View full case

JUAN DOMINO v. COMELEC

FACTS:

Juan Domino filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of Representative of the Lone Legislative District of Sarangani, indicating that he had resided in the constituency for one year and two months prior to the election. Private respondents filed a petition with the COMELEC, presenting evidence such as Domino's voter's registration record in Quezon City and a community tax certificate issued to him there. They also presented a certificate of candidacy filed by Domino for a position in Quezon City in 1995, indicating a different birth date and residence. Domino presented a contract of lease and an extrajudicial settlement of estate to prove his residence in Sarangani since January 1997.

The Metro Manila Trial Court previously declared the registration of Juan and Zorayda Domino in Quezon City as erroneous and approved their transfer of voter registration to Alabel, Sarangani. The COMELEC 2nd Division declared Domino disqualified as a candidate for lack of the one-year residence requirement and ordered the cancellation of his certificate of candidacy. Despite this, the votes cast for Domino were counted, although his proclamation was suspended pending the finality of the disqualification resolution.

Domino filed a motion for reconsideration of the disqualification resolution, which the COMELEC denied. He then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. An intervenor, Lucille L. Chiongbian-Solon, urged the Court to uphold Domino's disqualification and proclaim her as the duly elected representative of Sarangani.

The issues raised by Domino for resolution were whether the decision of the Metro Manila Trial Court declaring him a resident of Sarangani is binding on the COMELEC, whether he met the one-year residence requirement, and whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction over the petition for his disqualification. The COMELEC argued that it has jurisdiction to determine a candidate's residency and that its authority is not conclusively bound by the trial court's inclusion/exclusion proceedings.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the judgment of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City declaring petitioner as a resident of Sarangani is final, conclusive, and binding upon the COMELEC.

  2. Whether petitioner Domino has resided in the subject congressional district for at least one (1) year immediately preceding the May 11, 1998 elections.

  3. Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction over the petition a quo for the disqualification of petitioner.

  4. Can the candidate who received the next highest number of votes (Intervenor) be proclaimed as the winning candidate if the leading candidate is disqualified?

RULING:

  1. First Issue The ruling of the Metropolitan Trial Court in exclusion proceedings declaring Domino a resident of Sarangani is not final, conclusive, and binding on the COMELEC. The COMELEC has the jurisdiction to determine whether there was false representation in the certificate of candidacy, including the residency qualification. The exclusion proceeding's determination does not possess the nature of res judicata beyond the right to vote in a specific precinct and does not preclude the COMELEC from making its independent assessment.

  2. Second Issue Domino was not a resident of the Province of Sarangani for at least one year immediately preceding the May 11, 1998 election as he failed to establish a bona fide intention to abandon his previous domicile in Quezon City and did not demonstrate a permanent change of residence to Sarangani within the requisite period.

  3. Third Issue The COMELEC has the jurisdiction over the petition for disqualification of Domino under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC’s jurisdiction continues even after the election if the candidate facing disqualification is voted for and wins, provided the winning candidate has not been proclaimed or sworn into office.

  4. Issue raised by Intervenor The candidate who received the second highest number of votes cannot be proclaimed as the winner if the leading candidate is disqualified. Election laws prioritize the electorate’s will, and allowing the second placer to win would disregard the majority vote indicating the electorate's choice.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Res Judicata Judgments in exclusion proceedings do not constitute res judicata on matters such as residence for candidacy qualifications.

  • Domicile The domicile of a person once established is presumed to continue until a new one is acquired. Change of domicile requires a genuine intention to abandon the former residence coupled with actual physical presence and conduct indicative of such intention.

  • Residency Requirement Meeting the constitutional residency requirement involves intent and actual physical presence in the district one intends to represent for the length of time prescribed by law.

  • COMELEC's Jurisdiction COMELEC retains jurisdiction to disqualify candidates even after elections but before proclamation and swearing-in.

  • Election Outcome The second highest vote-getter cannot replace the disqualified candidate. The electorate’s expressed will determines the winner, and no person can assume office without securing the majority or plurality of votes as declared by law.