The Supreme Court has ruled that merely using a nickname similar to that of another candidate is not sufficient to declare a contender a nuisance bet.

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 elections.

Savellano ran for representative of Ilocos Sur’s First District. His rival, Ronald V. Singson, sought his disqualification, 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 would mislead voters and alleged that Savellano lacked genuine intent to run, citing his absence from campaign events and media engagements.

Comelec granted the petition and canceled Savellano’s certificate of candidacy (COC), invoking the “catch-all” provision of the Omnibus Election Code, which allows disqualification of candidates who show no genuine intention to run.

However, the Supreme Court earlier issued a temporary restraining order preventing Comelec from enforcing its ruling while the case was pending. Savellano was allowed to participate in the 2025 polls but lost.

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

The Court noted that Savellano’s COC listed his ballot name as “Charles ‘DB’ Savellano,” clearly distinguishing him from “Deogracias Victor ‘DV’ Savellano.” Including his full name undermined any claim of intent to deceive, the Court said.

The justices also rejected the argument that Savellano’s limited campaign activity proved a lack of seriousness, pointing out that the official 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.

The Supreme Court ordered the reinstatement of Savellano’s COC and declared him a valid candidate in the 2025 elections. It also made permanent the TRO previously issued against Comelec.