G.R. No.

114795 Garcesvs CA FACTS:

July 17, 1996 188 SCRA 154

On July 27, 1986, petitioner Lucita Q. Garces was appointed Election Registrar for Gutalac, Zamboanga del Norte,replacing respondent Claudio Concepcion from the said position. The respondent was, in turn, to be transferred to Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) approved the appointments which was supposed to take effect upon assumption of office. Concepcion refused the transfer which made Garces unable to resume her post in Gutalac. Also, the Provincial Election Supervisor Salvador Empeynado, also a respondent in this case, issued a memorandum prohibiting her from assuming office in Gutalac as the same is not vacant. On February 24, 1987, Garces was directed by the Office of the Assistant Director to defer her Gutalac post. However, on April 15, 1987, the petitioner received a letter from Acting Manager of Finance Service Department with enclosed check to cover expenses on construction of polling booths, addressed Mrs. LucitaGarces E.R. Gutalac, Zamboanga del Norte which was interpreted by the petitioner to mean as overriding the previous deferment order while COMELEC en banc cancelled Concepcions appointment to Liloy since he is still occupying the post in Gutalac. On February 26, 1988, Garces filed a petition for mandamus with preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injuction and damages against Empeynado and Concepcion which was later dismissed by the court a quo on two grounds: (1) that the proper remedy is quo warranto and (2) that the matters referred under the constitution pertain only to those involving the conduct of elections. COMELEC cancelled the appointments of Garces to Gutalac and Concepcion to Liloy through a resolution passed en banc. Respondent Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the case by the RTC, hence, the petition to this Court. Respondent Empeynado challenged the jurisdiction of the RTC contending that this matter is cognizable by the COMELEC under Sec. 7 Art. IX-A of the 1987 Constitution. He argues that this case should be reviewed only by the Supreme Court and that if RTC has jurisdiction over COMELEC Resolutions cancelation the appointments, then RTC becomes a reviewer of an en banc COMELEC resolution contrary to the aforementioned provision of the Constitution.

ISSUE:

Whether this case is cognizable by the Regional Trial Court or by the Supreme Court.

HELD:

The Court decided that: the petition for review is hereby DENIED without prejudice to the filing of the proper action with the appropriate body. It resolved the contention of respondent Empeynado challenging the jurisdiction of the RTC on this matter is without merit. The said provision in the Constitution is inapplicable since there was no case filed before COMELEC. Also, the provision only refers to cases involving elective

official and not appointive. According to the Courts decision: To rule otherwise would surely burden the Court with trivial administrative questions that are best ventilated before the RTC, a court which the law vests with the power to exercise original jurisdiction over all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction over of any court, tribunal, person, or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.