GR L 16592; (August, 1920) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16592; August 26, 1920
ROMAN GUERRERO, petitioner, vs. C. M. VILLAREAL, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, and MARTIN GUERRERO, respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner Roman Guerrero filed an election protest in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur. The court appointed referees to review and recount the ballots. The referees submitted a report, which the court admitted without holding a separate trial for its admission. In its decision, the court considered this report as evidence to establish the existence and contents of a registration list of illiterate and disqualified voters. Furthermore, during the trial, respondent Martin Guerrero offered as evidence an unsigned registration list of illiterate electors (Exhibit 3), which was reportedly found in the ballot boxes according to the referees’ report. The petitioner objected to its admission. The court stated it was admitting the exhibit only as part of a witness’s testimony, but in its final decision, it treated the document as independent documentary evidencethe registration list itself. The petitioner filed this original action for certiorari, alleging the court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction.
ISSUE:
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion or acted in excess of jurisdiction by: (1) admitting the referees’ report without a prior trial, and (2) admitting and considering the unsigned registration list (Exhibit 3) as independent documentary evidence, thereby justifying the issuance of a writ of certiorari.
RULING:
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The writ of certiorari is not the proper remedy to correct errors in the court’s exercise of its jurisdiction, but only to correct acts performed without or in excess of jurisdiction. The Court of First Instance, under Sections 479 and 481 of Act No. 2711 (the Administrative Code), had jurisdiction over the election contest and the power to appoint referees to examine ballots and decide based on the evidence. The act of admitting the referees’ report and weighing the evidence (including Exhibit 3) were within the court’s jurisdictional powers. Any alleged irregularity or error in the admission of evidence or in the court’s factual or legal conclusions constituted an error in the exercise of jurisdiction, not an excess of jurisdiction. Therefore, certiorari does not lie. The petition was denied, with costs against the petitioner.