The mere use of a nickname identical to another candidate in a previous election is not enough to declare a contender a nuisance bet, the Supreme Court (SC) said in a decision.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio Kho Jr., the SC en banc found that the Commission on Elections (Comelec) committed grave abuse of discretion when it declared Charles “DB” Savellano a nuisance candidate in the 2025 polls.

Savellano ran for representative of the First District of Ilocos Sur in the 2025 elections. His rival, Ronald V. Singson, sought to have him disqualified, arguing that the nickname “DB” was confusingly similar to “DV,” the nickname of Deogracias Victor “DV” Savellano, who ran in a previous election.

Singson claimed the similarity between “DB” and “DV” would mislead voters. He also alleged that Savellano lacked genuine intent to run for office, citing his absence from campaign events and media engagements.

Comelec granted the petition, declaring Savellano a nuisance candidate and canceling his Certificate of Candidacy (CoC).

Lack of intent

It anchored its ruling on the “catch-all” provision under the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines, which allows the disqualification of candidates who show no genuine intention to run.

However, the SC earlier issued a temporary restraining order stopping the Comelec from enforcing its ruling while the case was pending — allowing Savellano to participate in the 2025 elections, though he ultimately lost.

In reversing Comelec, the high court clarified that while deliberately adopting a similar name to confuse voters may indicate a lack of genuine intent, similarity alone does not automatically prove such intent.

The SC noted that Savellano’s CoC stated his ballot name as “Charles ‘DB’ Savellano,” clearly distinguishing it from “Deogracias Victor ‘DV’ Savellano.”

Including his full name, rather than emphasizing only the nickname, ran counter to an intent to deceive voters, the court said.

The justices also rejected the argument that Savellano’s failure to actively campaign proved a lack of seriousness.

The Court noted that the campaign period had not yet begun when the allegations were raised.

“To fault petitioner for not taking part in any campaign events or activities to boost his candidacy when the Comelec itself has set the calendar for these activities would doubtless be unfair and run contrary to Comelec’s own rules,” the decision read.