Saura vs. Sindico

#3 SAURA vs. SINDICO FACTS: •

•

•

•

Ramon Saura and Estela Sindico were competing for nomination as the official candidate of the Nacionalista Party in the 4 th district of Pangasinan for the 1957 congressional elections. he parties entered into a written agreement containing a pledge that !  "Each aspirant shall respect the result of the con#ention$ i.e.$ no one of us shall either run as a re%el or independent candidate after losing in said con#ention.& 'n the pro#incial con#ention of the Nacionalista Party$ Saura was elected the Party(s official congressional candidate for the 4 th district of Pangasinan. Sindico$ in disregard of the co#enant$ filed her certificate of candidacy for the same office with )*+E,E)$ and she openly and acti#ely campaigned for her election. Saura commenced a suit for the reco#ery of damages.

RULING: •

•

-ismissed the complaint of Saura %ecause the agreement sued upon is null and #oid$ in that 1/ the su%0ect matter of the contract$ %eing a pu%lic office$ is not within the commerce of man and 2/ the pledge was in curtailment of the free e3ercise of electi#e franchise and therefore against pu%lic policy.  ffirmed the decision of the lower court. SC –  ffirmed

HELD/RATIO: NO! •

•

•

mong those that may not %e the o%0ect of contracts are certain rights of indi#iduals$ which the law and pu%lic policy ha#e deemed wise to e3clude from the commerce of man. mong them are the political rights conferred upon citi8ens$ including$ one(s right to #ote$ the right to present one(s candidacy to the  people and to %e #oted to pu%lic office$ office$ pro#ided$ howe#er$ that that all the ualifications prescri%ed %y law o%tain. Such rights may not %e %argained away for they are conferred not for indi#idual or pri#ate %enefit or ad#antage %ut for the pu%lic good and interest. )onstitutional and statutory pro#ision fi3 the ualifications of persons who may  %e eligi%le for certain electi#e pu%lic offices. Said reuirements may neither %e %e enlarged nor reduced %y mere agreements %etween pri#ate parties. 'n the case at hand$ Saura complains on account of Sindico(s alleged #iolation of the pledge %y filing her own certificate o candidacy. 'n the face of the preceding considerations$ Saura(s action would result in limiting the choice of the electors to only those persons selected %y a small group.

CFI –

ISSUE: hether the agreement %etween the parties has a #alid o%0ect which ma6es the contract %inding

DOCTRINE:

ll things which are not outside the commerce of men$ including future things$ may %e the o%0ect of a contract. ll rights which are not intransmissi%le ma y also %e the o%0ect of contracts.  No contract may %e entered into upon future inheritance inheritance e3cept in cases e3pressly authori8ed %y law. Art. 1347.

ll ser#ices which are not contrary to law$ morals$ good customs$ pu%lic order or  pu%lic policy may li6ewise %e the o%0ect of a contract.