G.R. No. 195953 ; August 9, 2011
CERIACO BULILIS, Petitioner, vs. VICTORINO NUEZ, Hon. PRESIDING JUDGE, 6th MCTC, Ubay, Bohol, Hon. Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 52, Talibon, Bohol, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ceriaco Bulilis was proclaimed the winner of the punong barangay election in Barangay Bulilis, Ubay, Bohol, on October 25, 2010, defeating respondent Victorino Nuez by four votes. On November 2, 2010, Nuez filed an Election Protest for judicial recount and annulment of proclamation with the 6th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Ubay, Bohol. Bulilis filed an Answer on November 5, 2010, praying for dismissal on the ground that the MCTC had no jurisdiction due to the protest’s failure to implead the Chairman and Members of the Board of Election Inspectors as indispensable parties. On the same date, the MCTC Clerk of Court issued a notice of “hearing” for November 9, 2010. Bulilis’s counsel claimed he never received this notice and only learned on November 8, 2010, from receiving Nuez’s Preliminary Conference Brief, that the November 9 hearing was a preliminary conference. On November 9, 2010, at about 1:45 p.m., Bulilis’s counsel filed his Preliminary Conference Brief. When the case was called at 2:10 p.m., Nuez’s counsel moved to present evidence ex parte, citing Bulilis’s failure to file and furnish the brief at least one day prior as required by the rules. MCTC Judge Daniel Jose J. Garces granted the motion. Bulilis filed a motion for reconsideration, which the MCTC denied. Bulilis then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Talibon, Bohol. The RTC dismissed the petition on December 22, 2010, ruling that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari in election cases involving municipal and barangay officials. The RTC denied Bulilis’s motion for reconsideration on March 9, 2011, prompting him to file the present petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court or the COMELEC has jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari questioning an interlocutory order (the order allowing ex parte presentation of evidence) issued by a municipal trial court in an election protest involving a barangay official.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over such a petition. The Petition must fail. The Court found that while the notice of preliminary conference issued by the MCTC may have been defective for being a generic notice of hearing and for being served on the party himself despite representation by counsel, neither the RTC nor the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to correct any error committed by the MCTC judge. The Court held that under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, which amended Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, petitions for certiorari in election cases involving an act or omission of a municipal or regional trial court must be filed exclusively with the COMELEC, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. This principle applies to interlocutory orders issued by municipal trial courts in barangay election cases. The Court cited the case of Galang v. Geronimo, which established that since decisions of municipal trial courts in election contests involving barangay officials are appealed to the COMELEC, the COMELEC consequently has jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction over acts of those courts, including interlocutory orders. Therefore, Bulilis erred in filing his petition for certiorari with the RTC and subsequently with the Supreme Court.