Bulilis v. Nuez

G.R. No. 195953 (August 9, 2011)

SC upheld Bulilis's election; emphasized COMELEC's exclusive authority on electoral disputes.

Facts:

On October 25, 2010, Ceriaco Bulilis was proclaimed the winner of the barangay elections for punong barangay of Barangay Bulilis, Ubay, Bohol, defeating Victorino Nuez by a margin of four votes. On November 2, 2010, Nuez filed an Election Protest with the 6th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Ubay, Bohol, seeking a judicial recount and annulment of Bulilis's proclamation, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 134-10.

Bulilis, through his counsel, filed an Answer on November 5, 2010, denying the allegations in the protest and arguing for its dismissal on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, as the protest did not implead the Chairman and Members of the Board of Election Inspectors, who were considered indispensable parties. On the same day, the MCTC issued a notice of hearing for November 9, 2010. Bulilis's counsel claimed he did not receive this notice and only learned of the hearing when he received Nuez's Preliminary Conference Brief on November 8, 2010.

On November 9, 2010, at the scheduled hearing, Bulilis's counsel filed his Preliminary Conference Brief but was informed that Nuez's counsel had moved to present evidence ex parte due to Bulilis's counsel's failure to file the brief in a timely manner. Judge Daniel Jose J. Garces granted Nuez's motion. Bulilis's counsel filed a motion for reconsideration on November 10, 2010, citing lack of proper notice, but the MCTC denied this motion on November 15, 2010, asserting that Bulilis had been properly notified.

Bulilis subsequently filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Talibon, Bohol, which was dismissed on December 22, 2010, on the grounds that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) had exclusive appellate jurisdiction over such petitions in election cases involving municipal and barangay officials. Bulilis's motion for reconsideration was denied on March 9, 2011, leading him to file the present petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether the MCTC had jurisdiction over the election protest filed by Nuez, given the failure to implead indispensable parties.
  2. Whether the RTC had jurisdiction to entertain Bulilis's petition for certiorari against the MCTC's interlocutory order allowing Nuez to present evidence ex parte.
  3. Whether the COMELEC had exclusive jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari in election cases involving municipal and barangay officials.

Arguments:

  • Petitioner (Bulilis):

    • Argued that the MCTC lacked jurisdiction due to the failure to implead indispensable parties.
    • Contended that the MCTC committed grave abuse of discretion by allowing Nuez to present evidence ex parte.
    • Claimed that the RTC's dismissal of his petition for certiorari was erroneous, asserting that his case did not pertain to election returns or qualifications but rather to an interlocutory order.

  • Respondent (Nuez):

    • Asserted that Bulilis was guilty of invoking a mistaken remedy and using the wrong venue.
    • Argued that the RTC correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, as the COMELEC had exclusive appellate jurisdiction over election-related cases.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court dismissed Bulilis's petition, affirming the RTC's dismissal of his earlier petition for certiorari. The Court found that the notice of preliminary conference issued by the MCTC was indeed defective, as it did not specify that it was for a preliminary conference and was improperly served on Bulilis instead of his counsel. However, the Court held that the RTC and the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to correct the MCTC's error regarding the ex parte presentation of evidence.

The Court clarified that the COMELEC has jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari concerning acts or omissions of trial courts in election cases, including interlocutory orders. It emphasized that the COMELEC's jurisdiction is not limited to final decisions but extends to any act or omission by a trial court in election contests. The Court cited previous rulings, including Galang v. Geronimo, to support its position that the COMELEC has the authority to issue extraordinary writs in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  1. The COMELEC has exclusive jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari involving acts or omissions of trial courts in election cases, including interlocutory orders.
  2. A party aggrieved by an interlocutory order in an election protest must seek relief from the COMELEC, not the RTC or the Supreme Court.
  3. Proper notice and service of court proceedings are essential, and failure to comply with procedural rules can affect the outcome of election protests.