G.R. No. 75875 - Aurbach vs. Sanitary Wares Manufacturing Corp.

Petitioner Jose M. Mercado was initially proclaimed winner of the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) Chairman election for Barangay Mabalor, Ibaan, Batangas, winning by a one-vote margin (49–48) as tallied by the Board of Election Tellers (BET), which simultaneously acted as the Board of Canvassers.
The proclamation was made on 4 December 1992 based on the initial vote count.

Crisanto P. Pangilinan, the private respondent and rival candidate, immediately filed a formal protest before the Board of Election Supervisors (BES) alleging irregularities during the vote counting—specifically, that the BET Chairman had been drinking gin and Coke and had invalidated some votes without consulting the other board members.
In response, the BES ordered the reopening of the ballot box and mandated a recount of the votes.
The recount produced a revised tally of 51–49 in favor of Pangilinan, upon which the BES proclaimed him the duly elected SK Chairman by issuing its own Certificate of Canvass and Proclamation.

Mercado filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City seeking:

The annulment of Pangilinan’s proclamation by the BES.
An order directing the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) to recognize him as the duly elected SK Chairman, allowing him to assume office.

In his petition (Civil Case No. 3565), Mercado challenged the jurisdiction of the BES, contending that the issues raised were in the nature of an election protest that should have been handled by the metropolitan or municipal trial courts under Section 252 of the Omnibus Election Code.
Mercado further argued that even if the BES had jurisdiction, certain grounds (including due process violations) were improperly waived, and the BES abused its discretion by ordering the reopening of the ballot box and recount without affording him the opportunity to be heard.

The RTC dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, citing that COMELEC Resolution No. 2499 vested the BES with exclusive authority over SK election controversies instead of the RTC.
Mercado sought reconsideration from the RTC, arguing:

That judicial review via the writ of certiorari under B.P. Blg. 129 was a valid mode of relief.
That the COMELEC’s Resolutions Nos. 2499 and 2520 merely provided technical assistance and barred any further administrative appeal from the BES’s actions.
That the exhaustion of administrative remedies was inapplicable since his petition was anchored on pure questions of law and due process.

The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration in its Order dated 2 March 1993, affirming that the reopening and recount were within the BES’s jurisdiction and advising Mercado to seek relief from the DILG.

Mercado, in his subsequent petition under Rule 45 for review on pure questions of law, reiterated his contention regarding the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court over the SK election controversy.
He also challenged the validity and constitutionality of COMELEC Resolution No. 2499, alleging that:

The resolution established a separate and inconsistent set of rules for SK elections, contravening the Omnibus Election Code.
It represented an abdication by the COMELEC of its constitutionally mandated duty to enforce and administer all election laws.

The petitioner argued that the SK election should not be conflated with contests involving elective barangay officials under existing laws and constitutional provisions, noting that the SK chairman, although an ex-officio member of the sangguniang barangay, is not an elective barangay official in the conventional sense.

Originally organized under P.D. No. 684 as the Kabataang Barangay (KB) in 1975.
Reorganized under P.D. No. 1191 in 1977, followed by recognition under B.P. Blg. 337 where the age requirement was raised.
Eventually renamed and reconstituted as the Sangguniang Kabataan under R.A. No. 7160 (The Local Government Code of 1991).

The legal framework provided for the conduct and administration of SK elections, including the delegation of supervisory and adjudicatory functions to the BES via COMELEC Resolution No. 2499.

The resolution created the BES and the BET specifically for the administration of SK elections, designating the BES as the final arbiter for all election protests.
The petitioner argued that by vesting final jurisdiction in the BES, the resolution contradicted Section 252 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 2, Article IX-C of the Constitution, which allocate original and appellate jurisdiction over election contests involving elective barangay officials to the trial courts and COMELEC respectively.
The controversy centers on whether the SK election falls within the ambit of such statutory and constitutional provisions, with the Court noting the distinct nature of SK officials compared to elective barangay officials.

Whether COMELEC Resolution No. 2499, which establishes the BES as the final arbiter in SK election protests, is legal and constitutional.
Whether the resolution’s separate set of rules for SK elections is consistent with the Omnibus Election Code, which applies to all public officer elections.

Whether the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) have jurisdiction over election controversies involving SK elections, despite the allocation of authority to the BES under COMELEC Resolution No. 2499.
Whether Mercado’s petition for certiorari, which challenges both the jurisdiction of the BES and the subsequent actions taken (reopening of the ballot box and recount), falls within the allowable grounds for judicial review.
Whether the alleged due process violations undermined the BES’s quasi-judicial actions, thereby justifying judicial intervention.