Galang v. Geronimo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Festo R. Galang, Jr. was proclaimed winner for the mayoralty race in the May 10, 2010 Automated Elections for the Municipality of Cajidiocan, Province of Romblon, based on a Certificate of Canvass (COC) but without the official signed Certificate of Canvass for Proclamation (COCP). Subsequently, private respondent Nicasio Ramos requested a manual reconciliation of votes, which the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) granted. After the manual reconciliation on May 20, 2010, erasures and corrections were made on the COCP for the Sangguniang Bayan Members. For the mayoralty and vice-mayoralty candidates, the vote totals remained the same, and only the date on the COCP was changed to "May 20, 2010". On May 27, 2010, private respondent filed an election protest against petitioner. Procedural History: On May 28, 2010, the court sheriff served summons on petitioner by leaving it with Gerry Rojas at petitioner's residence. On June 8, 2010, petitioner appeared in court and requested a copy of the summons and protest. The respondent judge directed petitioner to file a pleading, and on June 11, 2010, petitioner filed a Motion to Admit Answer, asserting that the protest was filed out of time. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Romblon, Branch 81, issued an Order dated June 24, 2010, denying the Motion to Admit Answer, finding the service of summons valid and the Answer filed out of time. Petitioner then filed an Omnibus Motion for reconsideration and other reliefs, which was denied by the RTC in an Order dated July 22, 2010. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court, praying for the reversal of the RTC Orders dated June 24, 2010, and July 22, 2010, alleging grave abuse of discretion in considering the service of summons valid.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for certiorari questioning an interlocutory order of a Regional Trial Court in an election protest case. Whether the service of summons on petitioner was valid.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court held that a petition for certiorari questioning an interlocutory order of a regional trial court in an election protest case must be filed exclusively with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. This is because Section 4 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended, clearly states that if the petition involves an act or omission of a quasi-judicial agency, it shall be filed with and be cognizable only by the Court of Appeals, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules. However, in election cases involving an act or omission of a municipal or regional trial court, the petition shall be filed exclusively with the COMELEC, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. The Court reiterated the principle that if a case may be appealed to a particular court or judicial tribunal, then said court or judicial tribunal has jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Since Section 8 of Rule 14 of the 2010 Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal Officials states that an aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the COMELEC, it follows that the COMELEC has jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, petitioner erred in invoking the Supreme Court's power to issue the writ. On the Validity of Service of Summons: While the Court dismissed the petition on jurisdictional grounds, it implicitly acknowledged the procedural history leading to the petition. The RTC found the service of summons on May 28, 2010, to be valid, which led to the denial of petitioner's Motion to Admit Answer and the subsequent filing of the Omnibus Motion. The core of petitioner's argument before the RTC was that the service was invalid because it was made on a person not residing in his residence, thus rendering the subsequent proceedings ex parte. However, the Supreme Court did not delve into the merits of this issue due to the jurisdictional defect of the petition.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari questioning an interlocutory order of a regional trial court in an election protest case must be filed exclusively with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, as the COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction to take cognizance of an appeal from the decision of the regional trial court in such cases.