G.R. No. 95336 ; July 12, 1991
Juan Garcia Rivera, petitioner, vs. Commission on Elections and Juan Mitre Garcia II, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Juan Garcia Rivera and private respondent Juan Mitre Garcia II were candidates for Mayor of Guinobatan, Albay, in the January 1988 elections. Rivera was initially proclaimed winner by the Municipal Board of Canvassers. Garcia filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which later ruled in Garcia’s favor. Rivera appealed to the COMELEC. The COMELEC First Division affirmed the RTC’s annulment of Rivera’s proclamation and declared Garcia the duly elected mayor. Rivera’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the COMELEC en banc in a decision dated September 6, 1990. Garcia assumed office on October 10, 1990, pursuant to a writ of execution.
Rivera filed the present petition on October 5, 1990, seeking annulment of the COMELEC en banc decision. He argued the decision was not yet final and executory, contending he had thirty days to elevate it to the Supreme Court via certiorari under the COMELEC Rules and the Constitution. He also challenged the COMELEC’s authority to issue the writ of execution. Garcia countered that, under Article IX-C, Section 2(2) of the 1987 Constitution , COMELEC decisions in municipal election contests are final, executory, and not appealable.

ISSUE

Whether a decision of the COMELEC in an election contest involving a municipal office, which the Constitution declares as “final, executory and not appealable,” may still be reviewed by the Supreme Court through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and ruled that the COMELEC’s decision was not yet final when the writ of execution was issued, rendering its execution premature. The Court held that while Article IX-C, Section 2(2) of the 1987 Constitution states that COMELEC decisions in municipal and barangay election contests are “final, executory and not appealable,” this does not preclude a recourse to the Supreme Court via a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. This remedy is distinct from an ordinary appeal.
The constitutional provision bars only the ordinary mode of appeal. It does not remove the Supreme Court’s constitutional power of judicial review under Article VIII, Section 1, and its authority to review COMELEC decisions, orders, or rulings via certiorari under Article IX-A, Section 7. A special civil action for certiorari is an original action, not an appeal, and is available to correct jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the constitutional intent was to expedite the resolution of local election cases by eliminating intermediate appeals, not to insulate COMELEC decisions from judicial scrutiny for grave abuse of discretion. Therefore, Rivera properly invoked the Court’s certiorari jurisdiction. The COMELEC’s issuance of the writ of execution before the expiration of the period for filing such an action was invalid.