Vinzons-Chato v.

Comelec

Facts: Unico has already been proclaimed and taken his oath of office as a Member of the HOR, hence, Comelec ruled that it had already lost jurisdiction over petitioner Chatos election protest against Unico regarding canvassing of returns and alleged invalidity of Unicos proclamation. He then filed a special civil action for certiorari in the SC. Issue: WON the court should take cognizance of Chatos election protest. If not, to who is this issue best addressed to? WON his civil action for certiorari will prosper. Held: The court should not take cognizance of Chatos election protest for it would amount to usurpation of the constitutionally mandated functions of the HRET. Civil action for certiorari will not prosper. Ratio: - In an electoral contest where the validity of the proclamation of a winning candidate who has taken his oath of office and assumed his post as Congressman is raised, that issue is best addressed to the HRET. Reason: it avoids duplicity of proceedings and a clash of jurisdiction between constitutional bodies with due regard to the peoples mandate. - Special civil action for certiorari shall prosper if the following requisites concur: o Tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in

excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of jurisdiction amounting to lack of jurisdiction o There is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to annul or modify the proceeding. - In this case, COMELEC did not commit rave abuse of discretion when it issued a resolution holding that it had lost jurisdiction upon Unicos proclamation. It demonstrated fealty to the constitutional fiat regarding HRET.