G.R. No. 192793; February 22, 2011
FESTO R. GALANG, JR., Petitioner, vs. HON. RAMIRO R. GERONIMO, as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Romblon, Branch 81; and NICASIO M. RAMOS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Festo R. Galang, Jr. was proclaimed winner for the mayoralty race in Cajidiocan, Romblon, on May 12, 2010, based on a Certificate of Canvass but without the official signed Certificate of Canvass for Proclamation. Private respondent Nicasio M. Ramos, a rival candidate, filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on May 27, 2010. Summons was served on May 28, 2010, by leaving it with a certain Gerry Rojas at petitioner’s residence. On June 8, 2010, petitioner appeared in court with his counsel and requested a copy of the summons and protest. The court directed him to file the proper pleading. On June 11, 2010, petitioner filed a Motion to Admit Answer, attaching an Answer which included the affirmative defense that the protest was filed out of time (more than ten days after proclamation). The RTC, in an Order dated June 24, 2010, denied the motion, declaring the service of summons valid and the Answer filed out of time, and ordered the preliminary conference to proceed ex parte. Petitioner’s subsequent Omnibus Motion was denied in an Order dated July 22, 2010. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 directly with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in validating the service of summons. Respondents countered that such a petition should have been filed with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 questioning an interlocutory order of the Regional Trial Court in an election protest case involving an elective municipal official.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Citing Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended, it held that in election cases involving an act or omission of a municipal or regional trial court, a petition for certiorari shall be filed exclusively with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Interpreting the phrase “in aid of its appellate jurisdiction,” the Court ruled that since the COMELEC has jurisdiction to take cognizance of an appeal from the decision of the RTC in election contests involving elective municipal officials (per Section 8, Rule 14 of the 2010 Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal Officials), it consequently also has jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari in aid of that appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, petitioner erred in filing the petition directly with the Supreme Court.