FACTS:

This case involves a petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner seeking to reverse and set aside the Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) denying the petitioner's Motion to Admit Answer and the Order denying the petitioner's Omnibus Motion. The petitioner was proclaimed winner for the mayoralty race in the Municipality of Cajidiocan, Province of Romblon, during the May 2010 automated elections. The proclamation was based on the Certificate of Canvass (COC), but without the official signed Certificate of Canvass for Proclamation (COCP). The petitioner's proclamation was approved by the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC) Chairman. Subsequently, the private respondent, who was also a mayoralty candidate, requested the COMELEC to conduct a manual reconciliation of the votes cast. The manual reconciliation was done, and the eight winning Sangguniang Bayan Members were also proclaimed. The COCP for the previously proclaimed mayoralty and vice-mayoralty candidates had the date changed to "May 20, 2010" to correspond with the date of the manual reconciliation. The private respondent filed an election protest case against the petitioner, and the court sheriff served summons on the petitioner's residence. The petitioner filed a Motion to Admit Answer, which was denied by the trial court. The petitioner subsequently filed an Omnibus Motion, which was also denied. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, which was opposed by the respondents who argued that it should have been filed with the COMELEC. The court held that the petition should fail and dismissed the case, stating that the COMELEC has jurisdiction over interlocutory orders in electoral protest cases.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction to issue the Orders denying petitioner's Motion to Admit Answer and Omnibus Motion

2. Whether or not the petition for certiorari was properly filed with the Supreme Court

RULING:

1. The Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction to issue the Orders denying petitioner's Motion to Admit Answer and Omnibus Motion. The Court held that if a case may be appealed to a particular court or judicial tribunal or body, then said court or judicial tribunal or body has jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary writ of certiorari, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. In this case, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has jurisdiction to take cognizance of an appeal from the decision of the regional trial court in election contests involving elective municipal officials. Therefore, the regional trial court had jurisdiction to issue the Orders.

2. The petition for certiorari was not properly filed with the Supreme Court. The Court held that since the COMELEC has jurisdiction to take cognizance of an appeal from the decision of the regional trial court in election contests involving elective municipal officials, it is also the COMELEC which has jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, petitioner erred in invoking the Supreme Court's power to issue said extraordinary writ.

PRINCIPLES:

• A court or judicial tribunal or body has jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary writ of certiorari, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, if a case may be appealed to that court or judicial tribunal or body.

• The COMELEC has jurisdiction to take cognizance of an appeal from the decision of the regional trial court in election contests involving elective municipal officials, and therefore, also has jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.