JACINTO MONTILLA, PROTESTANT AND APPELLANT, VS. CLAUDIO MONTILLA, PROTESTEE AND APPELLEE.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Negros
Occidental, dismissing the election protest filed by Jacinto Montilla against
Claudio Montilla as Mayor of the municipality of Isabela, province of Negros
Occidental. The records of the protest were received in this Court on March 28,
1952, and on June 3, 1952, the protestant-appellant filed a motion in this
Court, praying that the appeal be remanded to the Court of Appeals for the
reason that he is appealing “on mixed questions of fact, law and evidence.”
Protestee-appellee opposed the motion on the ground that the judgment of the
Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental in his orders of March 13 and March
22, 1952 had instructed the transmittal of the records of the case to this
Court, and that notwithstanding the fact that the protestant-appellant was
officially advised thereof, protestant-appellant never attempted to correct or
change the appellate court to which the records were to be forwarded. This
Court, on June 10, 1952, granted the motion. Upon being advised of this result,
protestee-appellee filed a motion for reconsideration. This Court, acting on
said motion, reconsidered its previous order and resolved that the matter of the
certification be acted upon after the filing of the briefs. The briefs have been
filed and the case is now ready for decision. As the protest involves the
election of a Mayor in November, 1951, the resolution of the question as to
which court has jurisdiction to try the case needs urgency, as another election
is coming in a matter of a few months.

The reason adduced by the protestee-appellee for opposing the certification
of the case to the Court of Appeals is that provision of the election law on
appeals from decisions in election contests (Section 178, amending Section 172,
C. A. 357), which grants the appellant the choice of the appellate court to
which he desires to appeal and does not make any distinction between appeals on
purely questions of fact and appeals on purely questions of law. In his previous
opposition to the motion for certification, the protestee-appellee had claimed
that the protestant-appellant is estopped from claiming that there was a mistake
in appealing to the Supreme Court, as he was well aware of the orders of the
lower court for the transmittal of the records of the case to this Court.

Section 178 of Republic Act No. 180, which provides for appeals from election
contests, provides in part,

“* * *, the aggrieved party may appeal to the Court of Appeals or to the
Supreme Court, as the case may be * * *.” (Italics
supplied)

The term “as the case may be”, evidently, means that the appeal may be made
to the Supreme Court if only questions of law are to be raised on the appeal,
and to the Court of Appeals, in all other cases. When the Legislature enacted
that provision, it was aware of the provisions defining the relative
jurisdictions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. The pertinent
provisions are as follows:

“Sec, 138. * * *. The Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to
review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm, on appeal, certiorari or writ of
error, as the law or rules of court may provide. final judgments and decrees of
inferior courts as herein provided in * * *.

“(6) All other cases in which only errors or questions of law, are involved.”
(C. A. 3)

“Sec. 145-F. Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.—The Court of
Appeals shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction of all cases, actions and
proceedings, not enumerated in section one hundred and thirty-eight of this
Code, properly brought to if from Courts of First Instance. * * *.”
(Idem)

Pursuant to the above-quoted provisions, an appeal from a Court of First
Instance to the Supreme Court would be proper only in cases in which only errors
or questions of law are involved; in all cases involving both questions of fact
and law, the appeal must be made to the Court of Appeals. As in the case at bar,
both questions of law and of fact are involved, the appeal does not fall within
the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court but within that of the Court of
Appeals.

The only other question to resolve is the claim of the protestee-appellee
that protestant-appellant is estopped from having the case certified to the
Court of Appeals. The records do not support this claim. The Notice of Appeal
filed by the protestant-appellant did not state that he was appealing the case
to the Court of Appeals. On the contrary, the language of the notice shows
otherwise:

“* * * that the protestant hereby announces his intention to elevate this
case to the Court of” Appeals and/or Supreme Court, and requests that all the
necessary records, documents and exhibits be elevated to the said Court.”
(Notice of Appeal, p. 465 of the Records).

The protestant-appellant did not expressly state that he was appealing the
case to this Court, and to it alone. He appealed to the Supreme Court or to the
Court of Appeals, perhaps because he was not yet finally decided what questions,
whether purely of law or mixed questions of fact and law, he will raise on the
appeal. On the 6th day after the receipt of the records in this Court, however,
he filed a motion to have the case certified to the Court of Appeals, for the
reason that he was going to raise mixed questions of fact and law. These facts
and circumstances, certainly, do not show that he had ever intended to appeal
directly to the Supreme Court. The orders of the court a quo given to
the Clerk of Court, to transmit the records to this Court are judge’s orders, by
which the protestant-appellant can not be bound.

Wherefore, it is hereby ordered that this case should be, as it is hereby
certified, to the Court 6f Appeals, pursuant to section 31 of Republic Act No.
296.

Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, and
Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.

Case certified to Court of Appeals.