Case Digest (G.R. No. 95346)
Facts:
Perfecto V. Galido v. Commission on Elections and Saturnino R. Galeon, G.R. No. 95346, January 18, 1991, the Supreme Court En Banc, Padilla, J., writing for the Court.In the 18 January 1988 local elections for Mayor of Garcia‑Hernandez, Bohol, Perfecto V. Galido (petitioner) was proclaimed duly elected by the Municipal Board of Canvassers. On 25 January 1988, Saturnino R. Galeon (private respondent) filed an election protest in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Bohol, Branch I, Tagbilaran City; after hearing the RTC upheld Galido’s proclamation by a majority of eleven votes.
Galeon appealed the RTC decision to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The COMELEC First Division reversed the RTC and declared Galeon the duly elected mayor by a plurality of five votes; the COMELEC en banc denied Galido’s motion for reconsideration in its 20 September 1990 resolution. The COMELEC’s rationale was that fifteen ballots in the same precinct bore the initial “C” after the name “Galido,” which the COMELEC treated as a pattern of identifying marks rendering those ballots invalid; the COMELEC relied on authorities including Silverio v. Castro and Inguito v. Court of Appeals in support of rejecting repetitive letters or marks as evidence of identification.
Petitioner filed a certiorari/injunction petition in this Court docketed as G.R. No. 95135 on 25 September 1990, but this Court dismissed it on 27 September 1990 for failure to comply with Circular No. 1‑88 (lack of a verified statement of the dates of receipt of the challenged resolution and denial of reconsideration); a motion for reconsideration was denied on 4 October 1990. Petitioner then filed the present petition (G.R. No. 95346) on 6 October 1990, containing essentially the same allegations; this Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on 11 October 1990 and required respondents to comment.
In his comment, Galeon moved to dismiss on three grounds: (1) COMELEC decisions in municipal/ barangay contests are final and not appealable under Article IX‑C, Section 2(2) of the 1987 Constitution and COMELEC Rules (Part VII, Rule 39, Sec. 2), and thus should be executed; (2) the controversy presents pure questions of fact (appreciation of ballots) beyond the Court’s review; and (3) the first petition (G.R. No. 95135) had been dismissed with finality and the involuntary TRO issued in the present matter had already caused disruption because Galeon had assumed office. Petitioner replied that Article IX‑A, Section 7 of the Constitution and Rule 65 preserved the right to seek certiorari in this Court; he also argued the legal question under Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, Sec. 211, No. 10 (erroneous initials not annul votes) and insisted the COMELEC had disregarded controlling jurisprudence.
The Court found the petition without merit. It resolved that the constitutional rule making COMELEC decisions “final, executory and not appealable” does not preclude a petition for certiorari under Rule 65; however, on the merits the Court conclude...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court entertain a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 challenging a COMELEC decision in an election contest involving a municipal office despite Article IX‑C, Section 2(2) of the 1987 Constitution declaring such COMELEC decisions final, executory and not appealable?
- Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in reversing the RTC and holding that fifteen ballots bearing the letter “C” after “Galido” were marked and therefore invalid?
- Does the subsequent assumption of office by the private respondent render ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)