Title
Abella vs. Larrazabal
Case
G.R. No. 87721-30
Decision Date
Dec 21, 1989
1988 Leyte gubernatorial election dispute: Adelina Larrazabal's candidacy challenged for alleged residence misrepresentation; COMELEC dismissed pre-proclamation objections but erred in delaying disqualification resolution, per Supreme Court.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 87721-30)

Facts:

  1. Election Context: The case involves the 1988 local election for the office of provincial governor of Leyte. Petitioner Benjamin P. Abella was the official candidate of the Liberal Party, while private respondent Adelina Larrazabal substituted her husband, Emeterio V. Larrazabal, who was disqualified for lack of residence.
  2. Disqualification Challenge: On January 31, 1988, the day before the election, Adelina Larrazabal filed her certificate of candidacy. On election day, February 1, 1988, Silvestre de la Cruz filed a petition to disqualify her for alleged false statements regarding her residence.
  3. Temporary Restraining Order: The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order on February 4, 1988, preventing the provincial board of canvassers from proclaiming Larrazabal if she won.
  4. COMELEC Proceedings: The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dismissed the pre-proclamation and disqualification cases filed by Abella and de la Cruz. The pre-proclamation objections were deemed formal and not affecting the validity of the returns, while the disqualification case was referred to the Law Department for preliminary investigation.
  5. Supreme Court Intervention: Petitioners challenged the COMELEC resolutions, leading to the consolidation of G.R. Nos. 87721-30 (pre-proclamation cases) and G.R. No. 88004 (disqualification case).

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Pre-Proclamation Controversies: Pre-proclamation controversies are summary in nature and should be resolved quickly to avoid delaying the canvass and proclamation. The board of canvassers has a ministerial duty to tally votes as reported in the election returns and cannot adjudicate election contests.
  2. Direct Resolution of Disqualification: The COMELEC should have directly resolved the disqualification case under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, which allows for the denial or cancellation of a certificate of candidacy based on false material representations. Referring the case to the Law Department for criminal prosecution was an improper delay.
  3. Timeliness of Disqualification Petition: The petition to disqualify Larrazabal was filed immediately after she submitted her certificate of candidacy on the eve of the election. The Court found it unreasonable to require the petitioners to file the challenge any earlier under the circumstances.
  4. Public Interest: The Court emphasized the need for prompt resolution of the disqualification issue in the public interest, particularly for the inhabitants of Leyte, who deserve a legitimate and undisputed governor.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.