The Supreme Court (SC), sitting En Banc, has ruled that simply using a nickname similar to that of another candidate in a previous election is not enough to show an intent to confuse voters.

Because of this, it cannot be used as a reason to declare someone a nuisance candidate.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho Jr., the SC said 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 the First District of Ilocos Sur in the 2025 elections. His opponent, Ronald V. Singson, asked the COMELEC to declare him a nuisance candidate. Singson argued that Savellano’s nickname, “DB,” was similar to the nickname of a candidate in a previous election, Deogracias Victor “DV” Savellano. He claimed this similarity could confuse voters.

Deogracias Victor was a former congressman and governor of Ilocos Sur who died last year.

Singson also said Savellano did not show a real intention to run for office because he did not attend campaign events or give media interviews.

The COMELEC agreed and canceled Savellano’s certificate of candidacy (COC).

Savellano then went to the Supreme Court, which issued a temporary restraining order (TRO). This stopped the COMELEC from enforcing its decision while the case was being reviewed. Because of the TRO, Savellano was able to join the 2025 elections, although he did not win.

Under the Omnibus Election Code, a candidate may be declared a nuisance if the COC was filed to make a mockery of the election, to confuse voters by using a similar name as a registered candidate, or if other acts show that the candidate does not truly intend to run.

In this case, the SC noted that the alleged similarity was not between two registered candidates in the same election. The COMELEC instead relied on the general ground that Savellano supposedly had no real intention to run.

However, the SC disagreed.

The Court said that while deliberately using a similar name to confuse voters may show lack of genuine intent, having a similar nickname by itself is not enough proof.

Savellano’s name on the ballot was listed as “Charles ‘DB’ Savellano,” which is clearly different from “Deogracias Victor ‘DV’ Savellano.” The SC said that including his full name instead of highlighting only the nickname does not show an intent to confuse voters.

The SC also ruled that simply claiming a candidate has no real intention to run because they have not started campaigning is not enough. There must be strong evidence to support such a claim.

Savellano explained that the campaign period had not yet begun at the time he filed his COC, so he had not started campaign activities. The SC said it would be unfair to fault him for not campaigning before the official campaign period set by the COMELEC.

In the end, the SC ordered the reinstatement of Savellano’s COC and declared him a candidate for the First District of Ilocos Sur in the 2025 elections. The temporary restraining order against the COMELEC was also made permanent.