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...

Facts:

Election Outcome and Filing of Election Protest

• On October 25, 2010, petitioner Ceriaco Bulilis was proclaimed winner in the barangay elections for punong barangay of Barangay Bulilis, Ubay, Bohol, having defeated respondent Victorino Nuez by a margin of four votes.
• On November 2, 2010, respondent Nuez filed an election protest (seeking a judicial recount and annulment of the proclamation) before the 6th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Ubay, Bohol; the protest was inexplicably docketed as Civil Case No. 134-10.

Participation and Notice Issues

• On November 5, 2010, Bulilis, represented by counsel, filed an Answer denying the allegations in the protest and petitioned for its dismissal on the ground that the protest failed to implead the Chairman and the Members of the Board of Election Inspectors, who were regarded as indispensable parties.
• On the same day (November 5, 2010), the Clerk of Court of the MCTC issued a generic notice of hearing for November 9, 2010.
• Counsel for Bulilis later claimed he did not receive proper notice that the hearing was for a preliminary conference; he asserted that he only learned of the hearing’s true nature on November 8, 2010, upon receiving a copy of Nuez's Preliminary Conference Brief.

Proceedings at the Preliminary Conference

• On November 9, 2010, at about 1:45 p.m., counsel for Bulilis filed his Preliminary Conference Brief with the Clerk of Court and provided a copy to Nuez’s counsel.
• At approximately 2:10 p.m., during the preliminary conference, counsel for Nuez moved in open court to be allowed to present evidence ex parte.
• Judge Daniel Jose J. Garces granted Nuez's motion to present evidence ex parte based on Bulilis’s failure to file and serve his Preliminary Conference Brief at least one day before the conference, as mandated by Section 4, Rule 9 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC.

Subsequent Motions and Judicial Actions

• On November 10, 2010, Bulilis filed a motion for reconsideration contending that he had not been properly notified about the preliminary conference.
• On November 15, 2010, the MCTC denied the motion for reconsideration, holding that the notice issued on November 5, 2010 was properly received by Bulilis and that his counsel was informed when he received Nuez’s brief.
• Bulilis then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Talibon, Bohol asserting:
• The MCTC lacked jurisdiction because the protest failed to implead indispensable parties.
• Grave abuse of discretion occurred when the MCTC allowed Nuez to present evidence ex parte.
• The COMELEC’s appellate jurisdiction in election cases is limited to decisions and not interlocutory orders.
• The RTC dismissed the petition on December 22, 2010, stating that the COMELEC holds exclusive appellate jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari in election cases involving municipal and barangay officials, a dismissal later reaffirmed when the motion for reconsideration of the RTC decision was denied on March 9, 2011.

Further Submissions and Court’s Consideration

• In the subsequent petition for certiorari filed with the Court (on appeal), Bulilis argued that the issues raised were purely questions of law and that the tribunal’s actions were beyond its jurisdiction.
• Respondent Nuez, in his comment dated June 13, 2011, contended that Bulilis had invoked an inappropriate remedy and venue, and had similarly defaulted on procedural requirements such as filing fees.
• The Court noted potential defects in the issuance of the notice of preliminary conference (e.g., its generic nature and improper service on the party himself rather than on counsel) but nonetheless determined that no jurisdictional error in the trial court’s order allowing ex parte evidence could be corrected by the appellate court.

Issue:

Jurisdictional Questions

• Whether the MCTC had jurisdiction to entertain the election protest given that it failed to implead the Chairman and Members of the Board of Election Inspectors as indispensable parties.
• Whether this Court (and previously the RTC) had jurisdiction to correct the alleged error stemming from the MCTC’s decision allowing ex parte presentation of evidence.

Procedural and Notice Irregularities

• Whether the notice of the preliminary conference, being generic and improperly served, violated the mandated requirements under Section 4, Rule 9 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC and thereby prejudiced the petitioner.
• Whether the failure of petitioner’s counsel to receive proper notice timed his filing of the Preliminary Conference Brief, constituting a basis for relief.

Appellate Jurisdiction and Appropriate Venue

• Whether petitioner’s appeal for certiorari should properly have been filed with or heard by the COMELEC based on its exclusive appellate jurisdiction over election cases involving municipal and barangay officials.
• Whether the interlocutory order in question falls within the scope of what may be reviewed by the extraordinary writ of certiorari or if it is beyond the court’s purview due to the COMELEC’s jurisdictional limitations.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)