38. GALIDO vs.
COMELEC HELD:
G.R. No. 95346. January 18, 1991.
Under Article IX (C), Sec. 2 (2), par. 1 of the 1987 Constitution, the
COMELEC has exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to
FACTS: the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial,
and city officials and has appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving
Petitioner Perfecto V. Galido and private respondent Saturnino R. Galeon elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction or
were candidates during the 18 January 1988 local elections for mayoralty involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited
in the Municipality of Garcia-Hernandez, Bohol. jurisdiction.
Petitioner was proclaimed duly-elected Mayor by the Municipal Board of
Canvassers. Accordingly, Article IX (A), Sec. 7 of the Constitution, states that: "(U)nless
Thereafter, private respondent filed an election protest before the RTC. otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or
The RTC upheld the proclamation of petitioner as the duly-elected Mayor ruling of each (Constitutional) Commission may be brought to the
of Garcia-Hernandez, by a majority of 11 votes. Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from
On appeal, the COMELEC: receipt of a copy thereof."
o reversed the trial court's decision and declared private respondent
the duly-elected mayor by a plurality of five votes. The fact that decisions, final orders or rulings of the
o held that the fifteen ballots in the same precinct containing the Commission on Elections in contests involving elective
initial "C" after the name "Galido" were marked ballots and, municipal and barangay offices are final, executory and not
therefore, invalid. appealable, does not preclude a recourse to the Supreme Court
o subsequently denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. by way of a special civil action of certiorari.
Consequently, petitioner filed before the Supreme Court a petition for
certiorari and injunction. (Dismissed for failure of petitioner to submit However, public respondent COMELEC did not commit grave
requisite papers duly certified) abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration. (Denied) rendering the questioned decision. It is settled that the function of a
writ of certiorari is to keep an inferior court or tribunal within the bounds
Undaunted, petitioner again filed the present petition for certiorari and
of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing a grave abuse of
injunction with prayer for a restraining order.
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
The TRO was granted and the respondents were required to file a comment
on the petition.
The COMELEC has the inherent power to decide an election contest on
In his Comment, private respondent moved for the dismissal of the present physical evidence, equity, law and justice, and apply established
petition, citing Article IX (C), Sec. 2(2), par. 2 of the 1987 Constitution jurisprudence in support of its findings and conclusions; and that the
while asserting that final decisions, orders or rulings of the COMELEC in extent to which such precedents apply rests on its discretion, the exercise
election contests involving elective municipal offices are final and of which should not be controlled unless such discretion has been abused
executory, and not appealable. to the prejudice of either party.
ISSUE:
PETITION DISMISSED.
WON final decisions, orders or rulings of the COMELEC in election TRO lifted.
contests involving elective municipal offices are final and executory, and
not appealable to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari. (NO)
