, 1958 Carmen R. Castillo vs. Juan C. Pajo, et al. G.R. No. L-10935April 28, 1958 Silverio Blaquera vs. Jose S. Rodriguez, etc., et al. G.R. No. L-10875April 28, 1958 People of the Phil. vs. Sebastian S. Lambino G.R. No. L-10845April 28, 1958 People of the Phil. vs. Ambrosio Lucero G.R. No. L-10799April 28, 1958 Ursula Jose de Villabona vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-10552April 28, 1958 Afredo Erauda, et al. vs. Vicente S. del Rosario, et al. G.R. No. L-10214April 28, 1958 In Re: Daniel Ng Teng Lin. Daniel Ng Teng Lin vs. Republic G.R. No. L-10183April 28, 1958 Raquel Adorable, et al. vs. Irinea Inacala, et al. G.R. No. L-10067April 28, 1958 People of the Phil. vs. Ong Tin G.R. No. L-9791April 28, 1958 Fernando A. Froilan vs. Pan Oriental Shipping Co. G.R. No. L-10981April 25, 1958 Anacleto Luison vs. Fidel A.D. Garcia G.R. No. L-10936April 25, 1958 Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Industrial Textile Company of the Phil., et al. G.R. No. L-10749April 25, 1958 Brigido R. Valencia vs. Rehabilitation Finance Corp.,et al. G.R. No. L-10631April 25, 1958 Jose Garrido vs. Jose Perez Cardenas G.R. No. L-10564April 25, 1958 Mandian (Monaba) vs. Dionisio Leong G.R. No. L-10548April 25, 1958 Baltazar Raymundo, et al. vs. Felisa A. Afable, et al. G.R. No. L-9957April 25, 1958 Bayani Subido, etc., et al. vs. Arsenio H. Lacson, etc., et al. G.R. No. L-11755April 23, 1958 Florencio Seno vs. Faustino Pestolante, et al. G.R. No. L-11185April 23, 1958 Philippine Land-Air-Sea Labor Union, et al. vs. Montano A. Ortiz, et al. G.R. No. L-11139April 23, 1958 Santos Evangelista vs. Alto Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. G.R. No. L-8564April 23, 1958 Dolores Vda. de Pelaez vs. Luzon Lumber Company G.R. No. L-11602April 21, 1958 Alfred Cuadra vs. Teofisto M. Cordova G.R. No. L-11323April 21, 1958 Benjamin Geonanga vs. C.N. Hodges G.R. No. L-10724April 21, 1958 People of the Phil. vs. Melquiades Raba, et al. G.R. No. L-11656April 18, 1958 Maria David vs. Francisco dela Cruz, et al. G.R. No. L-11365April 18, 1958 Jose Monteverde vs. Casino Espanol de Manila G.R. No. L-10886April 18, 1958 Leoncia E. Sto Domingo, etc., et al. vs. Urbana Sto.Domingo, et al. G.R. No. L-10414April 18, 1958 Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. vs. Teodulo M. Cruz G.R. No. L-10200April 18, 1958 In Re: Dy Tian Siong. Dy Tian Siong vs. Republic G.R. No. L-9300April 18, 1958 Mariano A. Albert vs. University Publishing Co., Inc. G.R. No. L-6106-07April 18, 1958 Madrigal, Tiango and Co. vs. Hanson, Orth and Stevenson Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-11002April 17, 1958 Philippine National Bank vs. Isidro dela Cruz G.R. No. L-11192April 16, 1958 Silverio Blaquera vs. Jose S. Rodriguez, et al. G.R. No. L-10873April 16, 1958 C.N. Hodges vs. William Repospolo, et al. G.R. No. L-10783April 16, 1958 Estrella O. Rocha vs. Juan B. Cordis G.R. No. L-10419April 16, 1958 Julio Pareja, et al. vs. Paz Pareja, et al. G.R. No. L-10206-08April 16, 1958 Philippines Consolidated Freight Lines, Inc. vs. Emiliano Ajon, et al. A.C. No. 228April 16, 1958 In Re: Celso T. Oliva The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Consuelo Fa. Alvear vs. Commission on Elections Victoria D. Miailhe, et al. vs. Rufino P. Halili, et al. Sergio G. Martinez vs. Municipal Mayor of Labason, et al. Republic vs. Isidro R. Villarosa Jose M. Garcia vs. Manuel M. Muñoz, et al. Ines Porciuncula, etc., et al. vs. Nicolas E. Adamos, et al. People of the Phil. vs. Venancio Manangco H.E. Heacock Co. vs. National Labor Union, et al. J. Mariano De Santos vs. Catalino Concepcion, et al. Milagros Tejuco vs. E.R. Squibb and Son Philippine Corporation, et al. Cesar Vargas, et al. vs. Vicente S. Tuason, et al. People of the Phil. vs. Victoriano Bueno Enrique T. Jocson, et al. vs. Empire Insurance Company M. M. Delos Reyes vs. Coronet, Inc. Constantino Manansala vs. Antonio Heras, et al. Ricardo Gurrea vs. Jose Manuel Lezama, et al. Andres E. Varela vs. Cristina Marajas, et al. People of the Phil. vs. Soriano L. Alcaraz, et al. Filomeno Dizon vs. Nicasio Yatco, et al. People of the Phil. vs. Simplicio Agito Manuel Araneta, et al. vs. Commonwealth Insurance Co., et al. Atkins Kroll and Co., Inc. vs. City of Manila, et al. Carmen R. Castillo vs. Juan C. Pajo, et al. Silverio Blaquera vs. Jose S. Rodriguez, etc., et al. People of the Phil. vs. Sebastian S. Lambino People of the Phil. vs. Ambrosio Lucero Ursula Jose de Villabona vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Afredo Erauda, et al. vs. Vicente S. del Rosario, et al. In Re: Daniel Ng Teng Lin. Daniel Ng Teng Lin vs. Republic Raquel Adorable, et al. vs. Irinea Inacala, et al. People of the Phil. vs. Ong Tin Fernando A. Froilan vs. Pan Oriental Shipping Co. Anacleto Luison vs. Fidel A.D. Garcia Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Industrial Textile Company of the Phil., et al. Brigido R. Valencia vs. Rehabilitation Finance Corp.,et al. Jose Garrido vs. Jose Perez Cardenas Mandian (Monaba) vs. Dionisio Leong Baltazar Raymundo, et al. vs. Felisa A. Afable, et al. Bayani Subido, etc., et al. vs. Arsenio H. Lacson, etc., et al. Florencio Seno vs. Faustino Pestolante, et al. Philippine Land-Air-Sea Labor Union, et al. vs. Montano A. Ortiz, et al. Santos Evangelista vs. Alto Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. Dolores Vda. de Pelaez vs. Luzon Lumber Company Alfred Cuadra vs. Teofisto M. Cordova Benjamin Geonanga vs. C.N. Hodges People of the Phil. vs. Melquiades Raba, et al. Maria David vs. Francisco dela Cruz, et al. Jose Monteverde vs. Casino Espanol de Manila Leoncia E. Sto Domingo, etc., et al. vs. Urbana Sto.Domingo, et al. Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. vs. Teodulo M. Cruz In Re: Dy Tian Siong. Dy Tian Siong vs. Republic Mariano A. Albert vs. University Publishing Co., Inc. Madrigal, Tiango and Co. vs. Hanson, Orth and Stevenson Inc., et al. Philippine National Bank vs. Isidro dela Cruz Silverio Blaquera vs. Jose S. Rodriguez, et al. C.N. Hodges vs. William Repospolo, et al. Estrella O. Rocha vs. Juan B. Cordis Julio Pareja, et al. vs. Paz Pareja, et al. Philippines Consolidated Freight Lines, Inc. vs. Emiliano Ajon, et al. In Re: Celso T. Oliva The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-13066 April 30, 1958
CONSUELO FA. ALVEAR,petitioner,
vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,respondent.
Consolacion L. Mantaring for petitioner.
Senior Attorney Dominador D. Dayot for respondent.
BAUTISTA ANGELO,J.:
This is a petition forcertiorariandmandamuswith preliminary injunction praying that respondent be ordered to give due course to her candidacy for senator and that the latter's resolution dated September 30, 1957 be declared null and void.
Petitioner is a qualified candidate for the office of senator, being a natural born Filipino citizen, 45 years of age, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately prior to the last general elections. She filed her certificate of candidacy with respondent on August 13, 1957. On September 30, 1957, respondent adopted a resolution requiring,inter alia, petitioner and other candidates for various elective offices to submit on or before October 21, 1957 no less than 140,000 copies of their certificates of candidacy for distribution among the polling places throughout the country, as well as to defray the expenses incident thereto, as otherwise their candidacy will not be given due course. On October 14, 1957, petitioner registered her protest against said resolution branding it arbitrary, discriminatory and not within the power conferred upon it by law. On October 20, 1957, respondent denied the protest. Hence this petition for review.
Respondent, answering the petition, stated that it had discretionary power not to give due course to a certificate of candidacy when in its opinion the same was not filed in good faith, and that it has adopted the resolution question in the exercise of that discretion. It averred that the printing and distribution of copies of certificates of candidacy among all the election precincts of the Philippines for, each candidate for senator costs the government around P5,000 and it is its duty to protect the public funds against a candidate who does not file his certificate of candidacy in good faith.
Under Section 37 of the Revised Election Code, the Commission on Elections has the ministerial duty to receive any certificate of candidacy and to immediately acknowledge receipt thereof. This ministerial duty respondent has complied with when it has accepted the certificate of candidacy filed by, petitioner for the office of senator of the Philippines. But while petitioner seems to have all the qualifications for the office she desires to run and for which she has filed her certificate of candidacy, respondent has imposed upon her the condition of submitting to its office not less than 140,000 copies of said certificate for distribution among the polling places throughout the country for the simple reason that petitioner is presenting herself for the first time as a candidate for such position and respondent does not possess any knowledge of her background or reputation. We believe this stand to be erroneous.
Section 36 of the Revised Election Code provides that "with respect to certificates of candidacy of candidates for President, Vice-President and Senators, ten copies thereof shall be filed with the Commission on Elections which shall order the preparation and distribution of copies of the same to all the election precincts of the Philippines. . . ." These provisions are clear. They only require a candidate to furnish the Commission on Elections with ten copies of his certificate of candidacy, but with regard to the preparation and distribution of those that may be needed by the election precincts of the Philippines, they make it the express duty of the Commission to implement. This is how we interpreted the law in a recent case.1After quoting the provisions of said section, this Court said: "The foregoing provisions give the Commission no discretion to give or not to give due course to petitioner's certificate of candidacy. On the contrary, the Commission has, admittedly, the 'ministerial' duty to receive said certificate of candidacy. Of what use would it be to receive it, if the certificate were not to be given due course? We must not assume that Congress intended to require a useless Act — that it would have imposed a mandatory duty to do something vain, futile and empty." Speaking further of this duty of the Commission on Elections, this Court, through Mr. Justice Concepcion, said:
Whether or not the Commission on Elections should incur the expenses incident to the preparation and distribution of copies of the, certificates of candidacy of those who, in its opinion, do not have a chance to get a substantial number of votes is another question ofpolicyfor Congress, not the Commission, to settle. When the Revised Election Code imposes upon, the Commission the ministerial duty to receive those certificates and provides that said Commission shall immediately prepare and distribute copies thereof to the office mentioned in section 36 of said Code, it necessarily implies that compliance with the latter provision is, likewise, ministerial. If the Commission believes, however, that the effect thereof is to unnecessarily impose a useless burden upon the Government, then the remedy is to call the attention of Congress thereto, coupled with the corresponding proposals, recommendations, or suggestions for such amendments as may be deemed best, consistently with the democratic nature of our political system.
This case should be differentiated from that ofCiriaco S. Garcia vs. Imperial, G.R. No. L-12930, promulgated on October 22, 1957, in that in the Garcia the Commission found that his certificate of candidacy was filed "not for the purpose of winning the election or even to obtain a substantial number of votes for the presidency of the Philippines but for the purpose of prejudicing the candidacy of a candidate in good faith by nullifying the votes cast for the same name and/or surname of said candidate in good faith", referring to candidate Carlos P. Garcia. And we upheld the stand of the Commission because we found that the candidate launched his candidacy to create merely confusion in the mind of the electorate and of the election inspectors, and not to win the election, which is in line with the duty of the Commission "to insure free, orderly and honest elections, which is its main concern, under our fundamental law and the Revised Election Code." Such however is not the situation obtaining in the case at bar.
Wherefore, the aforementioned resolution of the Commission on Elections is hereby annulled, and the writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued made permanent, without special pronouncement as to costs.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia and Felix, JJ.,concur.
Footnotes
1Alfredo Abcedevs.Hon. Domingo Imperial, et al.,supra, p. 136.