Rep. Ma. Catalina Loreto Go v. COMELEC GR No. 147741 , May 10, 2001 Pardo, J.

. Facts: - Petitioner Loreto-Go filed Certificates of Candidacy for Mayor of Baybay, Leyte and for Governor of the province of Leyte. She filed an affidavit of withdrawal for the position of Mayor with the provincial election officer, which the latter ref sed to receive statin! that she sho ld file the sa"e with the " nicipal election officer of Baybay, hence, she filed the sa"e with the proper office by fa#. $owever, she filed the withdrawal %& "in tes after the deadline. 'espondents Felipe Monte(o and )rvin )ntoni filed separate petitions to deny d e co rse and*or to cancel the certificates of candidacy of petitioner. +he case was referred to the Law ,epart"ent of C-M.L.C which !ave d e co rse to respondents/ petitions witho t affordin! petitioner an opport nity to be heard or to s b"it responsive pleadin!s. Based on the report of the C-M.L.C/s Law ,epart"ent, the C-M.L.C en banc dis0 alified petitioner to r n for both positions1 hence, this petition.

2ss es: 3. 4-5 petitioner is dis0 alified to be a candidate for !overnor. %. 4as there a valid withdrawal of the certificate of candidacy for "ayor of Baybay, Leyte6 7. 4as there denial to petitioner of proced ral d e process of Law6 $eld: 3. 5o. Petitioner/s withdrawal of her certificate of candidacy for "ayor of Baybay, Leyte was effective for all le!al p rposes, and left in f ll force her certificate of candidacy for !overnor. %. 8es. Section 97, BP Bl!. &&3, does not "andate that the affidavit of withdrawal " st be filed with the sa"e office where the certificate of candidacy to be withdrawn was filed. 4hile it "ay be tr e that Sec. 3% of the C-M.L.C 'esol tion 5o. 7%:7-) re0 ires that the withdrawal be filed before the election officer where the certificate of candidacy was filed, s ch re0 ire"ent is "erely directory, and is intended for the convenience. $ence, the filin! of petitioner/s affidavit of withdrawal of candidacy for "ayor of Baybay with the provincial election s pervisor

of Leyte s fficed to effectively withdraw s ch candidacy. 7. 8es. Sec. 7, ' le %7 of C-M.L.C ' les of proced re provides that a petition to deny d e co rse to or cancel certificates of candidacy shall be heard s ""arily after d e notice. 2n the case, the C-M.L.C Law depart"ent cond cted an e#-parte st dy of the cases witho t !ivin! petitioner an opport nity to be heard, or re0 irin! her to s b"it a co""ent or opposition to the petitions" or settin! the case for hearin!. $ence, the C-M.L.C en banc deprived the petitioner of d e process of law in approvin! the report and reco""endation of the Law ,epart"ent.