G.R. No. L-53581-83 December 19, 1980
MARIANO J. PIMENTEL, et al., petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners and private respondents are contestants and contestees, respectively, in election protests pending before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Quirino. Petitioners, who were not proclaimed, alleged that votes cast for them were erroneously considered stray. They sought a judicial recount of the ballots. The contestees moved to limit evidence to the election returns, arguing the protests only questioned the canvass. The CFI denied this motion and ordered the ballot boxes opened for a physical recount. Contestees moved for reconsideration, which was also denied.
Contestees then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), seeking to restrain the CFI from enforcing its orders. The COMELEC issued Resolution No. 9592, requiring petitioners to answer the petition and temporarily restraining the CFI judge. Consequently, the CFI postponed the election cases. Petitioners then filed this Supreme Court petition, arguing the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC had jurisdiction to entertain the petition for certiorari and prohibition and to issue the restraining order against the CFI of Quirino.

RULING

No, the COMELEC had no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court annulled COMELEC Resolution No. 9592. The legal logic is anchored on the principle of statutory construction and the hierarchy of courts. The COMELEC’s constitutional and statutory powers at the time did not include jurisdiction to review, via certiorari, interlocutory orders issued by a Court of First Instance in an ordinary election contest. Election protests, once filed in the CFI, are within the exclusive original jurisdiction of that court. The COMELEC’s appellate jurisdiction under the 1978 Election Code pertains only to appeals from final decisions of the CFI, not from its interlocutory orders.
The Court clarified that the power to issue writs of certiorari is not inherent but must be expressly conferred by law or the Constitution. No such express grant existed for the COMELEC to control a CFI’s interlocutory proceedings in an election contest. The proper remedy for the contestees from the CFI’s interlocutory order was a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (or the then Intermediate Appellate Court), not with the COMELEC. By taking cognizance of the petition, the COMELEC encroached upon the judicial authority of the CFI and disrupted the statutory procedure for election contests. The CFI of Quirino was thus ordered to proceed with the hearing of the election cases with dispatch.