GR L 28202; (November, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28202 November 10, 1967
F.E.F. REMOTIGUE, LUIS V. DIORES I.V. BINAMIRA, GALICANO BARREDA, GENEROSO PACQUIAO, RIZALINO ANDRINO, CORNELIO CAPAROSO, EDUARDO GALLARDE, FEDERICO ALCUIZAR and NACIONALISTA PARTY CEBU CHAPTER, petitioners, vs. HON. SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR., respondent.
FACTS
The petitioners filed a complaint for injunction and declaratory relief against Sergio Osmeña, Jr. The main issue raised is the qualification of Osmeña, Jr. to be a candidate for City Mayor of Cebu City in the general elections scheduled for November 14, 1967. The petitioners contend that Osmeña, Jr. is not qualified because he filed his certificate of candidacy for City Mayor without first resigning from his office as Senator. They claim this violates Section 9 of the Charter of Cebu City, which states that all elective city officers shall hold no other public office except that of notary public or membership in the armed forces reserve. The petitioners assert that his candidacy is prejudicial to their interests and the interests of the persons they represent. They pray for a declaration that Osmeña, Jr. is disqualified, that his certificate of candidacy is illegal, null and void, and for an injunction to restrain him from running and from resigning from his senatorial office.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the complaint filed by the petitioners, which seeks a declaratory judgment and an injunction regarding the qualification of a candidate for City Mayor.
RULING
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the complaint. The Court held that the determination of the issue raised by the petitioners would amount to a declaratory judgment and a judgment in an original action for injunction. These matters are not within the original exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the allegations in the complaint do not warrant treating the action as one for certiorari, prohibition, or any other action within the Court’s original and exclusive jurisdiction. Costs were imposed against the petitioners.