G.R. No. L-8892; L-8893; L-8899; L-8900; L-8901; L-8902; L-8903; L-8904; L-8905. October 10, 1913.
JULIAN GALA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. MARIANO CUI, as judge of the Court of First Instance, Province of Tayabas, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

These are consolidated petitions for writs of certiorari. The petitioners were candidates declared elected based on election returns in the June 4, 1912, municipal elections. Their respective opponents filed election protests in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas. The trial court, after finding that the election in a particular precinct was void due to fraud and illegal practices, excluded the votes from that precinct. A recount of the remaining ballots resulted in judgments ousting the petitioners and declaring their opponents elected. The petitioners now seek to annul these judgments, alleging lack of jurisdiction of the trial court. Their primary ground is that the court acquired no jurisdiction because not all candidates voted for the contested offices were notified of the protests as required by Section 27 of the Election Law.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of certiorari is the proper remedy to annul the judgments in the election contests based on the alleged failure to notify all candidates, which petitioners claim deprived the trial court of jurisdiction.

RULING

No. The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied. The Supreme Court held that the alleged failure to notify all candidates is a question of fact that should have been raised and determined in the trial court. A writ of certiorari will not lie to correct errors of fact or law committed in the exercise of a court’s jurisdiction; it is only available when the court has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction. The trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter (election contests) and over the persons of the protestants and protestees (the petitioners). Whether all candidates were properly notified pertains to the regularity of the exercise of that jurisdiction, not to the jurisdiction itself. Any error in the court’s factual finding on notification or in its decision to void the election in the precinct is an error in the exercise of jurisdiction, correctable only by appeal, not by certiorari. Since the petitioners did not appeal, such errors cannot be reviewed collaterally through a special civil action of certiorari.