45) GALANG v.
GERONIMO (Cruz, J) able to serve Summons on petitioner by leaving the same and the attached copy of
GR No 192793; February 22, 2011
Petitioners: Festo Galang, Jr.
Respondents: Hon. Ramiro Geronimo and Nicasio Ramos
Emergency Recit:
Petitioner Galang was proclaimed winner as mayor during 2010 elections in Romblon.
Respondent Ramos, who was also a candidate requested COMELEC to conduct a
manual reconciliation of the votes cast, which was granted. After the manual
reconciliation, the total number of votes for the previously proclaimed mayor and vice
mayor candidates remained the same. Hence, only the date was erased and changed
corresponding to the date of the manual reconciliation.
Petitioner Ramos filed an election protest against Galang before RTC. The court
sheriff served the Summons on petitioner by leaving the same with a certain Gerry
Rojas, who was then at petitioner’s residence. Trial court found the service of
Summons on petitioner Galang as valid. Petitioner Galang filed a petition for certiorari
and prohibition under R65 alleging respondent Judge acted with GADALEJ.
Respondents argue that the petition for certiorari should not be filed with SC but with
COMELEC.
According to Sec 4, R65 of ROC and Sec. 8 Rule 14 of Rules of Procedure in Election
Contests Before Courts Involving Elective Municipal Officers, election cases should
be filed with COMELEC in its exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
Facts:
1. Petitioner Galang was proclaimed winner as mayor during the May 2010
Automated Elections for the Municipality of Cajidiocan, Romblon.
2. The proclamation was based on the COC, but without the official signed Certificate
of Canvas for Proclamation (COCP). This was done with the approval of the
Provincial Board of Canvassers Chairman.
3. Respondent Ramos, who was also a candidate requested COMELEC to conduct a
manual reconciliation of the votes cast  Granted
4. The manual reconciliation was done on May 20, 2010 after which, the 8 winning
Sangguniang Bayan Members were also proclaimed.
5. The MBOC made erasures and corrections using fluid on the COCP for the
Sangguniang Bayan Members to reflect the results of the manual reconciliation.
6. As for the COCP for the previously proclaimed mayor and vice mayor candidates,
the total number of votes for each of the candidates remained the same even after the
manual reconciliation; hence, only the date was erased and changed to read May 20,
2010 to correspond with the date of manual reconciliation.
7. Respondent Ramos filed an election protest case against petitioner Galang before
RTC.
8. The court sheriff went to petitioner Galang’s residence to serve summons with a
copy of the petition  the Sheriff’s Return of Summons states that the sheriff was
the protest with a certain Gerry Rojas, who was then at petitioner’s residence
9. Petitioner Galang appeared in court and requested a copy of the summons with a
copy of the election protest. During hearing, respondent Judge directed Galang to file
the proper pleading and Galang subsequently filed a Motion to Admit answer.
10. Trial court found the service of Summons on petitioner Galang as valid (the
assailed order), and declaring the Answer filed was filed out of time hence, was
DENIED.
11. Petitioner Galang filed an Omnibus Motion to restore protestee’s standing in court,
an MR for the assailed order, and to suspend proceedings pending resolution of the
Falsification case  DENIED
12. Petitioner Galang filed this present petition for certiorari and prohibition under
R65, alleging that respondent judge Geronimo acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with GADALEJ in considering the Sheriff’s Service of Summons on a
person not residing in petitioner’s residence
13. Respondents argued that the petition for certiorari should not be filed with the SC
but with COMELEC
Issue/s:
1. WON petitioner Galang’s petition for certiorari should be filed with
COMELEC – YES
Held:
1. Section 4, Rule 65 provides that in election cases involving an act or omission of a
municipal or regional trial court, the petition shall be filed exclusively with the
COMELEC, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
2. Interpreting the phrase in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, if a case may be appealed
to a particular court or juridical tribunal or body, then said court or judicial tribunal has
jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary writ of certiorari, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction
3. Section 8, Rule 14 of 2010 Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before Courts
Involving Elective Municipal Officers:
“An aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the COMELEC within 5 days
after promulgation, filing notice of appeal with the court that rendered the
decision, with copy served on adverse counsel or on adverse party not
represented by counsel”.
4. Since it is COMELEC which has jurisdiction to take cognizance of an appeal from
the decision of the RTC in election contests involving elective municipal officials, then
it is also the COMELEC which has jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction.
5. Therefore, petitioner Galang erred in invoking the SC’s power to issue said
extraordinary writ.
WHEREFORE, petition is DENIED. Winner: Respondent Geronimo.