Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 91 views

    El 38 Galido Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Jim
    The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari challenging the COMELEC's decision in an election protest case involving a mayoral contest. While decisions of the COMELEC over municipal elections are ordinarily final, the Constitution allows challenges to the COMELEC through certiorari for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. However, the COMELEC did not commit such an abuse in this case by invalidating ballots and declaring the other candidate the winner.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    El 38 Galido Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Jim
    91 views1 page
    The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari challenging the COMELEC's decision in an election protest case involving a mayoral contest. While decisions of the COMELEC over municipal elections are ordinarily final, the Constitution allows challenges to the COMELEC through certiorari for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. However, the COMELEC did not commit such an abuse in this case by invalidating ballots and declaring the other candidate the winner.

    Original Description:

    Election law. Case digest

    Original Title

    El 38 Galido vs Comelec

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari challenging the COMELEC's decision in an election protest case involving a mayoral contest. While decisions of the COMELEC over municipal elections are ordinarily final, the Constitution allows challenges to the COMELEC through certiorari for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. However, the COMELEC did not commit such an abuse in this case by invalidating ballots and declaring the other candidate the winner.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    91 views1 page

    El 38 Galido Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Jim
    The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari challenging the COMELEC's decision in an election protest case involving a mayoral contest. While decisions of the COMELEC over municipal elections are ordinarily final, the Constitution allows challenges to the COMELEC through certiorari for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. However, the COMELEC did not commit such an abuse in this case by invalidating ballots and declaring the other candidate the winner.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    38. GALIDO vs.

    COMELEC HELD:
    G.R. No. 95346. January 18, 1991.
    Under Article IX (C), Sec. 2 (2), par. 1 of the 1987 Constitution, the
    COMELEC has exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to
    FACTS: the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial,
    and city officials and has appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving
     Petitioner Perfecto V. Galido and private respondent Saturnino R. Galeon elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction or
    were candidates during the 18 January 1988 local elections for mayoralty involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited
    in the Municipality of Garcia-Hernandez, Bohol. jurisdiction.
     Petitioner was proclaimed duly-elected Mayor by the Municipal Board of
    Canvassers. Accordingly, Article IX (A), Sec. 7 of the Constitution, states that: "(U)nless
     Thereafter, private respondent filed an election protest before the RTC. otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or
     The RTC upheld the proclamation of petitioner as the duly-elected Mayor ruling of each (Constitutional) Commission may be brought to the
    of Garcia-Hernandez, by a majority of 11 votes. Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from
     On appeal, the COMELEC: receipt of a copy thereof."
    o reversed the trial court's decision and declared private respondent
    the duly-elected mayor by a plurality of five votes. The fact that decisions, final orders or rulings of the
    o held that the fifteen ballots in the same precinct containing the Commission on Elections in contests involving elective
    initial "C" after the name "Galido" were marked ballots and, municipal and barangay offices are final, executory and not
    therefore, invalid. appealable, does not preclude a recourse to the Supreme Court
    o subsequently denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. by way of a special civil action of certiorari.
     Consequently, petitioner filed before the Supreme Court a petition for
    certiorari and injunction. (Dismissed for failure of petitioner to submit However, public respondent COMELEC did not commit grave
    requisite papers duly certified) abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
     Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration. (Denied) rendering the questioned decision. It is settled that the function of a
    writ of certiorari is to keep an inferior court or tribunal within the bounds
     Undaunted, petitioner again filed the present petition for certiorari and
    of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing a grave abuse of
    injunction with prayer for a restraining order.
    discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
     The TRO was granted and the respondents were required to file a comment
    on the petition.
    The COMELEC has the inherent power to decide an election contest on
     In his Comment, private respondent moved for the dismissal of the present physical evidence, equity, law and justice, and apply established
    petition, citing Article IX (C), Sec. 2(2), par. 2 of the 1987 Constitution jurisprudence in support of its findings and conclusions; and that the
    while asserting that final decisions, orders or rulings of the COMELEC in extent to which such precedents apply rests on its discretion, the exercise
    election contests involving elective municipal offices are final and of which should not be controlled unless such discretion has been abused
    executory, and not appealable. to the prejudice of either party.

    ISSUE:
    PETITION DISMISSED.
    WON final decisions, orders or rulings of the COMELEC in election TRO lifted.
    contests involving elective municipal offices are final and executory, and
    not appealable to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari. (NO)

    You might also like