Garcia Vs de Jesus (Jurisdiction To Issue Writs)

DECISION
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
FACTS 1aw library
(1) G.R. No. 88158 (The Antipolo Case)
In the 18 January 1988 local elections, Petitioners Daniel GARCIA and Teodoro O’HARA
were the winning candidates for Mayor and Vice Mayor, respectively, of Antipolo, Rizal.
They were proclaimed as such on 22 January 1988.
On 1 February 1988, Private Respondents Ernesto DE JESUS and Cecilia DAVID

instituted an election protest before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch
72 (RTC).
Petitioners GARCIA and O’HARA, meanwhile, registered their objection to the

assumption of jurisdiction by the COMELEC over the Petition for Certiorari and
Mandamus through their "Manifestation With Motion To Dismiss." It was their
contention that the COMELEC was not empowered to take cognizance of Petitions
for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus.
(2) G.R. Nos. 97108-09 (The Isabela Case)
Petitioner TOBON UY filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court of Ilagan,
Isabela, Branch 16 (RTC
The day before, or on 9 January 1991, NEYRA filed before the COMELEC a Petition
for Certiorari and/or Prohibition,virtua1aw library
On 10 January 1991, the RTC, after due hearing, gave due course to NEYRA’s appeal,
granted execution pending appeal stating the special reasons
On the same date, the COMELEC issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the
RTC from further proceeding with the case. NEYRA’s application for a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction was likewise set for hearing by the COMELEC on 24 January 1991.
On 15 January 1991, NEYRA filed a second Petition for Certiorari and/or Prohibition

before the COMELEC
The COMELEC took cognizance of both Certiorari Petitions and, on 15 February 1991,

issued the questioned Resolution (in SPR Nos. 1-91 & 2-91), declaring as null and void
the Writ of Execution Pending Appeal granted by the RTC
ISSU library
ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to issue Writs of certiorari, prohibition
I.
In the absence of any specific conferment upon the COMELEC, either by the
Constitution or by legislative fiat, the COMELEC is bereft of jurisdiction to issue said
Writs.
It is the COMELEC alone, invoking its Constitutionally invested appellate jurisdiction and
rule-making power, that arrogated unto itself the authority to issue Writs of Certiorari,
Prohibition and Mandamus in Rule 28, Section 1, of its Rules of Procedure, thus: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
In the Philippine setting, the authority to issue Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition and
Mandamus involves the exercise of original jurisdiction. Thus, such authority has always
been expressly conferred, either by the Constitution or by law. As a matter of fact, the
well-settled rule is that jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or by law. It is
never derived by implication
Significantly, what the Constitution granted the COMELEC was appellate jurisdiction.
The Constitution makes no mention of any power given the COMELEC to exercise
original jurisdiction over Petitions for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus unlike in the
case of the Supreme Court which was specifically conferred such authority (Art. VIII,
Sec, 5[1]). The immutable doctrine being that jurisdiction is fixed by law, the power to
issue such Writs cannot be implied from the mere existence of appellate jurisdiction.
Writs, in Philippine judicial systems, owes there existence in a constitutional or

statutory provision. Although, there may be authorities in other jurisdiction which
maintains that Writs are inherent in the Higher Court which exercise appellate
jurisdiction, the same cannot be afforded to COMELEC, since such applies only to
judicial tribunals.
NOTE:
 Original jurisdiction – power of the court to take judicial cognizance of case

instituted for judicial action for the first time.
 Appellate jurisdiction – power of the superior court to re-examine the
judgements and orders of inferior courts which tried the case that was elevated
for judicial review.
 The authority to issue writs involves the exercise of original jurisdiction, such
authority is conferred either through a Constitutional or Statutory provision and
not derived by implication.

Garcia Vs de Jesus (Jurisdiction To Issue Writs)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Garcia Vs de Jesus (Jurisdiction To Issue Writs)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Garcia Vs de Jesus (Jurisdiction To Issue Writs)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DECISION

FACTS 1aw library

(1) G.R. No. 88158 (The Antipolo Case)

On 1 February 1988, Private Respondents Ernesto DE JESUS and Cecilia DAVID

Petitioners GARCIA and O’HARA, meanwhile, registered their objection to the

(2) G.R. Nos. 97108-09 (The Isabela Case)

On 15 January 1991, NEYRA filed a second Petition for Certiorari and/or Prohibition

The COMELEC took cognizance of both Certiorari Petitions and, on 15 February 1991,

Writs, in Philippine judicial systems, owes there existence in a constitutional or

 Original jurisdiction – power of the court to take judicial cognizance of case

You might also like