JUAN GARCIA RIVERA, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND JUAN MITRE GARCIA II, RESPONDENTS.

Rivera versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari filed with the Supreme Court by Juan Garcia Rivera against the Commission on Elections and Juan Mitre Garcia II. Rivera and Garcia were rival candidates for Mayor of Guinobatan, Albay in the January 1988 local elections. Rivera had been proclaimed winner, but after an election protest the Commission on Elections en banc declared Garcia the duly elected Mayor. Rivera asked the Supreme Court to annul that decision and to stop its execution. The case matters because it settles a constitutional question every election lawyer must know: whether the constitutional declaration that decisions of the Commission on Elections in municipal and barangay election contests are final, executory, and not appealable bars a special civil action of certiorari in the Supreme Court.

Procedural History

The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Rivera as the duly elected Mayor by a majority of ten votes. Garcia filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City. After due hearing and upon the report of a Revision Committee it had created, the trial court rendered its verdict finding that Garcia obtained 6,376 votes against Rivera's 6,222, and annulled the proclamation.

Rivera appealed to the Commission on Elections. Its First Division sustained the trial court with modification, declaring Garcia the duly elected Mayor by a majority of one hundred fifty-four votes. Rivera moved for reconsideration. The Commission en banc, in a per curiam decision dated 6 September 1990, denied the motion and re-affirmed the First Division, but with a winning margin of one hundred twenty-three votes over Rivera. A writ of execution issued, and Garcia began discharging the duties of Mayor on 10 October 1990.

Rivera then filed the present petition on 5 October 1990, seeking annulment of the en banc decision and a restraining order, arguing that the decision had not yet become final and executory. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order, served on Garcia on 10 November 1990, which stopped him from continuing as Mayor. The petition was resolved by the Court en banc.

Facts

Rivera and Garcia were candidates for Mayor of Guinobatan, Albay in the January 1988 local elections. The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Rivera as the duly elected Mayor by a majority of ten votes.

On 26 January 1988, Garcia filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City. After hearing and upon the report of a Revision Committee, the trial court found Garcia to have obtained 6,376 votes as against Rivera's 6,222, and annulled Rivera's proclamation.

On appeal, the Commission on Elections First Division sustained the trial court with modification, declaring Garcia the winner by one hundred fifty-four votes. On reconsideration, the Commission en banc affirmed Garcia's election but with a margin of one hundred twenty-three votes. Garcia took office on 10 October 1990 by virtue of a writ of execution, and continued until 10 November 1990, when he was served notice of the Supreme Court's temporary restraining order.

Issues

• Whether or not the constitutional provision that decisions of the Commission on Elections in election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices are final, executory, and not appealable precludes recourse to the Supreme Court by a special civil action of certiorari.
• Whether or not the Commission on Elections en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the First Division and in not excluding from Garcia's total votes at least ten votes allegedly misappreciated in his favor.

Applicable Provisions

Section 7 of Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.

This is the general grant of review that Rivera invoked, and the Court read it together with the specific election provision below.

Section 2, paragraph 2 of Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final, executory, and not appealable.

This is the provision Garcia relied on to argue that the petition could not be entertained at all.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in favor of Rivera. The fact that decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on Elections in contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices are final, executory, and not appealable does not preclude a recourse to the Supreme Court by way of a special civil action of certiorari. The Court drew on the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, where it was made of record that while such decisions are final and immediately executory and therefore not appealable, that does not rule out the possibility of an original special civil action for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The Court also relied on its earlier ruling in the Flores versus Commission on Elections case, quoting:

Obviously, the provision of Article IX-C, Section 2(2) of the Constitution that decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final, executory, and not appealable applies only to questions of fact and not of law.

On the second issue, the Court ruled against Rivera. The main thrust of the petition was that the Commission en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the First Division and in not excluding at least ten votes allegedly misappreciated in Garcia's favor. The Court closely scrutinized the challenged decision and found that it was not arrived at capriciously or whimsically. A painstaking re-evaluation of the questioned 67 ballots was made by the Commission en banc, and in fact fourteen ballots originally adjudicated in Garcia's favor were overruled, reducing his votes to 894 out of the 2,445 contested ballots, while 16 ballots were added in Rivera's favor, increasing his votes to 1,087. The Court held that the appreciation and re-evaluation of ballots are factual determinations, and that findings of fact of administrative bodies are final unless grave abuse of discretion has marred them. It found none.

Doctrine

The rule to retain is this: the constitutional declaration that decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on Elections in election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices are final, executory, and not appealable does not bar a special civil action of certiorari in the Supreme Court. That provision forecloses ordinary appeal and confines review to questions of law, not questions of fact. The appreciation and re-evaluation of ballots are factual determinations, and the findings of fact of the Commission on Elections are final unless tainted by grave abuse of discretion. Read together, Section 7 of Article IX-A and Section 2, paragraph 2 of Article IX-C of the Constitution allow certiorari but only on the narrow ground of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and lifted the temporary restraining order, leaving Garcia as the duly elected Mayor of Guinobatan, Albay.

Remember This

Memorize the line: final, executory, and not appealable does not mean beyond certiorari. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between appeal and the special civil action of certiorari, and to test the rule that ballot appreciation is a question of fact binding on the Court absent grave abuse of discretion.