Case Digest (G.R. No. 195953)
Facts:
On October 25, 2010, Ceriaco Bulilis (the petitioner) was declared the winner of the barangay elections for punong barangay of Barangay Bulilis, Ubay, Bohol, defeating Victorino Nuez (the respondent) by a narrow margin of four votes. Following the election, on November 2, 2010, Nuez filed an Election Protest with the 6th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Ubay, Bohol, seeking a judicial recount and the annulment of Bulilis's proclamation. This protest was docketed as Civil Case No. 134-10. In response, Bulilis filed an Answer on November 5, 2010, contesting the protest on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, as the protest did not include the Chairman and Members of the Board of Election Inspectors, whom he claimed were indispensable parties. The MCTC issued a notice of hearing for November 9, 2010, but Bulilis's counsel claimed he did not receive this notice and only learned of the hearing when he received Nuez's Preliminary Conference Brief on November 8, 2...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 195953)
Facts:
Election and Protest:
- On October 25, 2010, petitioner Ceriaco Bulilis was proclaimed the winner of the barangay elections for Punong Barangay of Barangay Bulilis, Ubay, Bohol, defeating respondent Victorino Nuez by a margin of four (4) votes.
- On November 2, 2010, Nuez filed an Election Protest (for judicial recount and annulment of proclamation) with the 6th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Ubay, Bohol, docketed as Civil Case No. 134-10.
Preliminary Proceedings:
- On November 5, 2010, Bulilis filed an Answer, arguing that the MCTC lacked jurisdiction because the protest failed to implead the Chairman and Members of the Board of Election Inspectors as indispensable parties.
- On the same date, the MCTC Clerk of Court issued a notice of "hearing" for November 9, 2010. However, Bulilis's counsel claimed he was not informed that the hearing was a preliminary conference and only learned of it on November 8, 2010, upon receiving Nuez's Preliminary Conference Brief.
Ex Parte Proceedings:
- On November 9, 2010, Bulilis's counsel filed his Preliminary Conference Brief but was late. Nuez's counsel moved to present evidence ex parte, which the MCTC granted, citing Bulilis's failure to comply with the rules requiring the brief to be filed and served at least one day before the preliminary conference.
- Bulilis filed a motion for reconsideration, which the MCTC denied, stating that Bulilis had received the notice of hearing on November 5, 2010, and his counsel was aware of the preliminary conference upon receiving Nuez's brief.
Petition to RTC and COMELEC:
- Bulilis filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Talibon, Bohol, but the RTC dismissed it, ruling that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) had exclusive appellate jurisdiction over election cases involving barangay officials.
- Bulilis's motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting him to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Jurisdiction of COMELEC:
- The COMELEC has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over election cases involving barangay officials, including petitions for certiorari questioning interlocutory orders. This is supported by Rule 28, Sections 1 and 2 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure and A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, which amended Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
- The Supreme Court, in Galang v. Geronimo, clarified that the COMELEC's jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari extends to interlocutory orders in election cases, as these are in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
Defective Notice of Preliminary Conference:
- The MCTC's notice of preliminary conference was flawed because it was a generic notice of hearing and was improperly served on Bulilis instead of his counsel. However, this procedural defect does not confer jurisdiction on the RTC or the Supreme Court to correct errors in election cases.
Proper Remedy:
- Bulilis should have filed his petition for certiorari with the COMELEC, not the RTC or the Supreme Court. The RTC's dismissal of the petition for lack of jurisdiction was correct.