Galido vs. Comelec

PERFECTO V. GALIDO VS.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND SATURNINO R. GALEON

G.R. No. 95346, January 18, 1991

PADILLA, J.

FACTS:
 Petitioner and private respondent were candidates during the 18 January 1988 local elections for the position of mayor in the Municipality of Garcia-Hernandez, Province of Bohol.  Petitioner was proclaimed duly-elected Mayor of Garcia-Hernandez, by the Municipal Board of Canvassers. On 25 January 1988, private respondent Saturnino R. Galeon filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court of Bohol. After hearing, the said court upheld the proclamation of petitioner as the duly-elected Mayor of Garcia-Hernandez, by a majority of eleven (11) votes.

Private respondent appealed the RTC decision to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).  Through its First Division, the COMELEC reversed the trial court's decision and declared private respondent the duly-elected mayor by a plurality of five (5) votes.  Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the COMELEC in its en banc reso¬lution of September 20, 1990 which affirmed the decision of its First Division.

ISSUE:
Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in rendering decision declaring private respondent the duly elected mayor.

RULING:
 The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials and has appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction or involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.  (Article IX (C), Section 2 (2), paragraph 1 of the 1987 Constitution). The fact that decisions, final orders or rulings of the Commis¬sion on Elections in contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices are final, executory and not appealable, does not preclude a recourse to this Court by way of a special civil action of certiorari.

We do not, however, believe that the respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in rendering the questioned decision.  It is settled that the function of a writ of certiorari is to keep an inferior court or tribunal within the bounds of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from commit¬ting a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

As correctly argued by public respondent COMELEC, it has the inherent power to decide an election contest on physical evidence, equity, law and justice, and apply established jurisprudence in support of its findings and conclusions; and that the extent to which such precedents apply rests on its discretion, the exercise of which should not be controlled unless such discretion has been abused to the prejudice of either party. 

Finally, the records disclose that private respondent had already assumed the position of Mayor of Garcia-Hernandez as the duly-elected mayor of the municipality by virtue of the COMELEC decision.  The main purpose of prohibition is to suspend all action and prevent the further performance of the act complained of.  In this light, the petition at bar has become moot and academic.