LUISON V GARCIA 103 PHIL 453 APRIL 25,1958

FACTS:
Anacleto Luison and Fidel A.D Garcia were both candidates for the mayoralty position. The certificate of candidacy of Luison was filed by the Nacionalista Party of the locality duly signed by the chairman and secretary respectively, while the certificate of candidacy of Garcia was filed by the local branch of the Liberal Party but it was merely signed by one who was a candidate for vice mayor. For this reason, the executive secretary of the Nationalista Party impugned the sufficiency of the certificate of candidacy filed in behalf of Garcia, whereupon the Commission on Elections, after making its own investigation, issued Resolution No. 23 declaring Garcia ineligible to run for the Office.
Garcia filed different petitions but was all denied by the court because the issue is within the jurisdiction of the COMELEC.Notwithstanding the adverse ruling of the Commission on Elections, as well as the dismissal of the petition for prohibition sued out by Garcia, the latter continued with his candidacy and the question of his ineligibility became an issue in the campaign. And when the time came for the counting and appreciation of the ballots, the board inspectors, in spite of the adverse ruling of the Commission on Elections, counted all the votes cast for Garcia as valid and credited him with them in the election returns with the result that he garnered 869 votes as against 675 of his opponent Luison.Consequently, the municipal board of canvassers proclaimed Garcia as the mayor elect of Tubay, Agusan.
Believing that Garcia is ineligible to hold office, Luison filed a petition of quo warranto in the proper court of first instance for the purpose of disputing his ineligibility and securing his consequent ouster from office, but the petition was dismissed for lack of merit on a motion filed by respondent. After the reception of the evidence, the court found for protestee holding that the certificate of candidacy filed by the latter was in substantial compliance with the law and that the Commission on Elections erred in declaring him legally insufficient. It therefore dismissed the protest with costs against protestant. Hence the present appeal.

ISSUE:
WON the protestee being ineligible and protestant having obtained the next highest number of votes, the latter can be declared entitled to hold the office to be vacated by the former.
HELD:
The court held in the negative. As this Court has held, "The general rule is that the fact a plurality or a majority of the votes are cast for an ineligible candidate at a popular election does not entitle the candidate receiving the next highest number of votes to be declared elected.
In such case the electors have failed to make a choice and the election is a nullity" (Llamoso vs. Ferrer, et al., 84 Phil., 490). In a subsequent case, this Court also said that where the winning candidate has been declared ineligible, the person who obtained second place in the election cannot be declared elected since our law not only does not contain an express provision authorizing such declaration but apparently seems to prohibit it.
Moreover, a protest to disqualify a protestee on the ground of ineligibility is different from that a protest based on frauds and irregularities where it may be shown that protestant was the one really elected for having obtained a plurality of the legal votes. In the first case, while the protestee may be ousted the protestant will not be seated; in the second case, the protestant may assume office after protestee is unseated. The first case is brought to court by a petition of quo warranto, while the second by instituting an election protest. Thus, the Supreme Court, in defining these two remedies, said: All election disputes may be divided into two distinct classes: (1) those which pertain to the casting and counting of the ballots; and (2) those which pertain to the eligibility of the candidates. If there be cases incapable of being so classified, they have not been suggested. Considering the fundamental difference existing between the nature of a petition for quo warranto and that of an election protest, it may be said that a candidate who files a protest against one who has been proclaimed as having received the highest number of votes basing his protest cannot disguise his action so as to make his protest a justification to be seated in office. In other words, he cannot convert an action for quo warranto into an election protest. This is because these two cases are fundamentally different in nature and in purpose. In quo warranto, "there is not, strictly speaking, a contest, and the wreath of victory cannot be transferred from an ineligible candidate to any other candidate", while in a protest, "the question is as to who received a plurality of the legally cast (Topacio vs. Paredes, supra). The present action therefore, partakes of the nature of quo warranto and as such has no reason to exist.
Wherefore, the decision appealed is reversed. The Court declares that neither protestee nor protestant has been validly elected and so none is entitled to the position of mayor of Tubay, Agusan. No pronouncement as to costs.