G.R. No. L-8892, L-8893, L-8899, L-8900, L-8901, L-8902, L-8903, L-8904, L-8905; October 10, 1913.
JULIAN GALA, CRISPULO VARGAS, ISIDRO RODRIGUEZ, DIONISIO DEDASE, QUIRINO ENRIQUEZ, VENANCIO RODRIGUEZ, RICARDO REMO, ARISTON RELIGIOSO, and CATALINO RODRIGUEZ, petitioners, vs. MARIANO CUI, as judge of the Court of First Instance, Province of Tayabas, and RUFINO RODRIGUEZ, BASILIO REYNOSO, PABLO UMALI, PANCRACIO VILLAFUERTE, EMILIANO ALBOLOTE, BRAULIO DE VILLA, RAYMUNDO QUEJADA, JUSTINIANO ZAPORTEZA, and PASTOR ESPINOSA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were the candidates who appeared to have won in the municipal elections of June 4, 1912, based on the face of the returns. Their respective opponents filed election protests in the Court of First Instance of Tayabas. The trial court, after finding that the election in a particular precinct was void due to illegal practices and fraud, excluded the votes from that precinct. A recount of the remaining ballots resulted in judgments ousting the petitioners and declaring their opponents as the duly elected officials. Petitioners filed these consolidated petitions for writs of certiorari, seeking to annul the judgments of the trial court. They argued, among other grounds, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because not all candidates voted for the contested offices were notified of the protests as required by Section 27 of the Election Law.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of certiorari is the proper remedy to annul the judgments of the trial court in the election contests based on the alleged lack of jurisdiction due to failure to notify all candidates, and on alleged errors in the court’s exercise of its jurisdiction.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petitions for writs of certiorari. The Court held that the writ of certiorari will only lie if it is clearly shown that the court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction. The alleged failure to notify all candidates, which goes to the jurisdiction of the court, is a question of fact that should have been raised and determined in the trial court. It cannot be raised for the first time in a certiorari proceeding before the Supreme Court. Furthermore, even if the trial court erred in its factual findings (such as declaring the election in a precinct void) or in its conclusions of law, such errors pertain to the exercise of its jurisdiction and are mere errors of judgment. Errors of judgment are correctible only by appeal, not by certiorari. Since the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter (election contests) and over the persons of the protestants and protestees, its decisions, however erroneous, were rendered within its jurisdiction. Therefore, certiorari is not an available remedy.