CAPTION

Title:
G.R. No. 132365, July 9, 1998
Parties:
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Petitioner,
vs.
HON. TOMAS B. NOYNAY, Acting Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Allen, Northern Samar, and
DIOSDADA F. AMOR, ESBEL CHUA, and RUBEN MAGLUYOAN, Respondents.
Citation:

Ponente: (Speaker)
DAVIDE, JR., J
BADGE (Keywords, Nature of the Case)

Other unethical conducts. Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts over election offenses.

SYLLABUS (Principles of Law / Legal Principles)

Ethical Considerations.

Canons 4 and 18 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics mandate that judges should be studious in the principles of law
and office administration in due regard of legal system integrity, respectively. As well, Rule 3.01, Canon 3 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct mandates them to be faithful to the law and to maintain professional competence. The
above actions of Hon. Noynay contradicts these provisions.

Similarly, Rule 10.02, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that lawyers should not
misquote or represent court rulings. In its MR, COMELEC through its counsel Atty. Balbuena cited Alberto v. Judge
Lavilles. In this citation, however, the present court finds that errors persist. One, that the plaintiff in the case is
Alberto Naldoza not Alberto Naldeza or Alberto as used by the COMELEC lawyer. Two, that that case is 254 of SCRA
not 245. And third, in its ascription of a Court Administrator’s Memo as the Court’s ruling. Atty. Balbuena is
admonished.

FACTS
The pivotal issue raised in this special civil action for certiorari with mandamus is whether R.A. No. 7691 has
divested Regional Trial Courts of jurisdiction over election offenses, which are punishable with imprisonment of
not exceeding six (6) years.

COMELEC charged some public teachers with violations of Omnibus Election in their engagement in partisan
political activities. It is worth pointing out that all the accused are uniformly charged for Violation of Sec. 261(i)
of the Omnibus Election Code, which under Sec. 264 of the same Code carries a penalty of not less than one (1)
year but not more than six (6) years of imprisonment and not subject to Probation plus disqualification to hold
public office or deprivation of the right of suffrage.

COMELEC filed these criminal cases in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). However, the RTC, through Judge Noynay
directed COMELEC to file the cases in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), as RTC supposedly had no jurisdiction over
the cases filed considering that the maximum penalty imposable did not exceed six (6) years.

Petitioner contends that public respondent has erroneously misconstrued the provisions of Rep. Act No. 7691 in
arguing that the Municipal Trial Court has exclusive original jurisdiction to try and decide election offenses
because pursuant to Section 268 of the Omnibus Election Code and this Courts ruling in Alberto [sic] vs. Judge
Juan Lavilles, Jr., Regional Trial Courts have the exclusive original jurisdiction over election offenses.

ISSUES/s

Whether or not Judge Noynay erred in remanding the case to the Municipal Trial Court.

RULING (Ratio)
Yes. The present case falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC, not MTC. In this issue, two laws should be juxtaposed.
On the one hand, the Omnibus Election Code states that RTC has jurisdiction for violations of the code, except on
cases of failure to register or vote. One the other, Section 32 of B.P. Blg. 129 states that MTC has jurisdiction for
cases with penalties of one year to six years.

In this case, the RTC implemented B.P. Blg 129. However, the present court finds his ruling mistaken in that in the
same BP providing MTC jurisdiction, it is stated that MTC has jurisdiction only in cases that does not fall within RTC
jurisdiction. Omnibus Election Code gives jurisdiction to RTC on violates of the code. The violation presented in this
case is a violation of the code. This provided, RTC has jurisdiction, regardless if the penalty is less than six years.
Thus, Judge Noynay erred in ruling that RTC has no jurisdiction.

FALLO (Dispositive Portion)

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is GRANTED. The challenged orders of public respondent
Judge Tomas B. Noynay of 25 August 1997 and 17 October 1997 in Criminal Cases Nos. A-1439 and A-1442 to A-
1449 are SET ASIDE. Respondent Judge is DIRECTED to try and decide said cases with purposeful dispatch and,
further, ADMONISHED to faithfully comply with Canons 4 and 18 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and Rule 3.01,
Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Atty. Jose P. Balbuena is ADMONISHED to be more careful in the discharge of his duty to the court as a lawyer
under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.