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 the candidates who appeared to have won various municipal offices in the June 4, 1912 election based on the face of the returns. Their elections were protested. The Court of First Instance of Tayabas, after trial, declared the election in one precinct void due to fraud and illegal practices. A recount of ballots, excluding that precinct, resulted in the petitioners being ousted and their competitors being declared elected. The petitioners allege the trial court lacked jurisdiction because not all candidates voted for the contested offices were notified of the protests as required by Section 27 of the Election Law. They also challenge the court’s act of declaring the election in the precinct void.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of certiorari is the proper remedy to annul the judgments of the Court of First Instance in these election contests.

RULING

No. The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied. The Supreme Court held that certiorari lies only to correct acts done without or in excess of jurisdiction, not to correct errors of judgment. The alleged failure to notify all candidates is a question of fact that should have been raised and determined in the trial court. The trial court’s determination on that factual issue, if made, would be conclusive against collateral attack. The power to declare an election in a precinct void is within the court’s jurisdiction. Any error in the exercise of that jurisdiction, or in the conclusions of law or fact, is an error correctable only by appeal, not by certiorari. Since the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, its judgments, however erroneous, cannot be annulled via certiorari.