Relampagos vs. Cumba and Comelec

EMMANUEL M. RELAMPAGOS, VS. 

ROSITA C. CUMBA AND THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

G.R. No. 118861, April 27, 1995

In the synchronized elections of 11 May 1992, the petitioner and private respondent Rosita Cumba were candidates for the position of Mayor in the municipality of Magallanes, Agusan Del Norte.  The latter was proclaimed the winning candidate, with a margin of only twenty-two votes over the former. Unwilling to accept defeat, the petitioner filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Agusan del Norte, which was assigned to Branch 2 thereof in Butuan City.

 

On 29 June 1994, the trial court, per Judge Rosarito F. Dabalos, found the petitioner to have won with a margin of six votes over the private respondent and rendered judgment in favor of the petitioner.

 

As a result, the private respondent then filed with the respondent COMELEC a petition for certiorari to annul the aforesaid order of the trial court granting the motion for execution pending appeal and the writ of execution.  The petition was docketed as SPR No. 1-94.

 

On 9 February 1995, the COMELEC promulgated its resolution stating that, the Commission has exclusive authority to hear and decide petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in election cases as authorized by law, and therefore, assumes jurisdiction of the instant petition for certiorari which is hereby granted and that the Order of the court a quo of August 3, 1994 is hereby declared null and void and the Writ of Execution issued on August 4, 1994 is lifted.

ISSUE:

 Whether Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus in election cases where it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction.

RULING:

 Yes. 

We now hold that the last paragraph of Section 50 of B.P. Blg. 697 providing as follows: “The Commission is hereby vested with exclusive authority to hear and decide petitions for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus involving election cases” remains in full force and effect but only in such cases where, under paragraph (2), Section 1, Article IX-C of the Constitution, it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction.  Simply put, the COMELEC has the authority to issue the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.

 

Since the COMELEC, in discharging its appellate jurisdiction pursuant to Sec. 2 (2), Art. IX-C, acts as a court of justice performing judicial power and said power includes the determination of whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, it necessarily follows that the Comelec, by constitutional mandate, is vested with jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction