G.R. No. L-5616; March 30, 1955
JACINTO MONTILLA, protestant-appellant, vs. CLAUDIO MONTILLA, protestee-appellee.

FACTS

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental dismissing the election protest filed by Jacinto Montilla against Claudio Montilla for the mayoralty of Isabela, Negros Occidental. The records were received by the Supreme Court on March 28, 1952. On June 3, 1952, the protestant-appellant filed a motion to remand the appeal to the Court of Appeals, stating he was appealing on mixed questions of fact, law, and evidence. The protestee-appellee opposed, arguing the appellant was estopped because the lower court’s orders had directed transmittal to the Supreme Court and the appellant, though officially advised, never attempted to correct this. The Supreme Court initially granted the motion on June 10, 1952, but upon the protestee-appellee’s motion for reconsideration, it resolved to decide the jurisdictional question after briefs were filed. The case involves the November 1951 election, necessitating urgent resolution.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction over the election protest appeal, given that mixed questions of fact and law are involved.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the appeal falls within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. Interpreting Section 187 of Republic Act No. 180 , which states an aggrieved party “may appeal to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court, as the case may be,” the Court held the phrase “as the case may be” means an appeal lies to the Supreme Court only if purely questions of law are raised, and to the Court of Appeals in all other cases. This aligns with the jurisdictional provisions of the Judiciary Act: Section 138 grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction over cases where only errors or questions of law are involved, and Section 145-F grants the Court of Appeals exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases not enumerated in Section 138. Since the appellant raised mixed questions of fact and law, the appeal properly belongs to the Court of Appeals. The Court also rejected the claim of estoppel, finding the appellant’s Notice of Appeal did not expressly state an appeal to the Supreme Court alone but rather to the “Court of Appeals and/or Supreme Court,” and he promptly moved for certification to the Court of Appeals upon deciding to raise mixed questions. The lower court’s orders for transmittal to the Supreme Court did not bind the appellant. Consequently, the case was certified to the Court of Appeals pursuant to Section 31 of Republic Act No. 296 .