Case Digest (G.R. No. 95336)
Facts:
Juan Garcia Rivera v. Commission on Elections and Juan Mitre Garcia II, G.R. No. 95336, July 12, 1991, the Supreme Court En Banc, Padilla, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Juan Garcia Rivera and private respondent Juan Mitre Garcia II were candidates for Mayor of Guinobatan, Albay, in the January 1988 local elections. The Municipal Board of Canvassers originally proclaimed Rivera as duly elected by a margin of ten votes. On 26 January 1988, Garcia filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Legazpi City (docketed as Case No. 01-88). After hearings and upon considering a Revision Committee report, the RTC rendered judgment on 9 September 1989 finding Garcia to have 6,376 votes against Rivera’s 6,222 and annulled the Board’s proclamation.
Rivera appealed to the COMELEC. The COMELEC First Division affirmed the RTC’s annulment and declared Garcia the duly elected mayor, adjusting the margin (originally stated as 154 votes, modified to 153). Rivera filed a motion for reconsideration which the COMELEC en banc, in a per curiam decision dated 6 September 1990, denied and reaffirmed Garcia as winner but with a revised margin of 123 votes.
Pursuant to the COMELEC en banc decision, a writ of execution issued and Garcia assumed office on 10 October 1990. Rivera filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court on 5 October 1990 seeking annulment of the COMELEC en banc decision and asking the Court to restrain implementation, arguing that the COMELEC decision had not become final and executory and invoking Article IX‑C, Sec. 2(2) of the 1987 Constitution and the COMELEC Rules (Part VII, Rule 39, Sec. 1). Rivera also relied on Section 13(a) of Rule 18 and Section 1 of Rule 39 of the COMELEC Rules and claimed a 30‑day period to elevate the COMELEC decision to the Court. The Court issued a temporary restraining order which temporarily prevented further execution; Garcia continued as mayor until notice of the TRO.
Respondent Garcia countered that the Constitution makes COMELEC decisions in municipal and barangay contests final, executory and not appealable (Art. IX‑C, Sec. 2(2)); that Rivera had previously sought relief in G.R. No. 87046 (dismissed Mar. 7, 1989); and that Rivera’s supplemental complaints were errors of judgment, not jurisdictional defects cognizable by certiorari under Rule 65.
The Court compared the case with its earlier rulings in Galido (G.R. No. 95346, Jan. 18, 1991) and Flores v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 89604, Apr. 20, 1990) about whether the constitutional provision barring appeals from COMELEC decisions in municipal/barangay contests precludes a Rule 65 special civil action. After examining the challenged COMELEC en banc re‑evaluation of the contested ballo...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does Article IX‑C, Section 2(2) of the 1987 Constitution — declaring COMELEC decisions in election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices “final, executory and not appealable” — preclude the filing of a special civil action for certiorari (Rule 65) in the Supreme Court to review such COMELEC decisions?
- Did the COMELEC en banc commit grave abuse of discretion in re‑evaluating ballots and declaring Juan Mitre Garcia II the ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)