G.R. No. 94771 - JULY 1992 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 94771July 29, 1992 Ramon J. Veloria vs. Commission On Elections G.R. No. 94590July 29, 1992 China Airlines Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 94547July 29, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. David Saulo Y Santos G.R. No. 68037July 29, 1992 Paramount Insurance Corp. vs. Maximo M. Japzon G.R. No. L-50260July 29, 1992 Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-40145July 29, 1992 Severo Sales vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 97092July 27, 1992 Pepsi-Cola Sales And Advertising Union vs. Secretary of Labor G.R. No. 97816July 24, 1992 Merrill Lynch Futures, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 91847July 24, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Carlito Martos G.R. No. 90318July 24, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Porferio Ignacio G.R. No. 90270July 24, 1992 Armando V. Sierra vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 96914July 23, 1992 Cecilia U. Ledesma vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 95900July 23, 1992 Julius C. Ouano vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 95067July 23, 1992 Gerardo Aranas vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 90856July 23, 1992 Arturo De Guzman vs. Nat'l. Labor Relations Com. G.R. No. 85490July 23, 1992 Club Filipino, Inc. vs. Jesus C. Sebastian G.R. No. 82293July 23, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Rolando B. Madriaga, et al. G.R. No. 79903July 23, 1992 Contech Construction Technology & Dev't. Corp. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 73679July 23, 1992 Honesto B. Villarosa vs. Cresenciano B. Trajano G.R. No. 96091July 22, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Leonardo Hoble G. R. No. 95254July 21, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Marcos Abuyan, Jr. G.R. No. 104678July 20, 1992 Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 96712July 20, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Villanueva G.R. No. 95844July 20, 1992 Commando Security Agency vs. National Labor Relations Comm. G.R. No. 93411-12July 20, 1992 Encarnacion Flores vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 84250July 20, 1992 Daya Maria Tol-Noquera vs. Adriano R. Villamor G.R. No. 77396July 20, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Leo T. Villanueva G.R. No. 64725-26July 20, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Salvador Alacar G.R. No. 95778July 17, 1992 Skyworld Condominium Owners Association vs. Securities And Exchange Commission G.R. No. 94493July 17, 1992 Alejandro Atienza, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 92383July 17, 1992 Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 89265July 17, 1992 Arturo G. Eudela vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-68102July 16, 1992 George Mckee, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. 97147July 15, 1992 The People of the Philippines vs. Alex Querrer G.R. No. 93752July 15, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Laroy T. Buenaflor G.R. No. 75879July 15, 1992 Virginia Secretario vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. G.R. No. 96189July 14, 1992 University of the Philippines vs. Pura Ferrer-Calleja, et al. G.R. No. 98467July 10, 1992 National Development Co et al. vs. Court of Appeals et al. G.R. No. 98430July 10, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Rosalino Necerio G.R. Nos. 97144-45July 10, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Juanito "Ben" Villanueva et al. G.R. No. 95253July 10, 1992 Spouses Araneta vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 89554July 10, 1992 Juanito A. Rosario vs. Court of Appeals et al. G.R. No. L-41420July 10, 1992 Cms Logging, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals et al. G.R. No. 91879July 6, 1992 Maximo Regoso vs. Court of Appeal et al. G.R. No. 88300July 6, 1992 People of the Phil vs. Ernie Cabral Lapan G.R. No. 49282July 6, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Gilbert Pizarro G.R. No. 105323July 3, 1992 Francisco I. Chavez vs. Commission On Elections G.R. No. 105111July 3, 1992 Ramon L. Labo, Jr. vs. Commission On Elections et al. G.R. No. 98440July 3, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Jaime Laurora G.R. No. 97419July 3, 1992 Gaudencio T. Cena vs. Civil Service Commission et al. G.R. No. 96915July 3, 1992 Concepcion Dumagat vs. Sandiganbayan et al. G.R. No. 96865July 3, 1992 Marcelino Kiamco vs. Court of Appeals et al. G.R. No. 96825July 3, 1992 Rava Dev't. Corp. & Frabal Fishing & Ice Plant Corp. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 96628July 3, 1992 Ceferino Inciong vs. Eufemio Domingo G.R. No. 96410July 3, 1992 Nat'l. Power Corp. et al. vs. Court of Appeals et al. G.R. No. 96054July 3, 1992 Mariano M. Lazatin, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 95048July 3, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Roger Montilla et al. G.R. No. 94566July 3, 1992 Ba Finance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals et al. G.R. No. 93016July 3, 1992 United Aluminum Fabricators vs. Franklin M. Drilon G.R. No. 92391July 3, 1992 Philippines Fruits And Vegetable Ind. vs. Ruben D. Torres et al. G.R. No. 92136July 3, 1992 Edgardo Dytiapco vs. Civil Service Commission, et al. G. R. No. 90803July 3, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Epifanio Armentano G.R. No. 88912July 3, 1992 Tierra International Construction Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 88752July 3, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Danilo Palisoc Manansala G.R. No. 76818-19July 3, 1992 Cdcp Tollways Operation et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission et al. G.R. No. L-69971July 3, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Luvendino G.R. No. 64284July 3, 1992 Sps. Jose S. Velasquez et al. vs. Sps. Martin Nery et al. G.R. Nos. 37012-13July 3, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Gerardo Nomat, Sr. G.R. No. 96745July 2, 1992 Manuel Melgar De La Cruz vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 94588July 2, 1992 Finman General Assurance Corp. vs. Romeo Galiza G.R. No. 94534July 2, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Rodrigo Bigcas Y Amuncio G.R. No. 98432July 1, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Ex-Cpl. Victorio Pletado G.R. No. 98243July 1, 1992 Alejandro Arada vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 94785July 1, 1992 People of the Philippines vs. Elpidio A. Loste The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Ramon J. Veloria vs. Commission On Elections China Airlines Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals People of the Philippines vs. David Saulo Y Santos Paramount Insurance Corp. vs. Maximo M. Japzon Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals Severo Sales vs. Court of Appeals Pepsi-Cola Sales And Advertising Union vs. Secretary of Labor Merrill Lynch Futures, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals People of the Philippines vs. Carlito Martos People of the Philippines vs. Porferio Ignacio Armando V. Sierra vs. Court of Appeals Cecilia U. Ledesma vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals Julius C. Ouano vs. Court of Appeals Gerardo Aranas vs. Court of Appeals Arturo De Guzman vs. Nat'l. Labor Relations Com. Club Filipino, Inc. vs. Jesus C. Sebastian People of the Philippines vs. Rolando B. Madriaga, et al. Contech Construction Technology & Dev't. Corp. vs. Court of Appeals Honesto B. Villarosa vs. Cresenciano B. Trajano People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Leonardo Hoble People of the Philippines vs. Marcos Abuyan, Jr. Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Villanueva Commando Security Agency vs. National Labor Relations Comm. Encarnacion Flores vs. People of the Philippines Daya Maria Tol-Noquera vs. Adriano R. Villamor People of the Philippines vs. Leo T. Villanueva People of the Philippines vs. Salvador Alacar Skyworld Condominium Owners Association vs. Securities And Exchange Commission Alejandro Atienza, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals Arturo G. Eudela vs. Court of Appeals George Mckee, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. The People of the Philippines vs. Alex Querrer People of the Philippines vs. Laroy T. Buenaflor Virginia Secretario vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al. University of the Philippines vs. Pura Ferrer-Calleja, et al. National Development Co et al. vs. Court of Appeals et al. People of the Philippines vs. Rosalino Necerio People of the Philippines vs. Juanito "Ben" Villanueva et al. Spouses Araneta vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Juanito A. Rosario vs. Court of Appeals et al. Cms Logging, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals et al. Maximo Regoso vs. Court of Appeal et al. People of the Phil vs. Ernie Cabral Lapan People of the Philippines vs. Gilbert Pizarro Francisco I. Chavez vs. Commission On Elections Ramon L. Labo, Jr. vs. Commission On Elections et al. People of the Philippines vs. Jaime Laurora Gaudencio T. Cena vs. Civil Service Commission et al. Concepcion Dumagat vs. Sandiganbayan et al. Marcelino Kiamco vs. Court of Appeals et al. Rava Dev't. Corp. & Frabal Fishing & Ice Plant Corp. vs. Court of Appeals Ceferino Inciong vs. Eufemio Domingo Nat'l. Power Corp. et al. vs. Court of Appeals et al. Mariano M. Lazatin, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Roger Montilla et al. Ba Finance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals et al. United Aluminum Fabricators vs. Franklin M. Drilon Philippines Fruits And Vegetable Ind. vs. Ruben D. Torres et al. Edgardo Dytiapco vs. Civil Service Commission, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Epifanio Armentano Tierra International Construction Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission People of the Philippines vs. Danilo Palisoc Manansala Cdcp Tollways Operation et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission et al. People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Luvendino Sps. Jose S. Velasquez et al. vs. Sps. Martin Nery et al. People of the Philippines vs. Gerardo Nomat, Sr. Manuel Melgar De La Cruz vs. National Labor Relations Commission Finman General Assurance Corp. vs. Romeo Galiza People of the Philippines vs. Rodrigo Bigcas Y Amuncio People of the Philippines vs. Ex-Cpl. Victorio Pletado Alejandro Arada vs. Court of Appeals People of the Philippines vs. Elpidio A. Loste The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 94771 July 29, 1992
ATTY. RAMON J. VELORIA, ENGR. RENATO J. ESPEJO, JESUS O. BANDOLIN, SEGUNDO D. BILLOTE, GERONIMO B. ENRIQUEZ, RODOLFO C. MADRIAGA, and SOFRONIO L. MANGONON, and HON. ROMULO E. ABASOLO, as Presiding Judge-Designate, Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 49, Urdaneta, Pangasinan,petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, composed of DARIO C. RAMA, Commissioner-Ponente, HAYDEE B. YORAC, Acting Chairperson, ALFREDO E. ABUEG, Commissioner, LEOPOLDO L. AFRICA, Commissioner, ANDRES R. FLORES, Commissioner, MAGDARA B. DIMAAMPAO, Commissioner, HON SANTIAGO G. ESTRELLA, as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 49, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, ATTY. PEDRO N. SALES, ENGR. WILFREDO E. SORIANO, ERLINDA C. TAMBAOAN, ENGR. EMILIO M. ANGELES, JR., ELEUTERIO C. SISON, MANUEL FERRER and SANTOS SIBAYAN,respondents.
GRIÑO-AQUINO,J.:
This petition forcertiorariseeks the nullification of the (1) resolution1of the Commission on Elections dated August 2, 1990, and (2) resolution2dated March 7, 1990 issued by Judge Santiago Estrella dismissing the election protest filed by the petitioners against the private respondents, Atty. Pedro N. Sales. Engr. Wilfredo E. Soriano, Erlinda C. Tambaoan, Engr. Emilio M. Angeles, Jr., Eleuterio C. Sison, Manuel Ferrer and Santos Sibayan.
The seven (7) petitioners, Ramon Veloria, Renato Espejo, Jesus Bandolin, Segundo Billote, Geronimo Enriquez, Rodolfo Madriaga and Sofronio Mangonon, as well as the seven (7) private respondents, Pedro Sales, Wilfredo Soriano, Erlinda Tambaoan, Emilio Angeles, Jr., Eleuterio Sison, Manuel Ferrer and Santos Sibayan were candidates for municipal mayor (Veloria and Sales), vice-mayor (Espejo and Soriano) and members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Manaoag, Pangasinan, in the local elections of January 18, 1988.
After the canvass of the election returns on January 31, 1988, the private respondents were proclaimed duly elected to the positions they ran for.
Dissatisfied, the petitioners filed Election Protest No. U-4659 which was raffled to Branch 48 of the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, then presided over by the late Hon. Alfredo de Vera.
Several proceedings were had, and some issues were brought up to the Court of Appeals and this Court for determination.
Finally, the revision of ballots was set on February 26, 1990 by Judge Santiago Estrella, Presiding Judge of Branch 49, Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, where the Election Protest No. U-4659 was re-assigned by raffle after Judge Vera's untimely death.
On February 26, 1990, during the scheduled initial revision of the ballots in Precinct No. 22, Barangay Licsi, the private respondents, as protestees, filed a "Motion to Dismiss" on the ground that the RTC had not acquired jurisdiction over the election protest on account of the following:
(1) that the election protest involves the contests over three (3) different Municipal Offices joined together in one (1) single petition namely: the Office of Municipal Mayor, the Office of Vice Mayor, and the Offices of the Sangguniang Bayan, in wanton violation and clear disregard of the specific and mandatory provisions of Section 2, Rule 35, Part VI of the COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE, and/or Section 2, Rule II of Comelec Resolution No. 1451 (Procedural Rules for Election Contests);
(2) that the Election Protest was verified by only four (4) of the seven (7) protestants in violation of Section 6, Rule 35, Part VI of the COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE, and/or Section 3, Rule II of Comelec Resolution No. 1451; and
(3) that there is no showing that the protestants paid the requisite filing fees and legal research fees for each interest, also in violation of Section 9, Rule 35, Part VI of the COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE, and/or Section 6, Rule IV of the Procedural Rules for Election Contests.
On March 5, 1990, the private respondents filed a Supplemental Motion to Dismiss, alleging as additional ground for the dismissal of the protest that:
(4) the seven (7) protestants representing seven (7) interests or seven (7) election contests or protests failed to make the necessary cash deposit within the period required by this Honorable Court in clear violation of Section 10, subparagraph (b) of Rule 35, Part VI of the COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE.
The petitioners-protestants opposed the Motion to Dismiss. OnMarch 7,1990, Judge Santiago Estrella dismissed the election protest (p. 27,Rollo).
The petitioners received a copy of the court's Resolution on March 15, 1990. However, instead of perfecting an appeal within five (5) days as provided by law, the petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration on March 20, 1990.
The protestees opposed the Motion for Reconsideration, and the petitioners filed a Rejoinder.
In the meantime, Judge Romulo E. Abasolo, presiding judge of Branch 47, RTC of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, was assigned to take charge of the cases in Branch 49 in view of Judge Santiago Estrella's detail in Branch 69, Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila, by order of this Court.
On March 29, 1990, Judge Abasolo denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. On April 3, 1990, the petitioners (as protestants) filed a Notice of Appeal.
On April 10, 1990, the private respondents filed a "Motion to Dismiss Notice of Appeal" on the grounds, that:
1. the Notice of Appeal was filed out of time in violation of Section 256, Art. XXI of the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines (BP Blg. 881) and/or Section 22, Rule 35, Part VI of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
2. the Resolution of the trial court dated March 7, 1990 dismissing the election protest had already become final and executory.
On May 10, 1990, Judge Abasolo gave due course to petitioners' Notice of Appeal.
The private respondents (as protestees) sought recourse in the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) by a petition forcertiorariand Prohibition with a Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction or Restraining Order (SPR No. 8-90) to annul Judge Abasolo's order giving due course to the appeal.
On May 30, 1990, the Commissionen bancissued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining Judge Abasolo from implementing his Order of May 10, 1990.
On June 14, 1990, the Commissionen bancissued the following Order defining the issues:
After a thorough discussion of the issues, the following crystallized as the only issues to be presented for resolution by the Commission, namely: (1) the issue of whether or not a Motion for Reconsideration in electoral cases is a prohibited pleading; and (2) the parties agreed that in case the answer to the first issue is "yes," the notice of appeal was filed out of time and in case the answer is "no," the notice of appeal was filed on time.
Having agreed on these issues, the parties also agreed to submit the same for resolution on the basis thereof. (p. 20,Rollo.)
OnAugust 2,1990, the COMELEC granted the petition forcertiorari. The dispositive portion of its resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the CommissionEn BancRESOLVES, as it hereby RESOLVES, to:
1. GRANT the petition forCertiorari;
2. Permanently ENJOIN Public Respondent from implementing the order of May 10, 1990: and
3. ORDER the Courta quoto proceed with the disposition of Election Protest Case No. U-4659 in accordance with the Resolution of March 7, 1990 dismissing the election protest against herein Petitioners. (pp. 22-23,Rollo.)
Hence, this special civil action ofCertiorariand Prohibition with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order, filed on August 31, 1990 by the petitioners (protestants below), pursuant to Rule 39, Section 1, COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE (on Review of decisions of the COMELEC) attacking:
1. the Resolution of the COMELECEn Bancdated August 2, 1990; and
2. the Resolution of Judge Santiago Estrella dated March 7, 1990 dismissing the election protest of the petitioners.
Without giving due course to the petition, we required the respondents to comment.
After the latter had filed their Comments (pp. 37-63, 110-124,Rollo), the petitioners asked for extensions of time to reply (which the Court granted but they did not file the promised pleading).
As grounds of this petition, the petitioners allege that the questioned resolutions are not only erroneous but were issued by the COMELEC "with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction."
There is no merit in this petition for review for the COMELEC correctly found that the petitioners' appeal from the court's order dismissing their election protest was indeed tardy. It was tardy because their motion for reconsideration did not suspend their period to appeal. The petitioners' reliance on Section 4, Rule 19 of the COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE which provides:
Sec. 4.Effect of motion for reconsideration on period to appeal. — A motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order, or ruling when notpro-forma, suspends the running of the period to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court.
is misplaced. The "motion for reconsideration" referred to above is a motion for reconsideration filedin the COMELEC, not in the trial court where a motion for reconsideration is not entertained.
The rule applicable to decisions or orders of the court in election protests is Section 20, Rule 35 of the COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE which provides:
Sec. 20.Promulgation and Finality of Decision. — The decision of the court shall be promulgated on a date set by it of which due notice must be given the parties. It shall becomefinal five (5) days after promulgation.No motion for reconsideration shall be entertained. (Emphasis supplied.)
The above COMELEC rule implements Section 256 of the Omnibus Election Code quoted below:
Sec. 256.Appeals. — Appeals from any decision rendered by the regional trial court under Section 251 and paragraph two, Section 253 hereof with respect toquo-warrantopetitions filed in election contests affecting municipal officers, the aggrieved party may appeal to the Intermediate Appellate Court [now Commission on Elections] within five days after receipt of a copy of the decision.No motion for reconsideration shall be entertained by the Court. The appeal shall be decided within sixty days after the case has been submitted for decision. (Emphasis supplied.)
Petitioners admitted receipt of the resolution of the trial court dated March 7, 1990 on March 15, 1990 but they filed a notice of appeal on April 3, 1990 only, instead of on or before March 20, 1990 (five days from receipt of the trial court's decision), because they filed a motion for reconsideration which, as previously stated, is prohibited by Section 256 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 20, Rule 35 of the COMELEC RULES OF PROCEDURE.
The COMELEC, therefore, correctly ruled that the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners in the trial court on March 20, 1990 did not suspend the period to appeal since a "motion for reconsideration" is prohibited under Section 256 of the Omnibus Election Code.
Since the right to appeal is not a natural right nor is it a part of due process, for it is merely a statutory privilege that must be exercised in the manner and according to procedures laid down by law (Borre vs. Court of Appeals, 158 SCRA 560), and its timely perfection within the statutory period is mandatory and jurisdictional (Delgado vs. Republic, 164 SCRA 347; Sembrano vs. Ramirez, 166 SCRA 30; PCI Bank vs. Ortiz, 150 SCRA 380; Quiqui vs. Boncaros, 151 SCRA 416), Judge Abasolo gravely abused his discretion when he gave due course to the petitioners' tardy appeal from his predecessor's (Judge Santiago Estrella's) resolution of March 7, 1990 dismissing the petitioners' election protest. Said resolution had become final and unappealable.
Nevertheless, we must grant this petition forcertiorarifor the COMELEC does not possess jurisdiction to grant the private respondents' petition forcertiorari. This Court, through Mme. Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio-Herrera, in the consolidated cases of "Garcia, et al.vs.COMELEC,et al." (G.R. No. 88158)and "Tobon Uy vs. COMELEC and Neyra" (G.R. Nos. 97108-09) promulgated on March 4, 1992, ruled that the COMELEC has not been given, by the Constitution nor by law, jurisdiction to issue writs ofcertiorari, prohibition andmandamus:
In the Philippine setting,the authority to issue Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus involves the exercise of original jurisdiction.Thus, such authority has always been expressly conferred,either by the Constitution or by law. As a matter of fact, the well-settled rule is that jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or by law. (Orosa, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 76828-32, 28 January 1991; Bacalso vs. Ramolete, G.R. No. L-22488, 26 October 1967, 21 SCRA 519).It is never derived by implication. Indeed, "[w]hile the power to issue the writ ofcertiorariis in some instance conferred on all courts by constitutional or statutory provisions, ordinarily, the particular courts which have such power areexpressly designated"(J. Aquino's Concurring Opinion in Pimentel,supra, citing 14 C.J. S. 202; Emphasis supplied).
Thus, our Courts exercise the power to issue Writs ofCertiorari, Prohibition andMandamusby virtue of express constitutional grant or legislative enactments. To enumerate:
(1) Section 5[l], Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution conferred upon this Court such jurisdiction;
(2) Section 9[1] of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, or the Judiciary Regorganization Act of 1980, to the Court of Appeals (then Intermediate Appellate Court).
(3) Section 21[l] of the said Act, to Regional Trial Courts;
(4) Section 5[1] of Republic Act No. 6734, or the Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, to the newly created Shari'ah Appellate Court; and
(5) Article 143 [e], Chapter I, Title I, Book IV of Presidential Decree No. 1083, or the Code of Muslim Personal Law, to Shari'a District Courts.
Significantly,what the Constitution granted the COMELEC was appellate jurisdiction.The Constitution makes no mention of any power given the COMELEC to exercise original jurisdiction over Petitions for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamusunlike in the case of the Supreme Court which was specifically conferred such authority (Art. VIII, Sec. 5[1]. Theimmutable doctrine being that jurisdiction is fixed by law, the power to issue such Writs can not be implied from the mere existence of appellate jurisdiction. Just as implied repeal of statutes are frowned upon, so also should the grant of original jurisdiction by mere implication to a quasi-judicial body be tabooed. If appellate jurisdiction has to be statutorily granted, how much more the original jurisdiction to issue the prerogative Writs?
In view of this pronouncement, an original special civil action ofcertiorari, prohibition ormandamusagainst a regional trial court in an election contest may be filed only in the Court of Appeals or in this Court, being the only courts given such original jurisdiction under the Constitution and the law.
WHEREFORE, the petition forcertiorariis GRANTED. The Resolution dated August 2, 1990, of the COMELECen bancis annulled for lack of jurisdiction. The Resolution dated March 7, 1990 of RTC Judge Santiago Estrella, dismissing the election protest of the petitioners is AFFIRMED and declared final and executory. Costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Padilla, Medialdea, Regalado, Romero, Nocon and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.
Gutierrez, Jr. and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur in the result.
Paras, J., Retired.
Feliciano, J., concurs in the result, on the basis of Bidin, J.'s dissent in the Garcia-Tobon Uy cases.
Bidin, J., concurs in the result. Consistent with my dissent in the Garcia-Tobon Uy cases, I submit the Comelec has certiorari jurisdiction over decision of the RTC in election cases.
Footnotes
lEn BancResolution dated August 2, 1990 in SPR No. 8-90 with Commissioner Dario C. Rama asPonenteand Commissioners Haydee B. Yorac, Alfredo Abueg, Leopoldo Africa, Andres R. Flores and Magdara Dimaampao, Concurring (pp. 18-23,Rollo).
2 Resolution in Election Protest No. U-4659 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 49, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, with Santiago Estrella as Presiding Judge.