[ G.R. No. 136969. January 18, 2000]

AMILHAMJA KANDUM vs. COMELEC, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 18 2000.

G.R. No. 136969 (Amilhamja Kandum vs. Commission on Elections and Hadji Gapur Ballaho.)

The records reveal that petitioner Amilhamja Kandum and respondent Hadji Gapur Ballaho were among the candidates for the position of Punong Barangay in Barangay Look Bisaya, Tipo-Tipo, Basilan during the May 12, 1997 barangay elections. Petitioner garnered sixty-one (61) votes over respondent's fifty-nine (59) votes. Consequently, the Barangay Board of Canvassers (BBC) of Look Bisaya proclaimed petitioner as the duly elected Punong Barangay of Look Bisaya.

On May 20, 1997, respondent filed an election protests with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Lamitan-Tipo-Tipo-Tuburan, Basilan Province. On August 29, 1997, the MCTC rendered a decision declaring respondent winner in the election after finding that he obtained seventy-five (75) votes over petitioner's seventy-one votes. 1 Rollo , p. 50.

Petitioner appealed the decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Basilan, Branch 2. On September 26, 1997, the RTC dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and returned the records of the case to the MCTC for proper disposition. 2 Id ., at 53.

On October 7, 1997, petitioner filed a notice of appeal to the COMELEC through the MCTC of Lamitan, Basilan. On the same date, he also filed a petition for relief from judgment with the MCTC stating that the appeal erroneously filed with the RTC should be considered as seasonably filed with the COMELEC.

On October 16, 1997, the MCTC dismissed the petition holding that since the petition for relief from judgment was filed on October 7, 1997 or thirty-seven (37) days after petitioner received a copy of the decision, its Decision, dated August 29, 1997 is already final and executory. Said court also held that the COMELEC Rules of Procedure does not provide for the remedy of relief from judgment.

On October 24, 1997, petitioner moved for a reconsideration of said order. On November 4, 1997, the MCTC of Lamitan denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of jurisdiction but directed the clerk of court to elevate the entire records of the case to the appellate court.

Meantime, on November 3, 1997, respondent filed a motion for execution praying that a writ of execution be issued. On November 17, 1997, respondent moved to reconsider the November 4, 1997 order of the lower court alleging that the latter lost jurisdiction over the cases as the appeal was perfected when the petitioner filed his notice of appeal with the MCTC on September 1, 1997 designating the RTC of Basilan as the proper court which has jurisdiction over his appeal. Both motions were not resolved.

On December 1, 1998, the Second Division of the COMELEC issued a resolution dismissing the appeal for having been filed out of time. 3 Id ., at 19.

Hence, the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

The only issue to be resolved here is which tribunal or agency has jurisdiction over election protests involving barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.

The issue has been settled definitively by this Court.

Under paragraph (2), Section 2, subdivision C, Article IX of the Constitution, 4 Sec. 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions:

xxx

(2) Exercise exclusive . . . appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction. exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective barangay officials decided by courts of limited jurisdiction (the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts) lies with the COMELEC, not the RTC. Accordingly, this Court in Flores v. Commission on Elections, 5 184 SCRA 484 (1990). struck down as unconstitutional that portion of Section 9 of R.A. No. 6679 which vested upon the RTCs appellate jurisdiction over such cases. This ruling was reiterated in the subsequent cases of Rodillas v. Commission on Elections, 6 245 SCRA 702 (1995). Guieb v. Fontanilla, 7 247 SCRA 348 (1995). and Calucag v. Commission on Elections. 8 274 SCRA 405 (1997).

It is clear from the foregoing that petitioner should have appealed the decision of the MCTC to the COMELEC and not to the RTC and that the MCTC should not have given the appeal to the RTC due course.

ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED. The Order of the Commission on Elections dated December 1, 1998 is hereby AFFIRMED.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com