Patulot v. Umali
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Nelson P. Patulot and respondent Jose L. Umali were candidates for Barangay Chairman. The Commission on Elections (Comelec) ordered the cancellation of Patulot's certificate of candidacy due to non-residence. Procedural History: Patulot filed a petition for mandamus in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lipa City, which ruled in his favor, ordering the board of canvassers to reconvene and include his votes. Umali filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA), which set aside the RTC's decision, holding that Patulot should have filed a motion for reconsideration with the Comelec and that the Board of Canvassers was correct in not counting his votes due to the cancellation of his certificate of candidacy. The Petition: Patulot appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting that Umali should have appealed the RTC decision instead of filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, and that the Comelec cancelled his certificate motu proprio without notice, making his remedy not a motion for reconsideration but a mandamus petition to the RTC.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the Regional Trial Court's decision. Whether the petitioner was properly notified of the Comelec resolution cancelling his certificate of candidacy. Whether the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Court finds no reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals, which rightly acted on the petition filed before it under Rule 65, as there was a grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the propriety of the CA's action: The Court held that the Court of Appeals correctly set aside the RTC's decision by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which is the proper remedy when a lower court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The petitioner's assertion that the respondent should have appealed the RTC decision instead of filing a petition for certiorari with the CA is misplaced. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an appropriate remedy to assail a judgment or order rendered by a lower court with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The CA did not err in entertaining the petition for certiorari filed by Umali, as it was precisely to correct the RTC's erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. On the issue of notification and the finality of the Comelec resolution: The petitioner's contention that he was not notified of COMELEC Resolution No. 5038, which cancelled his certificate of candidacy and disqualified him, is incorrect. The records show that the petitioner was notified of COMELEC Resolution No. 5038 on July 15, 2002, at 5:30 p.m. and again at 7:30 p.m. Despite this notification, the petitioner did not act to seek a reconsideration of the Comelec's resolution. Consequently, COMELEC Resolution No. 5038 became final and executory. The petitioner's claim that the notice was merely handwritten and that he did not see the official resolution is unavailing, as the fax notice received at 7:30 p.m. also conveyed the disqualification. On the issue of the jurisdiction of the RTC: The Court held that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it issued the writ of mandamus. Since the Comelec resolution disqualifying the petitioner had become final and executory, the Board of Canvassers could not be compelled to count the votes cast in his favor. The petitioner's recourse should have been to file a motion for reconsideration with the Comelec before resorting to judicial remedies.
Main Doctrine
A COMELEC resolution cancelling a certificate of candidacy becomes final and executory if the candidate fails to file a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period. The Regional Trial Court commits grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing a writ of mandamus to compel the inclusion of votes for a disqualified candidate whose disqualification has become final and executory.