Teves vs. Commission on Elections

A candidate who files a certificate of candidacy using a name confusingly similar to that of a legitimate candidate, and who fails to demonstrate a bona fide intention to run, may be declared a nuisance candidate under Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code; the votes cast for that nuisance candidate shall be credited to the legitimate candidate even when the declaration becomes final only after the elections, provided no double‑counting of votes occurs.

For the May 9, 2022 National and Local Elections, Roel Ragay Degamo filed a Certificate of Candidacy for Governor of Negros Oriental under the Nacionalista Party. The following day, Grego Gaudia Degamo filed a Certificate of Candidacy as an independent candidate for the same position using the name “Ruel Degamo.” Pryde Henry A. Teves also filed a Certificate of Candidacy for the same office. Roel Degamo immediately sought to have Ruel Degamo declared a nuisance candidate, asserting that the nearly identical names were deliberately chosen to confuse the electorate and that Ruel was neither a Degamo by birth nor legal adoption.

• The Nuisance Petition: On October 7, 2021, Roel R. Degamo filed his Certificate of Candidacy for Governor of Negros Oriental under the Nacionalista Party. The next day, Grego Gaudia Degamo filed his Certificate of Candidacy as an independent candidate for the same office, using the name “Ruel Degamo.” On October 13, 2021, Roel Degamo filed a verified Petition with the COMELEC to declare Ruel a nuisance candidate. Roel alleged that Ruel had filed his candidacy to confuse voters because the names “Roel Degamo” and “Ruel Degamo” were virtually identical; that Ruel was a Gaudia, not a Degamo by birth or legal adoption; and that Ruel, an air conditioner mechanic with no prior political experience, lacked the means, influence, and machinery to mount a serious campaign. Roel submitted the affidavit of Irna Gaudia Degamo, the foster mother, to prove Ruel was not a Degamo, and affidavits of Rifeniel Degamo and Nanchie Degamo to show that relatives were pressured and bribed into filing candidacies.

• Ruel Degamo’s Defense: In his Verified Answer, Ruel Degamo asserted that he possessed all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications to run for governor. He claimed he had always been known as “Ruel” and that his surname was Degamo. He argued that demanding financial means and political machinery to sustain a campaign amounted to an unconstitutional property qualification.

• COMELEC Second Division Resolution: On December 16, 2021, the COMELEC Second Division granted Roel’s Petition, declared Ruel Degamo a nuisance candidate, and cancelled his Certificate of Candidacy. The Division found that Ruel was known as “Grego” and as a Gaudia, and had only recently adopted “Ruel Degamo” for the 2022 elections. The presence of two “Degamos” on the ballot—one “Roel” and the other “Ruel”—would necessarily confuse voters and render a vote for “Degamo” worthless during appreciation. The Division further held that Ruel failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to run for public office in good faith and presented no evidence of awareness of the rigors of a campaign.

• Motion for Reconsideration and the Elections: Ruel filed a Motion for Reconsideration on December 21, 2021, arguing that Roel’s evidence was insufficient to prove he was a Gaudia and not a Degamo, and that the finding of lack of bona fide intention was speculative. Roel opposed, pointing out that Ruel had no birth certificate, was not a biological or adopted son of the Degamo spouses, and had not been authorized to use the surname. The elections were held on May 9, 2022, while the motion remained unresolved. The official ballot listed “Degamo, Roel (NP)” and “Degamo, Ruel (IND)” in that order. Teves received 301,319 votes; Roel Degamo received 281,773 votes; and Ruel Degamo received 49,953 votes.

• Mandamus Case and COMELEC En Banc Resolution: Roel Degamo filed a Petition for Mandamus with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 261178) to compel the COMELEC En Banc to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration. On August 16, 2022, the Court granted the petition and ordered the COMELEC En Banc to resolve the motion within ten days. On September 1, 2022, the COMELEC En Banc denied the motion, affirmed the Second Division’s Resolution, and directed that the votes obtained by Ruel Degamo be counted in favor of Roel Degamo. The En Banc stressed that Ruel had not persuaded it that using “Ruel Degamo” was not intended to confuse voters; he was known as “Grego” but suddenly used “Ruel”; and he was a Gaudia, not a Degamo.

• Execution and Proclamation: On September 27, 2022, the COMELEC En Banc issued an Order of Execution, creating a Special Provincial Board of Canvassers. The Board convened on October 3, 2022, annulled Teves’ proclamation, credited the 49,953 votes of Ruel Degamo to Roel Degamo, and proclaimed Roel Degamo as the duly elected Governor. Roel Degamo took his oath on October 4, 2022.

• Teves (G.R. No. 262622):

  • Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner Teves argued that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring Ruel a nuisance candidate because an active campaign had been waged against him, negating voter confusion, and the 49,953 votes he received were too substantial to be attributed to error. Teves also claimed the COMELEC failed to address anomalies, including the existence of an alleged sham En Banc resolution.
  • Due Process: Teves maintained that his right to due process was violated because he was not impleaded in the nuisance proceedings and was summarily unseated without an opportunity to be heard.
  • Prejudicial Question: Teves contended that the COMELEC should have deferred to the pending disqualification case of Balasbas, et al. v. Degamo (SPA No. 21-052), which sought to disqualify Roel Degamo for violation of the three-term limit rule, as it presented a prejudicial question.

• Ruel Degamo (G.R. No. 262682):

  • Prejudicial Question: Petitioner Ruel argued that the Balasbas case posed a prejudicial question because if Roel were disqualified, he would not be a “registered candidate for the same position” entitled to bring a nuisance petition.
  • Grave Abuse of Discretion in Fact-Finding: Ruel claimed the COMELEC arbitrarily disregarded evidence of his qualifications and bona fides, and effectively imposed a financial-capacity requirement for candidacy. He further contended that the COMELEC En Banc arbitrarily failed to rule on an alleged sham resolution and on Roel’s deliberate forum shopping.
  • Error in Crediting Votes: Ruel asserted that the COMELEC erroneously credited his votes to Roel, as the circumstances did not warrant application of the Santos doctrine.
  • Lack of Quorum: In a supplemental pleading, Ruel alleged that the COMELEC En Banc railroaded the proceedings without the necessary quorum or votes.

• Roel Degamo:

  • Due Process: Respondent Roel countered that Teves was not a real party in interest in a nuisance petition under existing COMELEC rules and jurisprudence; only the alleged nuisance candidate and the affected legitimate candidate are required to be impleaded. Teves could have intervened but did not, and his exclusion did not violate due process.
  • Validity of Nuisance Candidate Declaration: Roel defended the COMELEC’s factual findings, emphasizing that Ruel failed to present a birth certificate or any witness to prove he was legitimately known as Ruel Degamo. The similarity between “Roel” and “Ruel” was manifestly confusing, and the substantial number of votes Ruel received actually demonstrated the extent of voter confusion.
  • Crediting of Votes: Roel argued that settled jurisprudence from Martinez III v. HRET, Dela Cruz v. COMELEC, Zapanta v. COMELEC, and Santos v. COMELEC mandates that votes for a nuisance candidate be credited to the legitimate candidate with a similar name to give effect to the will of the electorate.
  • Tangential Allegations: Roel dismissed the claims of forum shopping, the sham resolution, and the Balasbas prejudicial question as fictional and tangential.

• Office of the Solicitor General (representing the COMELEC):

  • Mootness: The OSG argued that the petitions were moot because of supervening events—the COMELEC’s resolution, the proclamation, and the assumption of Roel Degamo as Governor—and that no exception to the mootness rule applied.
  • Improper Remedy: The OSG contended that the proper remedy to determine the rightful governor was an election contest or quo warranto proceeding, not a petition for certiorari.
  • No Grave Abuse of Discretion: The OSG submitted that the petitioners failed to establish any capricious, arbitrary, or whimsical exercise of judgment by the COMELEC.

• Declaration of Nuisance Candidate: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that Ruel Degamo filed his Certificate of Candidacy to cause confusion among voters and lacked a bona fide intention to run.
• Burden of Proof and Evidence: Whether the COMELEC En Banc improperly shifted the burden of proof to Ruel and disregarded evidence of his legitimate use of the name “Ruel Degamo.”
• Due Process: Whether Teves was denied due process by his non-inclusion as a party respondent in the nuisance proceedings.
• Crediting of Votes: Whether the COMELEC correctly ordered that the 49,953 votes cast for Ruel Degamo be counted in favor of Roel Degamo.
• Prejudicial Question and Procedural Irregularities: Whether the pendency of Balasbas, et al. v. Degamo or the existence of an alleged sham resolution rendered the COMELEC’s resolutions void.

• Declaration of Nuisance Candidate: The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Its factual determination that Ruel Degamo used the name “Ruel Degamo” in bad faith to confuse the electorate is a finding of a specialized constitutional agency entitled to respect and will not be reversed absent exceptional circumstances. The names “Roel Degamo” and “Ruel Degamo,” distinguishable by only one vowel and having identical pronunciation, were confusingly similar, satisfying the standard under Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code as interpreted in Bautista v. COMELEC, Martinez III v. HRET, and Zapanta v. COMELEC. The potential for voter confusion persists even under an automated election system, as the human mind can still be misled by nearly identical names on the ballot.

• Burden of Proof and Evidence: The COMELEC did not improperly shift the burden. Roel Degamo presented affidavits and supporting evidence establishing a prima facie case that Ruel was not a Degamo and was using the name to create confusion. This shifted the burden of evidence to Ruel to prove his bona fide intention. Ruel’s unexplained failure to present his birth certificate—readily available from the Local Civil Registry or the Philippine Statistics Authority—triggered the disputable presumption under Rule 131, Section 3(e) of the Rules of Court that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. None of the recognized exceptions applied: the birth certificate was not at the disposal of both parties, the suppression appeared willful, the document was not merely corroborative but the primary evidence of filiation, and no privilege was involved.

• Due Process: Teves’ right to due process was not violated. Under the doctrine in Santos v. COMELEC and reiterated in Zapanta v. COMELEC, the only real parties in interest in a nuisance petition are the alleged nuisance candidate and the affected legitimate candidate whose names are confusingly similar. Unaffected candidates like Teves, who do not share a similar name with the nuisance candidate, are mere observers; their vote tallies remain unchanged regardless of the outcome of the nuisance case. They are not required to be impleaded, and their non-participation does not invalidate the proceedings.

• Crediting of Votes: The COMELEC correctly ordered the votes cast for Ruel Degamo to be credited to Roel Degamo. A consistent line of jurisprudence—from Bautista, Martinez III, Dela Cruz, Santos to Zapanta—holds that when a nuisance candidate is declared as such, the votes that candidate received must be counted in favor of the legitimate candidate with the similar name to give effect to the will of the electorate. This rule applies regardless of whether the declaration becomes final after the elections and remains valid under the automated election system. For a single-slot office such as governor, the simple addition of votes is proper because a voter may cast only one vote and the risk of double-counting present in multi-slot offices does not apply.

• Prejudicial Question and Procedural Irregularities: The pendency of the Balasbas disqualification case and the allegation of a sham resolution did not constitute grave abuse of discretion. The COMELEC’s resolution of the nuisance case was an independent proceeding that did not hinge on the outcome of Balasbas. The petitioners failed to demonstrate how these alleged irregularities amounted to a capricious or arbitrary exercise of judgment.

• Nuisance Candidate under Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code — A candidate may be declared a nuisance candidate motu proprio by the COMELEC or upon a verified petition of an interested party if the certificate of candidacy is filed to put the election process in mockery or disrepute, or to cause confusion among voters by the similarity of the names of the registered candidates, or by other circumstances demonstrating the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for office. To establish a nuisance candidacy based on name similarity, the petitioner must show that the resemblance can confuse voters and that the respondent lacks a genuine intention to seek the office. The COMELEC’s factual findings on these matters are accorded great respect and will not be disturbed absent grave abuse of discretion.

• Burden of Evidence and the Presumption Against Willful Suppression — Once the petitioner in a nuisance case presents evidence establishing a prima facie case that the respondent’s candidacy is intended to confuse voters, the burden of evidence shifts to the respondent to prove bona fide intention. The unexplained failure to produce the best evidence to controvert the petitioner’s allegations, such as a birth certificate necessary to establish filiation and the legitimate use of a surname, gives rise to the disputable presumption under Rule 131, Section 3(e) of the Rules of Court that the evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced.

• Crediting of Votes Cast for a Nuisance Candidate — When a candidate is declared a nuisance candidate after the elections because of a confusingly similar name, the votes cast for that nuisance candidate shall be credited to the legitimate candidate with the similar name. This rule gives effect to, rather than frustrates, the will of the electorate and prevents disenfranchisement of voters. It applies even under an automated election system. For single-slot offices, the votes are simply added; for multi-slot offices, the ballots must be examined to avoid double-counting: if a ballot contains votes for both the nuisance and the legitimate candidate, only one vote is credited to the latter.

• Standing of Unaffected Candidates in Nuisance Proceedings — In a petition for declaration of a nuisance candidate, the only real parties in interest are the alleged nuisance candidate and the affected legitimate candidate whose names are confusingly similar. Candidates who do not share such similarity are unaffected and are considered mere observers; they are not required to be impleaded, and their non-participation does not constitute a denial of due process.

• Finality of Nuisance Candidate Declaration After Elections — A final judgment declaring a candidate a nuisance candidate effectively cancels the certificate of candidacy as of election day, to avoid prejudicing the legitimate candidate due to the COMELEC’s delay in resolving the case.

• “In a petition for disqualification of a nuisance candidate, the only real parties in interest are the alleged nuisance candidate, the affected legitimate candidate, whose names are similarly confusing. … Glaringly, there was nothing discussed in Timbol that other candidates, who do not have any similarity with the name of the alleged nuisance candidate, are real parties-in-interest or have the opportunity to be heard in a nuisance petition. Obviously, these other candidates are not affected by the nuisance case because their names are not related with the alleged nuisance candidate. … Thus, they are mere silent observers in the nuisance case.” — This passage crystallizes the rule that Teves, whose name bore no resemblance to Ruel Degamo, had no standing to participate and was not denied due process.

• “Even the conduct of automated elections should not be treated as an automatic safeguard against the confusion brought by nuisance candidates. The complexity of the human mind cannot be easily comprehended. … This is especially true where the ballot has to be a one page document and has to be adjusted to accommodate all possible candidates, which makes it more challenging to read and for which the dominant part of the name used in the ballot gets immediate attention.” — The Court rejected the argument that automated voting eliminates the risk of voter confusion.

• “Accordingly, the Court consistently declared that the votes cast for the nuisance candidate must be credited in favor of the legitimate candidate with a similar name to give effect to, rather than frustrate, the will of the voters even if the declaration of the nuisance candidate became final only after the elections.” — This encapsulates the long-standing doctrine on the treatment of votes for nuisance candidates.

• Santos v. Commission on Elections En Banc, et al. , 839 Phil. 672 (2018) — Followed. Summarized the salient jurisprudence on nuisance candidates and established that unaffected candidates are mere observers; applied to reject Teves’ due process claim.
• Bautista v. COMELEC , 359 Phil. 1 (1998) — Followed. Disqualified a candidate with a confusingly similar name and held that votes for the nuisance candidate must be credited to the legitimate candidate.
• Martinez III v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal , 624 Phil. 50 (2010) — Followed. Ruled that final judgments declaring nuisance candidates should take effect as of election day, and that the legitimate candidate should not be prejudiced by the COMELEC’s delay.
• Dela Cruz v. Commission on Elections , 698 Phil. 548 (2012) — Followed. Held that even in automated elections, votes for a nuisance candidate should be credited to the legitimate candidate.
• Zapanta v. Commission on Elections , 848 Phil. 341 (2019) — Followed and extensively quoted. Reiterated the rules on crediting votes and the standing of unaffected candidates; distinguished multi-slot from single-slot offices.
• Timbol v. Commission on Elections , 754 Phil. 578 (2015) — Cited as authority that the COMELEC may cancel a nuisance candidate’s Certificate of Candidacy motu proprio or upon verified petition.
• De Alban v. Commission on Elections , G.R. No. 243968, March 22, 2022 — Cited for the proposition that the COMELEC’s power to deny due course to a nuisance candidate motu proprio remains even after Republic Act No. 6646.

• Section 69, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election Code) — Empowers the COMELEC to motu proprio or upon verified petition to refuse due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy of a nuisance candidate. Applied as the substantive basis for the declaration.
• Section 3(e), Rule 131, Rules of Court — Disputable presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. Applied against Ruel Degamo for his failure to present his birth certificate.
• Section 5, Rule 24, COMELEC Resolution No. 9523 (as amended by Resolution No. 9599) — Governs the procedure for crediting votes of nuisance candidates to the legitimate candidate; implemented by the COMELEC in ordering the Special Provincial Board of Canvassers.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Dimaampao, Marquez, and Singh, JJ., concur. Inting and Kho, JJ., no part. Rosario, J., on official leave.