GUIEB VS.

FONTANILLA

Facts:

The petitioner and the private respondent Manuel Asuncion were candidates
for the position of Punong Barangay. Petitioner was proclaimed as the winning candidate
then the latter filed an election protest with the MTC. The MTC confirmed the proclamation
of the petitioner and dismissed the protest of the private respondent. The private
respondent then appealed the decision to the RTC of Dagupan City. The RTC declared that
the motion should be properly filed with the court of origin and that the decision of 3August
31, 1994 had already become final.
The petitioner filed with this Court a motion for extension of time to file a
petition for review on certiorari which was denied because of his failure to submit an
affidavit of service of that motion. MTC deferred action on the said motion and required the
petitioner's counsel to inform the court of the status of his petition with this Court but the
latter failed to comply with the said order, so the court issued an order on granting the
issuance of a writ of execution.. The sheriff returned the writ of execution with the
information that he enforced the writ and proclaimed the private respondent as Punong
Barangay of Barangay Nilombot, Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan

Issue: W/N RTC has jurisdiction over this case?

Held:
NO. The COMELEC, and not the Regional Trial Courts, that has exclusive jurisdiction
over all contests involving elective barangay officials decided by courts of limited jurisdiction,
which are the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Metropolitan Circuit Trial
Court.
 ROY RODILLAS VS. COMELEC

Facts:

Petitioner and private respondent were both candidates of Barangay Captain. The petitioner
filed a case in the MTC relating to votes cast which only range a close margin of votes against the
respondent. Under the MTCT decision favored to the respondent for having obtained highest
number of votes compare to the petitioner. Then the petitioner filed an appeal to the RTC which the
latter subsequently forwarded the case to the COMELEC for further review. The COMELEC,
however, denied the appeal on the ground that for the belated of the appeal and docket fees.

Issue:

W/N the belated appeal and not complied with the payment of docket fees were sufficed
ground for the dismissal of the case?

Held:

The court ruled that the mere filing was not enough. It must to assure that be accompanied
by the payment of the correct amount of fees. The payment of the full payment of the docket fees is
indispensable step for the perfection of an appeal.

Petitioner had only five days from receipt of the decision of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court
or until June 5, 1994 to perfect his appeal. While he timely filed his Amended Notice of Appeal on
June 2, 1994, he paid the amount of P510.00 representing the appeal and legal research fees only
on June 14, 1994. It is, therefore, evident that petitioner belatedly paid said amount. Besides, the
correct amounts of the appeal and the research fees are P500.00 and P20.00 respectively, or
P520.00 not P510.00 as paid by petitioner.
 Mercado VS. Board

Facts:

Petetioner was proclaimed as SK Chairman winner on the basis of the tally which showed
one vote over election contender. Thereupon, BES, reversed the earlier proclaimation in favor of the
private respondent whom the latter ordered to open the ballot boxes on the basis on the protest filed
by the private respondent who alleges that Boart of Election Tellers chairman drinking gin during the
counting and had then invalidated some of the votes without consulting other baord member.
Therefore, the petetioner filed a complaint that BES acted with grave discretion amounting to lack or
excess jurisdiction and denying the petetioner of due process when it ordered of reopening the balot
boxes for counting the votes without affording him the oppurtunity to be heard.

Issue:

W/N the reopining of balot boxes and demanding the same for the recounting of votes is
within the ambit of the BES authority ?

Held:

The court ruled that in pursuant to the authority and porposes of SK election authorized
under SEC.R.A. No. 7160 COMELEC promulgated Resolution NO. 2499 which follwed the pattern
set in the Constitutuion of the Kabatan Barangay providing for Election Supervisor and Board of
Election Tellers for having supervision in the conduct of election as the final arbiter of all election
protest.
 ALFONSO C. BINCE, JR.,
vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

Facts:

Petitioner and private respondent were among the candidates in the

synchronized elections for the two (2) seats in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the
Province of Pangasinan allotted to its Sixth Legislative District under COMELEC
Resolution No. 2379 in relation to Section 3 of R.A. No. 7166. The resolution was
challenged to annul the proclamation of the petitioner as the second winning candidate
for the Sangguniang Panlalawigan on the bases of the Resolution promulgated by the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) en banc without prior notice and hearing in
connection with Special Cases SPC. No. 92-208 and SPC No. 92-384. Therefore,
respondent COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in
annulling the petitioner's proclamation without the requisite due notice and hearing,
thereby depriving the latter of due process.

Issue:

W/N the COMELEC acted with abuse of discretion in annulling petitioner’s

proclamation?

Held:

The court ruled that COMELEC acted with abuse of discretion in annulling petitioner’s
proclamation on the account that petitioner had been proclaimed, had taken his oath of office and
had assumed the position as the second elected member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the
Province of Pangasinan for its Sixth Legislative District. And that, such proclamation enjoys the
presumption of regularity and validity. Therefore, the instant petition is granted in favor of the
petitioner.