RIVERA vs.
COMELEC
G.R. No. 95336, July 12, 1991 Facts: Juan Garcia Rivera and Juan Mitre Garcia II were mayoralty candidates in Guino atan, !l ay. "#e Munici$al %oard canvassers $roclaimed Rivera as t#e winner y a ma&ority o' 1( votes. Garcia 'iled 'or an election $rotest wit# t#e R"). R") ruled in 'avor o' Garcia, annullin* t#e $roclamation o' Rivera and declarin* t#at Garcia #ad won y 153 votes. )omelec sustained t#e R"). !ctin* on Rivera+s Motion 'or Reconsideration, ),M-.-) en anc rendered a decision dated 6 /e$tem er 199( declarin* Garcia as t#e duly elected mayor wit# a winnin* mar*in o' 123 votes. Garcia commenced to disc#ar*e #is duties y virtue o' a writ o' e0ecution im$lementin* t#e )omelec decision. Rivera 'iled a $etition to review t#e )omelec en anc decision, see1in* 'or its annulment and 'or a "R,. /) issued a "R, and Garcia was served notice on 1( Novem er 199(. Rivera ar*ued t#at !rticle I23) /ection 2 425 o' t#e 1967 )onstitution s#ould e read in t#e conte0t o' !rticle I23! /ection 7 o' t#e 1967 )onstitution and Rule 39.1 o' )omelec Rules o' 8rocedure. )omelec+s /e$tem er 6 decision #as not yet ecome 'inal 9 e0ecutory ecause )omelec Rule 39.1 *ave #im 3( days to elevate t#e decision to /) on certiorari. "#is ein* t#e case, )omelec #ad no aut#ority to issue t#e writ o' e0ecution. Garcia, on t#e ot#er #and, res$ondent contends t#at t#e )onstitution declares t#e decisions o' t#e )omelec on election contests involvin* elective munici$al and aran*ay o''icials to e 'inal, e0ecutory and not a$$eala le 4!rt I2 4)5, /ection 2425, 1967 )onstitution5. "#e case revolved around two )onstitutional $rovisions: !rt I2 4!5, /ection 7, 1967: ;!ny decision, order, or rulin* o' eac# 4)onstitutional5 )ommission may e rou*#t to t#e /u$reme )ourt on certiorari y t#e a**rieved $arty wit#in t#irty days 'rom recei$t o' a co$y t#ereo'.< 4!rt I2 4)5, /ection 2425, 1967: ;"#e )omelec s#all e0ercise e0clusive ori*inal &urisdiction over all contests relatin* to t#e elections, returns, and =uali'ications o' all elective re*ional, $rovincial, and city o''icials, and a$$ellate &urisdiction over all contests involvin* elective munici$al o''icials decided y trial courts o' *eneral &urisdiction, or involvin* elective aran*ay o''icials decided y trial courts o' limited &urisdiction. >ecisions, 'inal orders, or rulin*s o' t#e )ommission on election contests involvin* elective munici$al and aran*ay o''ices s#all e 'inal, e0ecutory, and not a$$eala le.< Issue: ?#et#er t#e decisions o' t#e )omelec in election contests involvin* elective munici$al and aran*ay o''icials, ein* 'inal and e0ecutory and not a$$eala le, $reclude t#e 'ilin* o' a s$ecial civil action o' certiorari. Held: Article IX-C Section 2 2! does not "reclude t#e $ilin% o$ s"ecial civil action o$ certiorari Rule &'! (it# t#e SC "#e 'act t#at decisions, 'inal orders or rulin*s o' t#e )ommission on -lections in contests involvin* elective munici$al and aran*ay o''ices are 'inal, e0ecutory and not a$$eala le, does not $reclude a recourse to t#is )ourt y way o' a s$ecial civil action o' certiorari. "#e $roceedin*s in t#e )onstitutional )ommission s#ow t#at in cases 'allin* under !rticle I23) /ection 2425, i.e., contests involvin* elective munici$al and aran*ay o''icials, t#e intent was not to rule out t#e $ossi ility o' an ori*inal s$ecial civil action 'or certiorari, mandamus or $ro#i ition.
"#e $rovision o' !rticle I23), /ection 2425 o' t#e )onstitution t#at @decisions, 'inal orders, or rulin*s o' t#e )ommission on election contests involvin* elective munici$al and aran*ay o''ices s#all e 'inal, e0ecutory, and not a$$eala le@ a$$lies only to =uestions o' 'act and not o' law. "#at $rovision was not intended to divest t#e /u$reme )ourt o' its aut#ority to resolve =uestions o' law as in#erent in t#e &udicial $ower con'erred u$on it y t#e )onstitution. ?e esc#ew a literal readin* o' t#at $rovision t#at would contradict suc# aut#ority.
)#e (as no %rave a*use o$ discretion on t#e "art o$ COMELEC. "#e decision was not arrived at ca$riciously or w#imsically y ),M-.-). ),M-.-) $ainsta1in*ly re3 evaluated t#e =uestioned 67 allots to arrive at t#e 'inal tally o' votes. "#e 'actual determinations o' administrative odies are 'inal unless marred y *rave a use o' discretion w#ic# was not $resent in t#is case. /) dismissed Rivera+s $etition and li'ted t#e "R,.
