ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 137331. June 28, 1999]

DOMINADOR GONZALES vs. HON JUDGE ROLAND JURADO, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 28, 1999.

G.R. No. 137331 (Dominador Gonzales vs. Hon. Judge Roland Jurado, et al.)

The antecedents that led to the filing of this petition for review are as follows:

In the general elections of May 11, 1998, petitioner Dominador Gonzales and private respondent Donato Marcos were candidates for the position of mayor in the municipality of Paombong, Bulacan. Petitioner was proclaimed the winning candidate on May 11, 1998, with a margin of 496 votes over private respondent Marcos.

During the canvass of votes before the Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC), respondent Marcos objected to, and questioned 17 election returns from 17 precincts. Overruled by the MBC, he appealed the ruling to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The same was docketed as Comelec Case SPC No. 98-105.

During the pendency of said case, respondent Marcos filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 26. In due course, petitioner filed his answer and prayed for the dismissal of the protest on the ground of lack of cause of action. Petitioner also filed a motion for preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses.

In the meantime, respondent Marco's appeal to the COMELEC was denied for lack of merit.

During the pre-trial of the election case, the RTC issued an order allowing petitioner to file a "Motion to Reiterate Affirmative Defense of Lack of Cause of Action and Dismiss Protest" while respondent Marcos was required to pay the necessary fees.

On July 7, 1998, the RTC denied the above motion, reasoning that the same is not one of the pleadings allowed in election protests.

On reconsideration, petitioner's motion was denied on September 28, 1998.

Petitioner then elevated his case via petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the issuance of TRO and/or preliminary injunction to the Court of Appeals.

On January 26, 1999, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment dismissing the petition ratiocinating that primary jurisdiction over special civil actions for certiorari such as the instant case rests with the COMELEC and not with the Court of Appeals following the ruling of this Court in Edding v. COMELEC, 1 [246 SCRA 502 (1995).] citing Relampagos v. Cumba. 2 [243 SCRA 690 (1995).]

Hence, the present petition for review.

We sustain the Court of Appeals. The jurisdiction of the COMELEC over the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus has been definitively settled in the case of Relampagos v. Cumba, 3 [Supra.] where this Court held that:

xxx. We now hold that the last paragraph of Section 50 of B.P. Blg. 697 providing as follows:

The Commission is hereby vested with exclusive authority to hear and decide petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus involving election cases.

remains in full force and effect but only in such cases where, under paragraph (72), Section 1, Article IX-C of the Constitution, it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction. Simply put, the COMELEC has the authority to issue the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. 4 [Id., at 703-704.]

Clearly, the instant case falls within the ambit of the foregoing provision.

ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE