Title
AvellaNo. vs. Veroy
Case
G.R. No. 30591
Decision Date
Sep 27, 1929
Bernardo Veroy, elected municipal president, faced eligibility challenge due to unfiled candidacy certificate; Supreme Court ruled his election valid, prioritizing voter will over technicalities.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 30591)

Facts:

  • Election Results: After the general elections held on June 6, 1928, in the municipality of Baganga, Province of Davao, Bernardo Veroy was proclaimed elected as municipal president with 329 votes. Generoso Avellanosa received 257 votes, and David Caobang received 51 votes.
  • Protest Filed: Generoso Avellanosa filed a protest with the Court of First Instance of Davao, alleging that Bernardo Veroy did not file his certificate of candidacy according to law, rendering him ineligible. Consequently, Avellanosa argued that the votes cast for Veroy were null and void.
  • Lower Court Decision: The lower court ruled in favor of Avellanosa, declaring Veroy ineligible for the office of municipal president due to the lack of a certificate of candidacy and declared Avellanosa elected.
  • Appeal: Bernardo Veroy appealed the decision, arguing that the lower court erred in declaring him ineligible for failing to file his certificate of candidacy in accordance with the Election Law.

Issue:

The primary issue raised in this case is whether Bernardo Veroy was eligible to hold the office of municipal president of Baganga, Province of Davao, despite his failure to file a certificate of candidacy as required by law.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court. It held that the failure to file a certificate of candidacy did not render Bernardo Veroy ineligible for the office of municipal president. The Court based its decision on Section 408 of the Election Law, as amended by Act No. 3387, which governs proceedings against an ineligible person.

Ratio:

  • Legal Basis: Section 408 of the Election Law, as amended by Act No. 3387, provides that the right of an ineligible person elected to a provincial or municipal office may be challenged through special proceedings in the nature of quo warranto. However, the Court interpreted this provision in light of previous jurisprudence (Yra vs. Abano and De la Rosa vs. Yonson) and concluded that the failure to file a certificate of candidacy does not automatically render a candidate ineligible.
  • Eligibility: The Court emphasized that the absence of a certificate of candidacy does not disqualify a candidate from holding office if they have been duly elected by the electorate. The will of the voters, as expressed through the election, prevails over technicalities in the filing of candidacy documents.


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.