UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW LocGov

E2024 Professor Raquedan

Salva v. Makalintal
G.R. No. 132603 – September 18, 2000
En banc | Buena, J.

Topic: Abolition – LGC, Sec. 9

Article/s Invoked:
• “Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order of ruling of each
Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within
days from receipt of a copy thereof.” (Const., Sec. 7, Art. IX-A)

Parties:
PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS
Elpidio Salva, Vilma De Leon, Clemente Matira, Hon. Roberto Makalintal (Presiding Judge, RTC)
Region De Leon, Marilou De Leon, Jaime Relevo, Hon. Sangguinang Pangbayan, Calaca, Batangas
Joey Vergara, Carmencita Salva, Dionisio De Leon, Hon. Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
Jorge Vergara, Gorgonio De Leon, and others too
numerous to enumerate as a class suit

Case Summary:
Petitioners filed a class suit against respondents (sans Makalintal) before the RTC for the annulment of
Ordinance No. 5 and Resolution No. 345, enacted by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, and COMELEC
Resolution No. 2987, with prayer for preliminary injunction/TRO. Simultaneous with this filing, petitioners
also filed an ex parte motion for the issuance of a TRO to enjoin respondents from enforcing the ordinance
and resolutions. The RTC denied the ex parte motion for lack of jurisdiction, stating that any petition
questioning the COMELEC must be brought before the SC.

Petitioners filed this instant suit (now with Makalintal), arguing that COMELEC’s acts in the exercise of a
purely ministerial duty is reviewable by the RTC, since the conduct of a plebiscite pursuant to the ordinance
and resolution is ministerial in nature. Respondents argued that only the SC has the power to review or reverse
the COMELEC resolution.

W/N the RTC has jurisdiction to enjoin the COMELEC from implementing Resolution No. 2987—YES
What is contemplated by the term ‘final orders, rulings and decisions’ of the COMELEC reviewable by
certiorari by the Supreme Court as provided by law are those rendered in actions or proceedings before the
COMELEC and taken cognizance of by the said body in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial
powers.” (Garces v. CA, Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop v. Ferrer)

The COMELEC’s issuance of the resolution is ministerial duty of the COMELEC enjoined by law and is
part of its administrative functions. It involved no exercise of discretionary authority, let alone an exercise
in its quasi-judicial power. The resolution was issued merely as an incident of its inherent administrative
functions over the conduct of plebiscites. Thus, the said resolution may not be deemed as a “final order”
reviewable by certiorari. Any question pertaining to the validity of the resolution may be taken in an
ordinary civil action before the trial courts.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Petitioners filed a class suit against the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Batangas, Sangguniang Pangbayan of
Calaca, Batangas, and the COMELEC (Civil Case No. 3442) before the RTC of Balayan, Batangas, Branch
XI, for the annulment of Ordinance No. 05 and Resolution No. 345 enacted by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan,
and COMELEC Resolution NO. 2987, with prayer for preliminary injunction/TRO.
• Ordinance No. 05 – declared the abolition of barangay San Rafael and its merger with Barangay
Dacanlao; instructed COMELEC to conduct the required plebiscite as per LGC, Sec. 9 and 10
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW LocGov
E2024 Professor Raquedan
o Note: Batangas governor vetoed. This ordinance for being ultra vires, as it was not shown that
the essential requirements under Sec. 9, in relation to Sec. 7, of the LGC were obtained [no
attestations or certifications from Department of Finance, National Statistics Office, and the
Land Management Bureau of the DENR]
• Resolution No. 345 – affirmed effectivity of above ordinance, thereby overriding the veto power of
the governor of Batangas
• Resolution No. 2987 – COMELEC provided for the rules and regulations governing the conduct of
the required plebiscite to decide the issue of the abolition and the merger

Simultaneous with the filing of the class suit, petitioners filed an ex parte motion for the issuance of a TRO to
enjoin respondents from enforcing the ordinance and the two resolutions.

CASE TRAIL
• RTC denied the ex parte motion for lack of jurisdiction, since the prayer sought by respondents was
directed only to the COMELEC Resolution; the RTC said any petition or action questioning the
COMELEC must be brought before the SC.
• Petitioners filed this instant petition with prayer for TRO without filing for a motion for reconsideration
of the RTC order, claiming the urgency to enjoin the conduct of the plebiscite on February 28, 1998.
o The SC directed the parties to maintain the status quo prevailing at the time of the filing of the
petition. However, the SolGen filed a Manifestation and Motion declaring that he concurred
with petitioners’ cause and recommended that the instant petition be given due course.
o The SC resolved to give due course to the petition and require the parties to submit their
respective memoranda.
• PETITIONERS’ ARGUMENT: COMELEC’s acts in the exercise of a purely ministerial duty is
reviewable by the RTC. The conduct of a plebiscite pursuant to the ordinance and resolution is
ministerial in nature.
• RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENT: Only the SC has the power to review or reverse the COMELEC
resolution. [See highlights]

ISSUE/S & RATIO/S

W/N the RTC has jurisdiction to enjoin the COMELEC from implementing Resolution No. 2987—YES.
• After the COMELEC ascertained the issuance of the ordinance and resolution, it issued the
COMELEC Resolution, which is a ministerial duty of the COMELEC enjoined by law and is part of
its administrative functions. It involved no exercise of discretionary authority, let alone an exercise
in its quasi-judicial power.
o COMELEC Resolution No. 2987 was not issued pursuant to the COMELEC’s quasi-judicial
functions, but merely as an incident of its inherent administrative functions over the conduct
of plebiscites. Thus, the said resolution may not be deemed as a “final order” reviewable by
certiorari. Any question pertaining to the validity of the resolution may be taken in an ordinary
civil action before the trial courts.
o The cases cited by public respondent in support of its contention (that only the SC can reverse
or review the COMELEC resolution) are not in point.

RULING
Petition for review GRANTED. Assailed Order of the RTC is set aside and annulled. The RTC is ordered to
proceed with dispatch in resolving Civil Case No. 3442. The execution of the result of the plebiscite shall be
deferred depending on the outcome of said Civil Case.

NOTES