Galido v. Commission on Elections
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Perfecto V. Galido and private respondent Saturnino R. Galeon were candidates for Mayor of Garcia-Hernandez, Bohol, in the 18 January 1988 local elections. Petitioner Galido was proclaimed Mayor by the Municipal Board of Canvassers. Private respondent Galeon filed an election protest, which the Regional Trial Court (RTC) upheld, affirming petitioner's victory by eleven (11) votes. Procedural History: Private respondent appealed to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The COMELEC's First Division reversed the RTC decision, declaring private respondent the winner by five (5) votes, invalidating fifteen (15) ballots in a specific precinct for containing the initial "C" after the name "Galido," deeming them marked ballots. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the COMELEC en banc. The Petition: Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari and preliminary injunction with the Supreme Court, seeking to prohibit the COMELEC from implementing its decision and private respondent from assuming office. This petition was docketed as G.R. No. 95346. A prior petition (G.R. No. 95135) with identical allegations was dismissed by the Supreme Court for failure to comply with procedural requirements. Upon filing the present petition with the required documents, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order.
Issue(s)
Whether a COMELEC decision in an election contest involving a municipal office, which is declared final, executory, and not appealable by the Constitution, can still be reviewed by the Supreme Court via a special civil action for certiorari. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring fifteen (15) ballots as marked due to the presence of the initial "C" after the name "Galido." Whether the petition has become moot and academic given that the private respondent has already assumed office as Mayor.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order earlier issued by the Court is LIFTED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the reviewability of COMELEC decisions in municipal election contests: The Court held that while Article IX (C), Section 2(2), paragraph 2 of the Constitution states that decisions in election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices are final, executory, and not appealable, this does not preclude a recourse to the Supreme Court by way of a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The Court cited the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, which clarified that the finality and executory nature of these decisions do not rule out original special civil actions for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus. Therefore, the petition was properly filed before the Supreme Court. On grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC: The Court found that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in rendering its questioned decision. The COMELEC has the inherent power to decide an election contest based on physical evidence, equity, law, and justice, and to apply established jurisprudence. The extent to which precedents apply rests on its discretion, which should not be controlled unless abused to the prejudice of a party. The COMELEC's finding that the fifteen (15) ballots were marked due to the consistent presence of the letter "C" after the name "Galido" was considered a valid exercise of its discretion in appreciating evidence. On mootness: The Court noted that the private respondent had already assumed the position of Mayor of Garcia-Hernandez by virtue of the COMELEC decision. The main purpose of a prohibition writ is to prevent the further performance of the act complained of. In light of the private respondent already assuming office, the petition at bar had become moot and academic.
Main Doctrine
Decisions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in election contests involving elective municipal officials, while final, executory, and not appealable, may still be subject to a special civil action for certiorari before the Supreme Court if grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction is alleged and proven. However, a petition for certiorari may become moot and academic if the respondent has already assumed office by virtue of the COMELEC decision.