ROBERTO F. BAUTISTA, ET AL., PETITIONERS AND APPELLANTS, VS. EMETERIO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES.

On March 10, 1962, the justice of
the peace court denied the motion holding that the petition is not an election
protest but one for annulment of the barrio elections which is authorized by
Section 7, Article II of Republic Act No. 2370, in relation to paragraph 10 of
the Resolution of the Commission on Elections dated December 12, 1961 rendered
in Case No. 400 of said Commission. Respondents filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was denied on April 30, 1962. Respondents filed a second motion
for reconsideration, which again was denied with the instruction that
respondents should file their answer to the petition within two days from
receipt of the order.

Whereupon, respondents filed a
petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction before the Court of First
Instance of Bulacan imputing to the justice of the peace court the commission
of grave abuse of discretion bordering on lack of jurisdiction in acting on the
petition for annulment filed by Emeterio de la Cruz, et al. After respondents
in the certiorari ease had filed their answer justifying the action taken by
the justice of the peace court, the court a quo dismissed the petition holding
that the petition which gave rise to the proceeding is one which involves a
dispute over barrio elections which comes properly within the jurisdiction of
the justice of the peace court as provided for in Section 7, Article II of
Republic Act 2370, is interpreted by the Commission on Elections in its
resolution dated December 12, 1961. Dissatisfied with this ruling, petitioners
interposed the present appeal.

The purpose of the petition filed
before the Justice of the Peace Court of Hagonoy, Bulacan, is to annul the
barrio elections held on January 24, 1962 on the ground that the petitioners
therein who were all barrio residents, were not given the notice required by
law for the holding, thereof by the barrio council or the corresponding barrio
lieutenant for which reason they have not been able to be present and take part
in said elections and, as an additional relief, petitioners prayed that a new
election be held after the requisite notice thereof is given to all the
qualified barrio residents fixing therein the date, time and place of the
election, as required by Republic Act No. 2370 and the pertinent resolution of
the Commission on Elections. And the petition was filed before the Justice of
the Peace Court of Hagonoy, Bulacan, pursuant to Section 7, Article II of said
Act, which provides that all disputes over barrio
elections shall be brought before the justice of the peace court of the
municipality concerned. It, therefore, appears that the petition refers to a
dispute over a barrio election for in essence it seeks .to nullify the
elections held on January 24, 1962.on the ground that the requirement of the
law as to notice has riot been complied with. In this sense, the petition for
certiorari has no merit for indeed the Justice of the Peace Court of Hagonoy
has acted properly in taking cognizance of the petition under consideration.

The contention that the petition
does not state jurisdictional facts because it does not allege that petitioners
were candidates who were duly voted for in the elections as required by
Sections 173 and 174 of the Revised Election Code is untenable, since these
sections do not apply to the election of barrio officials. They only apply to
provincial and municipal officials who seek to contest the election of their
opponents in an appropriate case, and so it is an error for petitioners to
invoke them in the determination of the jurisdiction of the court and the
qualification of the party that have to be considered in the adjudication of a
dispute over a barrio election. The proper law applicable to this case is
Republic Act No. 2370.

Moreover, the order of the Justice
of the Peace Court of Hagonoy denying the motion to dismiss is merely
interlocutory which cannot be the subject of appeal or a petition for
certiorari. The proper procedure to be followed in such a case is to continue
with the trial on the merits and if the decision is adverse to reiterate the
issue on appeal. This alone furnishes sufficient ground for dismissal of the
present petition for certiorari.

WHEREFORE, petition is denied. The case is
remanded to the Justice of the Peace Court of Hagonoy, Bulacan, for further
proceedings. Costs against petitioners.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador,
Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.