VICTORINO SALCEDO II, petitioner, vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ERMELITA CACAO SALCEDO,
respondents.
Gonzaga-Reyes, J:
FACTS: On February 18, 1968, Neptali Salcedo is married to Agnez Celiz. Without his first
marriage being dissolved, Neptali married Ermelita Cacao in a civil ceremony in 1986.
Two days later, Ermelita Cacao contracted another marriage with a certain Jesus Aguirre.
During the May 11, 1998 Elections, petitioner Victorino Salcedo II and private
respondent Ermelita Cacao Salcedo both ran for the position of mayor in Sara, Iloilo.
Petitioner then filed with the COMELEC a petition for the cancellation of respondent’s
certificate of candidacy on the ground that she made a false representation in the use of
her surname Salcedo. He alleges that she had no right to use said surname because she
was not legally married to Neptali Salcedo.
ISSUE: Whether or not misrepresentation in the use of surname may serve as a ground for the
cancellation of her certificate of candidacy.
RULING: No. 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 of the Code.
As stated in the law, in order to justify the cancellation of the certificate of candidacy
under section 78, it is essential that the false representation mentioned therein pertain to a
material matter for the sanction imposed by this provision would affect the respondents rights
of a candidate - the right to run for the elective post for which he filed the certificate of candidacy.
Petitioner has made no allegations concerning private respondents qualifications to
run for the office of mayor. Aside from his contention that she made a misrepresentation
in the use of the surname Salcedo, petitioner does not claim that private respondent lacks
the requisite residency, age, citizenship or any other legal qualification necessary to run for a local
elective office as provided for in the Local Government Code. Thus, petitioner has failed to
discharge the burden of proving that the misrepresentation
allegedly made by private respondent in her certificate of candidacy pertains to a material matter.
Aside from the requirement of materiality, a false representation under section 78
must consist of a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise
render a candidate ineligible.[25] In other words, it must be made with an
intention to deceive the electorate as to ones qualifications for public office. The use of a
surname, when not intended to mislead or deceive the public as to ones identity, is not
within the scope of the provision.
There is absolutely no showing that the inhabitants of Sara, Iloilo were deceived by
the use of such surname by private respondent.
