8/14/2019 De Guzman v. Board of Canvassers

1/2

De Guzman v. Board of Canvassers of La Union

Facts:Tomas De Guzman filed a petition for mandamus before the Supreme

Court seeking to compel the Board of Canvassers of La Union to annul the

votes counted in favor of Juan Lucero and to declare him as the duly electedgovernor of La Union based on the fact that certificate of candidacy filed byJuan Lucero was not made under oath in violation of Sec. 404 of the ElectionLaw. Lucero filed a motion to dismiss the petition on 3 grounds namely: (1)that the court has no jurisdiction on the subject-matter of the complaint; (2)that the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the members of theboard of canvassers; and (3) the petition failed to state a cause of action.

Issue:Whether the failure of Lucero in filing his certificate of candidacy under

oath was fatal to his proclamation as the duly elected governor of La Union

Held:No. The seeming irregularity in the filing of Luceros certificate of

candidacy does not invalidate his election for the fundamental reason thatafter it was proven by the count of the votes that Juan T. Lucero hadobtained the majority of the legal votes, the will of the people cannot befrustrated by a technicality consisting in that his certificate of candidacy hadnot been properly sworn to. In the case of Gardiner vs. Romulo, it was heldthat The provisions of the Election Law declaring that a certain irregularity inan election procedure is fatal to the validity of the ballot or of the returns, orwhen the purpose and spirit of the law would be plainly defeated by a

substantial departure from the prescribed method, are mandatory. When theElection Law does not provide that a departure from a prescribed form willbe fatal and such departure has been due to an honest mistake ormisinterpretation of the Election Law on the part of him who was obligated toobserve it, and such departure has not been used as a means for fraudulentpractices or for the intimidation of voters, and it is clear that there has beena free and honest expression of the popular will, the law will be helddirectory and such departure will be considered a harmless irregularity. Andin Lino Luna vs. Rodriguez, it was held that he rules and regulations, for theconduct of elections, are mandatory before the election, but when it issought to enforce them after the election, they are held to be directory only,

if that is possible, especially where, if they are held to be mandatory,innocent voters will be deprived of their votes without any fault on their part.The various and numerous provisions of the Election Law were adopted toassist the voters in their participation in the affairs of the government andnot to defeat that object. When the voters have honestly cast their ballots,the same should not be nullified simply because the officers appointed underthe law to direct the election and guard the purity of the ballot have notdone their duty. The law provides a remedy, by criminal action, against

8/14/2019 De Guzman v. Board of Canvassers

2/2

them. They should be prosecuted criminally, and the will of the honest voter,as expressed through his ballot, should be protected and upheld.

Hence, even if the legal provision in question is mandatory and non-compliance therewith before the election would have been fatal to therecognition of the status of Juan T. Lucero as candidate but because the

people have already expressed their will honestly, the result of the electioncannot be defeated by the fact that Lucero who was certified by theprovincial secretary to be a legal candidate for the office of provincialgovernor has not sworn to his certificate of candidacy.