Villafuerte Vs

 Villafuerte vs. COMELEC Digest G.R. No. 206698, February 25, 2014 LUIS R. VILLAFUERTE,Pe!!o"er,# VILLAFUERTE,Pe!!o"er,#.$%&&ISSI%N .$%&&ISSI%N %N ELE$TI%NS AN' &IGUEL R. VILLAFUERTE, Re()o"*e"(. PERALTA,+. FACTS: Petitioner and respondent were both candidates for the Gubernatorial position of the province of CamarinesSur in the May 2!" local elections# Petitioner file a with the C$M%&%C a verified Petition to deny due course or cancel the certificate of candidacy of  respondent alle'in' that the latter intentionally misrepresented a false and deceptive name( nic)name that would mislead the voters when he declared under oath in his C$C that &*A+ ,*#M-G. ,*#M-G. was his nic)name or sta'e name and that the name he intended to appear on the official ballot was /-&&AF0%*T%1 &*A+ ,*#M-G. P3 that respondent deliberately omitted his first name M-G0%& and inserted1 instead &*A+ ,*#1 which is the nic)name of his father1 the incumbent Governor of Camarines Sur1&*ay /illafuerte1 ,r# C$M%&%C4s First 5ivision and C$M%&%C en banc ruled that there is no reason to cancel the C$C of respondent as matters of material misrepresentation in the C$C pertains only to 6ualifications of a candidate and nothin' is mentioned about a candidates name# ISSUE -eer or "o re()o"*e"( $%$ (ou/* be a"e//e* EL' No. 'e!(!o" o $%&ELE$ e" ba" a!r3e*. P%LITI$AL LA- &aer!a/ 3!(re)re(e"a!o" 3!(re)re(e"a!o" o"e3)/ae* by Se. 8 o e %3"!bu( E/e!o" $o*e reer o ua/!!a!o"( or e/e!#e o!e -n order to 7ustify the cancellation of the certificate of candidacy under Section 891 it is essential that the false representation mentioned therein pertains to a material matter for  the sanction imposed by this provision would affect the substantive ri'hts ofa candidate the ri'ht to run for the elective post for which he filed the certificate of candidacy#  Aside from the re6uirement re6uirement of materiality1 materiality1 a false representation representation under Section Section 89 must consist of a deliberate attempt to mislead1 misinform1 or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineli'ible# -n other words1 it must be made with an intention to deceive the electorate as to ones 6ualifications for public office# The use of surname1 when not intended to mislead1 or deceive the public as to ones identity is not within the scope of the provision# *espondents nic)name is not considered a material fact1 and there is no substantial evidence showin' that in writin' the nic)name &*A+ ,*# M-G. in his C$C1 respondent had the intention to deceive the voters as to his identity which has an effect on his eli'ibility or 6ualification for the office he see)s to assume# otably1 otably1 respondent is )nown to the voters of the Province of Camarines Sur as the son of the then incumbent Governor of the province1 popularly )nown as &*ay# Their Their relationship is shown by the posters1 streamers and billboards displayed in the province with the faces of both the father and son on them# Thus1 the voters of the Province of Camarines Sur )now who respondent is# Moreover1 it was established by the affidavits of 

respondents witnesses that as the father and son have stri)in' similarities1 such as their loo)s and mannerisms1 which remained unrebutted1 the appellation of &*A+ ,*# has been used to refer torespondent# ence1 the appellation &*A+ ,*#1 accompanied by the name M-G.!; written as respondents nic)name in his C$C1 is not at all misleadin' to the voters1 as in fact1 such name distin'uishes respondent from his father1 the then incumbent Governor &*A+1 who was runnin' for a Con'ressional seat in the 2nd 5istrict of Camarines Sur#