Bulilis v. Nuez
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Ceriaco Bulilis was proclaimed the winner of the barangay elections for punong barangay of Barangay Bulilis, Ubay, Bohol, by a margin of four votes over respondent Victorino Nuez. Nuez subsequently filed an Election Protest with the 6th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Ubay, Bohol, seeking a judicial recount and annulment of Bulilis's proclamation. 2. Procedural History: The Election Protest was filed with the 6th MCTC, which Bulilis sought to dismiss for failure to implead indispensable parties. The MCTC issued a notice of hearing for a preliminary conference, which Bulilis's counsel claimed not to have received properly. Despite this, the MCTC granted Nuez's motion to present evidence ex parte when Bulilis's counsel failed to file a preliminary conference brief timely. Bulilis's motion for reconsideration was denied. Subsequently, Bulilis filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which dismissed the petition, ruling that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over such cases. The RTC denied Bulilis's motion for reconsideration. 3. The Petition: Bulilis filed the present petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court, arguing that the MCTC committed grave abuse of discretion by ordering the reception of evidence ex parte and that the MCTC lacked jurisdiction due to the failure to implead indispensable parties. He also contended that the RTC erred in dismissing his petition, asserting that the COMELEC's appellate jurisdiction is limited to decisions, not interlocutory orders, and that his petition was not an election case but one imputing grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court, however, found that the COMELEC has appellate jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari against all acts or omissions of courts in election cases, including interlocutory orders, and thus dismissed Bulilis's petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for certiorari questioning an interlocutory order issued by the MCTC in an election protest; and whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Whether the MCTC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the reception of evidence ex parte.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. It held that the RTC committed no grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction, as it is the COMELEC that has appellate jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari against acts or omissions of courts in election cases, including interlocutory orders, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the RTC: The Court found no merit in petitioner's argument that the petition for certiorari filed with the RTC was not an election case and that COMELEC's appellate jurisdiction is limited to decisions. Rule 14, Section 12 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC clearly states that the COMELEC has the authority to issue extraordinary writs only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction over decisions of courts in election cases involving elective municipal and barangay officials. Furthermore, A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, which amended Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, provides that in election cases involving an act or an 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 its ruling in Galang v. Geronimo that a petition for certiorari questioning an interlocutory order of a trial court in an electoral protest falls within the appellate jurisdiction of the COMELEC. Therefore, the RTC correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court, in turn, correctly dismissed the present petition for certiorari filed before it. On the MCTC's order to present evidence ex parte: While the Court noted that the notice of preliminary conference may have been defective, it deemed it unnecessary to resolve the issue of whether the MCTC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the reception of evidence ex parte, given that the Supreme Court and the RTC lacked jurisdiction to correct such an error. The primary focus of the resolution was on the proper forum for challenging interlocutory orders in election cases. The Court acknowledged the potential defect in the notice, stating that it was a generic notice of hearing without mention of preliminary conference and was served on the party himself despite being represented by counsel, which contravened Rule 9, Section 2 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC. However, this acknowledgment did not lead to a substantive ruling on the MCTC's action, as the procedural issue of jurisdiction took precedence.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has appellate jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari against all acts or omissions of courts in election cases, including interlocutory orders, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.