Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83646:57738&catid=1587&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:07:24+00:00

Document:
LINA DELA PEÑA JALOVER, GEORGIE A. HUISO AND VELVET BARQUIN ZAMORA, Petitioners, v. JOHN HENRY R. OSMEÑA AND COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), Respondents.
Before us is the Petition for Certiorari6 under Rule 64 in relation with Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul the Resolutions dated April 3, 2013,7 and August 8, 2013,8 of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in SPA No. 13-079. The COMELEC resolutions denied the petitioners’ Petition to Cancel Certificate of Candidacy of the private respondent John Henry R. Osmeña.
Soon thereafter, the petitioners filed before the COMELEC a “Petition to Deny Due Course and to Cancel Certificate of Candidacy and to Disqualify a Candidate for Possessing Some Grounds for Disqualification,”12 docketed as SPA No. 13-079.
In support of their petition, the petitioners submitted the following: a) a certification from the Toledo City Assessor’s Office, dated October 5, 2012, showing that Osmeña does not own any real property in Toledo City;17 b) a tax declaration of Osmeña’s alleged residence at Ibo, Toledo City showing that it is owned by Osmeña’s son;18 c) photographs of Osmeña’s alleged dilapidated residence in Barangay Ibo, Toledo City, which the petitioners claim is not in keeping with Osmeña’s prominence, wealth and stature in society;19 d) a certification from the Business Permit and Licensing Office, that Osmeña never applied nor has he been issued any business permit by Toledo City;20 and e) several affidavits,21 including that of the barangay captain of Ibo, Toledo City,22 attesting that Osmeña was never a resident of Toledo City and that he has only been seen in the city in September 2012 to conduct political meetings.
The COMELEC showed partiality to Osmeña by admitting his belatedly filed Answer to the Petition, and his Amended Memorandum and Supplemental Amended Memorandum.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) likewise filed a Comment on behalf of the COMELEC. The OSG argues that the COMELEC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion since Osmeña was able to adduce substantial evidence to prove that he was a resident of Toledo City at least one (1) year before the May 2013 elections.
Closely related with the limited focus of the present petition is the condition, under Section 5, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, that findings of fact of the COMELEC, supported by substantial evidence, shall be final and non-reviewable. Substantial evidence is that degree of evidence that a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion.56 In light of our limited authority to review findings of fact, we do not ordinarily review in a certiorari case the COMELEC's appreciation and evaluation of evidence. Any misstep by the COMELEC in this regard generally involves an error of judgment, not of jurisdiction.
The present petition arose from a petition to deny due course or to cancel Osmeña’s COC.
SEC. 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. - A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election.
The critical issue, however, pertains to Osmeña’s bodily presence in Toledo City and the declaration he made in his COC on this point. The petitioners claim that Osmeña was only seen in Toledo City in the month of September 2012 to conduct political meetings. They also stress that the dilapidated property in Ibo, Toledo City is not even owned by Osmeña, and is not in keeping with the latter’s stature — a former Senator and a member of a political clan.
In support of their contention, the petitioners submitted various affidavits of Toledo City residents claiming that Osmeña was never seen in Toledo66 and pictures of the dilapidated Ibo, Toledo City property. Osmeña, meanwhile submitted photographs of the Ibo, Toledo City property, and various affidavits confirming his residence for more than one year in Toledo City.67 Under these seemingly directly contradictory evidence, we find that the COMELEC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in upholding the residency of Osmeña.
As the COMELEC aptly found, Osmeña had sufficiently established by substantial evidence his residence in Toledo City, Cebu.68 As early as April 24, 2006,69 Osmeña applied for the transfer of his voter’s registration record to Toledo City, which was granted on April 24, 2012.70 Osmeña likewise purchased a parcel of land in Ibo, Toledo City in 1995 and commenced the construction of an improvement, which would eventually serve as his residence since 2004.71 Osmeña even acquired another parcel of land72 in Das, Toledo City in December 201173 and transferred his headquarters to Poblacion74 and Bato, Toledo City as early as 2011. The existence of Osmeña’s headquarters in Bato, Toledo City, was even confirmed by the Mr. Orlando Pama Casia, witness for the petitioners.75 Finally, Osmeña has always maintained profound political and socio-civic linkages in Toledo City—a fact that the petitioners never disputed.
The petitioners, in the present case, largely rely on statements that Osmeña was “hardly seen” in Toledo City, Cebu to support their claim of error of jurisdiction. These affidavits, however, deserve little consideration and loudly speak of their inherent weakness as evidence.
Under the circumstances, the evidence submitted by the petitioners do not conclusively prove that Osmeña did not in fact reside in Toledo City for at least the year before election day; most especially since the sworn statements of some Toledo City residents attesting that they never saw Osmeña in Toledo City were controverted by similar sworn statements by other Toledo City residents who claimed that Osmeña resided in Toledo City.
Similarly, the fact that Osmeña has no registered property under his name does not belie his actual residence in Toledo City because property ownership is not among the qualifications required of candidates for local election.78 It is enough that he should live in the locality, even in a rented house or that of a friend or relative.79 To use ownership of property in the district as the determinative indicium of permanence of domicile or residence implies that only the landed can establish compliance with the residency requirement.80 In Perez v. COMELEC,81 we sustained the COMELEC when it considered as evidence tending to establish a candidate’s domicile of choice the mere lease (rather than ownership) of an apartment by a candidate in the same province where he ran for the position of governor.
The respondents significantly ask us in this case to adopt the same faulty approach of using subjective norms, as they now argue that given his stature as a member of the prominent Mitra clan of Palawan, and as a three term congressman, it is highly incredible that a small room in a feed mill has served as his residence since 2008.
Osmeña’s actual physical presence in Toledo City is established not only by the presence of a place (Ibo, Toledo City, house and lot) he can actually live in, but also the affidavits of various persons in Toledo City. Osmeña’s substantial and real interest in establishing his domicile of choice in Toledo City is also sufficiently shown not only by the acquisition of additional property in the area and the transfer of his voter registration and headquarters, but also his participation in the community’s socio-civic and political activities.
Before his transfer of residence, Osmeña already had intimate knowledge of Toledo City, particularly of the whole 3rd legislative district that he represented for one term. Thus, he manifests a significant level of knowledge of and sensitivity to the needs of the said community. Moreover, Osmeña won the mayoralty position as the choice of the people of Toledo City.
With the conclusion that Osmeña did not commit any material misrepresentation in his COC, we see no reason in this case to appeal to the primacy of the electorate’s will. We cannot deny, however, that the people of Toledo City have spoken in an election where residency qualification had been squarely raised and their voice has erased any doubt about their verdict on Osmeña’s qualifications.
Lastly, the petitioners insist that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting Osmeña’s belatedly filed Answer, Amended Memorandum and Supplemental Memorandum. The petitioners, however, failed to substantiate this allegation in their petition. In fact, the petitioners admitted that they do not exactly know when Osmeña was served with summons by the clerk or commission.91 They only speculated that Osmeña’s Answer was filed one day delayed.
Similarly, we do not find any error on the part of the COMELEC in allowing the filing of Osmeña’s amended memorandum, after obtaining leave from the COMELEC. As Osmeña aptly pleaded in his motion for leave, the amendments consisted of mere technical errors; the lower portions and the most crucial parts of the Memorandum were omitted in its final printing92because the printer was inadvertently configured to use an incorrect paper size.
In these lights, we can only conclude, in the context of the cancellation proceeding before us, that the petitioners have not presented a convincing case sufficient to show that the COMELEC committed an error of jurisdiction in upholding the residency of Osmeña in Toledo City and the validity of his representation on this point in his COC.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DISMISS the petition for lack of merit. No costs.
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
1 Section 3, Article X of the 1987 CONSTITUTION pertinently provides: Section 3. The Congress shall enact a local government code provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum, allocate among the different local government units their powers, responsibilities, and resources, and provide for the qualifications, election, appointment and removal, term, salaries, powers and functions and duties of local officials, and all other matters relating to the organization and operation of the local units.
2 Section 39 of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE of 1991 states: SEC. 39. Qualifications. - (a) An elective local official must be a citizen of the Philippines; a registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city, or province x x x where he intends to be elected; a resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election; and able to read and write Filipino or any other local language or dialect.
3Torayno, Sr. v. COMELEC, 392 Phil. 342, 352 (2000).
9Dela Cruz v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 192221, November 13, 2012, 685 SCRA 347, 359.
11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_districts_of_Cebu, last accessed August 25, 2014.
13 SEC. 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. - A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election.
14 SEC. 74. Contents of certificate of candidacy. - The certificate of candidacy shall state that the person filing it is announcing his candidacy for the office stated therein and that he is eligible for said office; if for Member of the Batasang Pambansa, the province, including its component cities, highly urbanized city or district or sector which he seeks to represent; the political party to which he belongs; civil status; his date of birth; residence; his post office address for all election purposes; his profession or occupation; that he will support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; that he will obey the laws, legal orders, and decrees promulgated by the duly constituted authorities; that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant to a foreign country; that the obligation assumed by his oath is assumed voluntarily, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that the facts stated in the certificate of candidacy are true to the best of his knowledge.
19 Id. at 213-215; 222-225.
21 Id. at 207-209; 226-233.
38 Id. at 119-121 and 126-127.
41 G.R. No. 180051, December 24, 2008, 575 SCRA 590.
48 G.R. No. 193261, April 24, 2012, 670 SCRA 664.
53 Quintos v. COMELEC, 440 Phil. 1045 (2002).
54Cabrera v. Lapid, 539 Phil. 114, 124 (2006).
55Varias v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189078, February 11, 2010, 612 SCRA 386, 405.
56 Hon. Primo C. Miro v. Reynaldo M. Dosono, G.R. No. 170697, April 30, 2010, 619 SCRA 653, 660.
57Mitra v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 191938, October 19, 2010, 633 SCRA 580.
58Varias v. COMELEC, supra note 55.
59Velasco v. COMELEC, supra note 41, at 603.
62 Id. citing Ugdoracion, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 179851, April 18, 2008, 552 SCRA 231.
63 G.R. No. 191938, July 2, 2010, 622 SCRA 744.
65Domino v. Commission on Elections, 369 Phil. 798, 819 (1999).
66 Records, pp. 204-205, 207-209, 216-217 and 226-233.
67 Id. at 119-121 and 126 to 127.
71 Id. at 146-147. In particular, James Y. Gaite, the previous owner of the Ibo, Toledo City, property, stated in his affidavit that it was Osmeña who personally transacted and negotiated with the former regarding the sale of the parcel of land. See also the certification from Mantuhac Construction confirming that it was Osmeña who funded the construction of the buildings in the Ibo, Toledo City, property.
76Fernandez v. HRET, G. R. No. 187478, December 21, 2009, 608 SCRA 733.
78Sabili v. COMELEC, supra note 48, at 686.
80Fernandez v. HRET, supra note 76, at 759.
81 G.R. No. 133944, 375 Phil. 1106, 1117-1118 (1999).
84 G.R. Nos. 120295 and 123755, 327 Phil. 521 (1996).
87Alberto v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 132242, July 27, 1999, 311 SCRA 215, 222.
88 Mitra, supra note 57 at 783.
93 G.R. No. 79903, July 23, 1992, 211 SCRA 692, 696-697.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.