Fajardo v. Rosario
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners and respondents were opposing candidates for municipal offices in Baao, Ambos Camarines. Respondents were proclaimed elected, and petitioners contested the election. The contest was dismissed on the merits by the respondent judge. Procedural History: Petitioners submitted a bill of exceptions to the respondent judge for approval. The judge refused to sign it, stating the judgment was final and conclusive. The Petition: Petitioners filed an original action for mandamus with the Supreme Court to compel the respondent judge to sign the bill of exceptions.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge may be compelled by mandamus to sign a bill of exceptions in an election contest for municipal offices. Whether judgments of Courts of First Instance in municipal election contests are appealable to the Supreme Court.
Ruling
The demurrer to the petition is sustained, and the petitioners are given five days to amend their petition. If no amendment is filed, the case will be dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent judge may be compelled by mandamus to sign a bill of exceptions in an election contest for municipal offices: The Court held that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and its issuance depends on the petitioner's right to have the act performed. The right to a bill of exceptions is contingent upon the existence of an appeal. Therefore, the primary question is whether an appeal lies from the judgment in question. On the issue of whether judgments of Courts of First Instance in municipal election contests are appealable to the Supreme Court: The Court examined Section 27 of Act No. 1582, as amended by Section 2 of Act No. 2170, which stated that Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive and final jurisdiction over election contests, with a proviso for appeals to the Supreme Court in contests for provincial governors. The Court noted that these provisions were reenacted in Sections 576 and 577 of Act No. 2657. The Court also considered the Acts of Congress of July 1, 1902, and August 29, 1916, which grant the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction that cannot be diminished by the Philippine Legislature. However, the Court found that prior to the first Act of Congress, the Supreme Court did not have appellate jurisdiction over municipal election contests. Act No. 82 initially vested jurisdiction in provincial boards. Act No. 1582, enacted after the first Philippine Bill, conferred jurisdiction upon Courts of First Instance, but the Court determined that the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was not diminished because it never possessed such jurisdiction in the first place for municipal election contests. Therefore, the judgments in these contests were indeed final and conclusive, and no appeal lay.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction cannot be diminished by the Philippine Legislature. However, if the Supreme Court did not possess appellate jurisdiction over a specific matter prior to the enactment of the Acts of Congress, the Legislature's act of declaring such judgments final does not violate the Acts of Congress.