Veloria v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners and private respondents were candidates in the January 18, 1988 local elections for various positions in Manaoag, Pangasinan, including municipal mayor, vice-mayor, and Sangguniang Bayan members. Following the canvass of election returns on January 31, 1988, the private respondents were proclaimed as the duly elected officials. Dissatisfied with the results, the petitioners initiated an election protest. Procedural History: The election protest, initially assigned to Branch 48 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, underwent several proceedings, with some issues reaching the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. After the presiding judge's death, the case was transferred to Branch 49, presided over by Judge Santiago Estrella. On February 26, 1990, during the scheduled ballot revision, the private respondents filed a motion to dismiss the protest, alleging procedural defects. Judge Estrella dismissed the protest on March 7, 1990. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by Judge Romulo E. Abasolo on March 29, 1990. The petitioners then filed a notice of appeal on April 3, 1990. The private respondents moved to dismiss this appeal as tardy. Judge Abasolo gave due course to the appeal, prompting the private respondents to file a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The COMELEC granted this petition on August 2, 1990, enjoining Judge Abasolo and ordering the RTC to proceed with the dismissal of the election protest. The Petition: This special civil action for certiorari and prohibition was filed by the petitioners to nullify the COMELEC's August 2, 1990 resolution and the RTC's March 7, 1990 resolution. The petitioners argue that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court, however, found that the COMELEC lacked jurisdiction to issue the writ of certiorari. The Court affirmed the RTC's March 7, 1990 resolution dismissing the election protest, holding that the petitioners' appeal was filed out of time because their motion for reconsideration in the trial court did not suspend the period to appeal, as such motions are prohibited in election protests under Section 256 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 20, Rule 35 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. The Court concluded that the COMELEC's resolution was issued without jurisdiction and that the dismissal of the election protest had become final and executory.
Issue(s)
Whether a Motion for Reconsideration filed in the RTC in an election contest suspends the five-day period to appeal to the COMELEC. Whether the COMELEC has the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari to annul an order of the RTC.
Ruling
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition for certiorari in part. The Resolution of the COMELEC En Banc dated August 2, 1990, is ANNULLED for lack of jurisdiction. However, the Resolution of RTC Judge Santiago Estrella dated March 7, 1990, dismissing the election protest, is AFFIRMED and declared final and executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the Motion for Reconsideration did not suspend the period to appeal. Under Section 256 of the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881) and Section 20, Rule 35 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, no motion for reconsideration shall be entertained by the Regional Trial Court in election contests. The decision of the court becomes final five days after promulgation. Since the motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading, it is a mere scrap of paper that does not toll the prescriptive period for appeal. Petitioners received the dismissal order on March 15, 1990, and thus had until March 20, 1990, to appeal; the notice filed on April 3, 1990, was clearly tardy. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in the manner and according to procedures laid down by law, and its timely perfection is mandatory and jurisdictional. On Issue 2: The Court held that the COMELEC does not possess jurisdiction to grant a petition for certiorari. Reaffirming the doctrine in Garcia v. COMELEC, the Court explained that the authority to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus involves the exercise of original jurisdiction, which must be expressly conferred by the Constitution or by law. While the 1987 Constitution grants the COMELEC appellate jurisdiction over election contests involving municipal officials, it makes no mention of original jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs. Jurisdiction is fixed by law and cannot be derived by implication from the existence of appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, an original special civil action for certiorari against an RTC in an election contest may only be filed in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, as they are the only courts expressly granted such original jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
The power to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus is an exercise of original jurisdiction that must be expressly granted by the Constitution or by statute; it is never derived by implication from the grant of appellate jurisdiction. Under the 1987 Constitution, the COMELEC is granted appellate jurisdiction over election contests involving elective municipal officials, but it is not granted original jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs. Additionally, in election cases before the Regional Trial Court, a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under Section 256 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 20, Rule 35 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, meaning its filing does not suspend the five-day period to perfect an appeal.