JOSE L. GUEVARA vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. L-12596             July 31, 1958

FACTS:

Guevara was ordered by the COMELEC to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for having published in the newspaper an article which tended to interfere with and influence the COMELEC awarding the contracts for the manufacture and supply of  ballot boxes; and which article likewise tended to degrade, bring into disrepute, and undermine the exclusive constitutional function of this Commission and its Chairman

Petitioner, filed a motion to quash on the following ground that the Commission has no jurisdiction to punish as contempt the publication of the alleged contemptuous article, as neither in the Constitution nor in statutes is the Commission granted a power to so punish the same.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the COMELEC has the power and jurisdiction to conduct contempt proceedings against Guevara in connection with the publication of an article.

RULING:

Although the negotiation conducted by the Commission has resulted in controversy between several dealers, that however merely refers to a ministerial duty which the Commission has performed in its administrative capacity. It only discharged a ministerial duty; it did not exercise any judicial function. Such being the case, it could not exercise the power to punish for contempt as postulated in the law, for such power is inherently judicial in nature. As this Court has aptly said: "The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts; its existence is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings, and to the enforcement of judgments, orders and mandates of courts, and, consequently, in the administration of justice". We are therefore persuaded to conclude that the Commission on Elections has no power nor authority to submit petitioner to contempt proceedings if its purpose is to discipline him because of the publication of the article mentioned in the charge under consideration.

FILIPINAS ENGINEERING AND MACHINE SHOP  vs. HON. JAIME N. FERRER

G.R. No. L-31455 February 28, 1985

COMELEC awarded the contract to Acme for the manufacture and supply of voting booths. However, the losing bidder, petitioner in the instant case, Filipinas Engineering filed an Injunction suit against COMELEC and Acme. The lower court denied the writ prayed for.

Thereafter, ACME filed a motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the lower court has no jurisdiction over the case which the court granted. Filipinas' motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit. Hence, this appeal for certiorari.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the lower court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a suit involving an order of the COMELEC dealing with an award of contract arising from its invitation to bid; and

2. Whether or not Filipinas, the losing bidder, has a cause of action under the premises against the COMELEC and Acme, the winning bidder, to enjoin them from complying with their contract.

RULING:

It has been consistently held that it is the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to review on certiorari; final decisions, orders or rulings of the COMELEC relative to the conduct of elections and enforcement of election laws.

The COMELEC resolution awarding the contract in favor of Acme was not issued pursuant to its quasi-judicial functions but merely as an incident of its inherent administrative functions over the conduct of elections, and hence, the said resolution may not be deemed as a "final order" reviewable by certiorari by the Supreme Court. Being non-judicial in character, no contempt may be imposed by the COMELEC from said order, and no direct and exclusive appeal by certiorari to this Tribunal lie from such order. Any question arising from said order may be well taken in an ordinary civil action before the trial courts.

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.