Rivera v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Juan Garcia Rivera and private respondent Juan Mitre Garcia II were candidates for Mayor of Guinobatan, Albay. Rivera was initially proclaimed the winner by ten (10) votes. Garcia filed an election protest, and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the proclamation, finding Garcia to have obtained 6,376 votes against Rivera's 6,222. Procedural History: Rivera appealed to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The COMELEC's First Division affirmed the RTC's annulment of Rivera's proclamation and declared Garcia the duly elected Mayor by 153 votes. Rivera's motion for reconsideration was denied by the COMELEC en banc, which modified the winning margin to 123 votes. Garcia assumed office but was later served notice of this Court's temporary restraining order. The Petition: Rivera filed a petition for certiorari seeking to annul the COMELEC en banc decision, arguing it had not yet become final and executory, and thus the COMELEC had no authority to issue a writ of execution. He contended that he had 30 days to file a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC en banc decision, declaring respondent Garcia as the duly elected Mayor, had become final and executory at the time the petition was filed. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in its appreciation of ballots and in affirming the decision annulling the proclamation of petitioner Rivera. Whether decisions of the COMELEC in election contests involving elective municipal and barangay officials, though declared final, executory, and not appealable, can still be reviewed by the Supreme Court through a special civil action of certiorari.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order issued on November 20, 1990, is LIFTED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the finality and executory nature of COMELEC decisions in election contests involving municipal officials: The Court held that while Article IX-C, Section 2(2) of the Constitution declares decisions in election contests involving elective municipal and barangay officials to be final, executory, and not appealable, this does not preclude a recourse to the Supreme Court via a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission clarified that such decisions, while not subject to ordinary appeal, are still assailable on grounds of grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, the COMELEC decision, despite being declared final and executory, could still be reviewed by the Supreme Court on certiorari. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC: The Court found that the COMELEC en banc did not act capriciously or whimsically. A painstaking re-evaluation of the questioned ballots was conducted, resulting in adjustments to the vote counts for both parties. Fourteen ballots originally adjudicated in Garcia's favor were overruled, and 16 ballots were added in Rivera's favor. These factual determinations by the COMELEC, which are within its expertise, were not marred by grave abuse of discretion. The Court reiterated that findings of fact of administrative bodies are generally final in certiorari proceedings unless grave abuse of discretion is shown. On the reviewability of COMELEC decisions in election contests: The Court affirmed its ruling in Galido v. COMELEC and Flores v. COMELEC, clarifying that the constitutional provision making COMELEC decisions in election contests involving municipal and barangay officials final, executory, and not appealable pertains to ordinary appeals. It does not divest the Supreme Court of its power to review such decisions through a special civil action of certiorari when there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the intent was not to make these decisions unassailable but merely to prevent further appeals in the traditional sense.
Main Doctrine
Decisions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in election contests involving elective municipal and barangay officials, while declared final, executory, and not appealable by the Constitution, do not preclude a recourse to the Supreme Court via a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, to review decisions tainted with grave abuse of discretion, or acting without or in excess of jurisdiction.