EN BANC
PET ANGELI R. CARLOTO, G.R.
No.174155
Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO,
C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
-
versus - SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CARPIO
MORALES,
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, CALLEJO, SR.,
HON. ARTURO M. PACULANANG, AZCUNA,
in his capacity as Actng.
Presiding TINGA,
Judge, RTC Branch 28, Liloy, CHICO-NAZARIO,
Zamboanga del Norte and MARIANO GARCIA, and
C. CANDELARIA, JR., VELASCO,
JR., JJ.
Respondents.
Promulgated:
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
DECISION
AZCUNA,
J.:
This
is a petition for certiorari[1]
and prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order
(TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction with motion for special raffle.
Petitioner
seeks the nullification of the resolutions, respectively dated
The antecedents are as follows:
Petitioner
Pet Angeli R. Carloto and
private respondent Mariano C. Candelaria vied for the
mayoralty post in the
After
the canvassing of election returns, petitioner was proclaimed mayor with 6,466
votes as compared to private respondent’s 6, 314 or with a marginal lead of 152
votes.
Private respondent filed an election
protest before the Regional Trial Court of Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte, Branch 28, docketed as SE-03, alleging
massive fraud and irregularities in the conduct of the election purportedly
employed by petitioner to ensure her victory.
On
Petitioner filed her Answer/Opposition
with Counter-Protest for a judicial recount asserting that the election was
conducted in accordance with the Omnibus Election Code, and the contested votes
in favor of private respondent cannot offset her marginal lead.
On
September 14, 2005, the trial court rendered its decision declaring private respondent
as the winning mayoralty candidate after it annulled the election results in
four precincts of the Municipality of Gutalac on the
ground that rampant irregularities took place in violation of the Omnibus
Election Code (B.P. 881), such as the following: a) the members of the Board of
Election Inspectors (BEI) of these
precincts failed to affix their signatures at the back portion of the ballots;
b) the assistors who voted in behalf of the illiterates were not able to take
their oaths; c) some signatures of the
voters found in the front page of the voter’s registration record (VRR) did not
tally with the signatures of the voters appearing at the back of the VRR; d)
the poll clerks failed to indicate against the names of the voters whether they were disabled or illiterate; and
5) the assistors for the illiterate voters were already allowed to cast the
votes for the latter even before their names and signatures were recorded.[4] The
dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE,
the Court DECLARES protestant-petitioner
Mariano C. Candelaria, Jr. to have won the
elections for Mayor of Gutalac, Zamboanga
del Norte, with a plurality of one hundred thirty three (133) votes over that
of protestee-respondent Pet Angeli
Carloto, and not being disqualified from holding the
office of Mayor for the Municipality of Gutalac, Zamboanga del Norte, Philippines; and DECLARING the
election of private-potestee Pet Angeli
Carloto, for the office of the Municipal Mayor of Gutalac, Zamboanga del Norte, [in the] May 10, 2004 election[s] NULL
and VOID ab initio.
CLAIM
for damages DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence.
No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO
ORDERED.[5]
Petitioner
filed her notice of appeal with the trial court. The cases were docketed as EAC No. A-27-2005
and EAC No. A-28-2005 and were later consolidated.
Meanwhile, private respondent moved
for the execution of the trial court’s decision pending appeal, citing the
following reasons: a) public interest; b) shortness of the remaining portion of
the term of the contested office; and, c) the length of time that the election
contest had been pending. Sustaining the aforecited
reasons, and the ruling in Ramas v.
Commission on Elections,[6] the
motion was granted by the trial court in its resolution dated
WHEREFORE, upon the filing of a CASH BOND in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00), let a writ of execution pending appeal issue against protestant-respondent Pet Angeli R. Carloto who is hereby ordered to cease and desist from discharging the duties and functions of the Office of the Municipal Mayor of Gutalac, Zamboanga del Norte.
…
Thereafter, let the entire records
of this case be forwarded to the Commission on Elections, on appeal.
SO RESOLVED.[7]
A
writ of execution was subsequently issued by the trial court on
Consequently,
petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer
for a temporary restraining order (TRO) or status
quo order with the COMELEC (First Division) assailing the above resolution
and the writ of execution issued by the trial court.
Acting on the petition, the COMELEC (First
Division), on
In
the meantime, in the interest of justice and so as not to render moot and
academic the serious issues raised in the petition, a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER is hereby issued effective immediately….
In the event that the resolution of September 26, 2005 had already been
executed and respondent MARIANO C. CANDELARIA, JR. had assumed and performed
the function of Mayor of the Municipality of Gutalac,
Zamboanga del Norte, a STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER is
hereby ISSUED directing the parties to observe and maintain the status prior to
the promulgation of the September 14, 2005 Decision of the public respondent as
well as his Resolution of September 26, 2005. In which case, private respondent
shall forthwith vacate the post in favor of the petitioner. Moreover, municipal
officials and employees including barangay officials
of the
On
January 31, 2006, however, the COMELEC (First Division) issued a resolution
dismissing the petition based on the following grounds: a) the presence of good
reasons in the issuance of the writ of execution by the trial court such as:
the shortness of the remaining period of the term of the contested office, the
length of time that the election contest had been pending, and public interest;
and b) the alleged errors committed by the public respondent judge in his
decision declaring private respondent as the duly elected mayor of the
Municipality of Gutalac was reviewable
only on appeal and not via a petition for certiorari:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Commission (First Division) RESOLVED, as it hereby
RESOLVES, to DISMISS the instant PETITION for LACK OF MERIT.[9]
Petitioner
filed her motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc but the
same was denied in a resolution, dated
The
Decision rendered by public respondent court in declaring the private
respondent winner was made after the annulment of election results in four (4)
precincts for the following reasons: (i) the member
of the BEI of these precincts failed to affix their signatures at the back
portion of the ballots, and (ii) the assistors who voted in behalf of the
illiterates were not able to take their oath as required under the Omnibus
Election Code.
When the petitioner questioned the
court’s Resolution granting the motion for execution of judgment pending appeal
on this ground, what is being questioned in effect is an error of judgment. Errors
of judgment are subject to the judicial remedy of appeal. It must be reminded
that petitioner Carloto did appeal the public
respondent court’s decision in EAC No. A-27-2005. Thus, this issue should be
properly heard and resolved on appeal and not in a petition for certiorari.[10]
We
find the motion for reconsideration on the first issue not impressed with merit
since there was no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of the public respondent.
Anent the SECOND issue of whether or
not the Status Quo Ante Order dated
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
the motion for reconsideration is hereby denied. Let the Writ of Execution
issued by the public respondent dated
SO ORDERED.[11]
Hence, the petition to this Court.
Incidentally, acting on petitioner’s Motion Reiterating the Prayer for the
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order or Status Quo Order, the Court en
banc issued a resolution dated September 19, 2006, granting the motion and
requiring the parties to observe the status
quo prevailing before the rendition of the September 14, 2005 decision of
the RTC, Branch 28, Liloy, Zamboanga
del Sur in election Case No. SE-03.
Petitioner raises the following
issues:
I
THE
MAJORITY OF THE COMELEC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT SUSTAINED
THE TRIAL COURT IN ALLOWING EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL OF THE LATTER’S DECISION
WHICH, ON ITS FACE, THE GROUNDS FOR INVALIDATING MORE THAN 666 BALLOTS ARE
CONTRARY TO EXISTING RULES AND JURISPRUDENCE.
II
IT WAS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR
THE MAJORITY OF THE COMELEC TO RULE THAT THE ISSUES RAISED BY CARLOTO IN HER
CERTIORARI PETITION SHOULD BE PROPERLY HEARD ON THE APPEAL SHE FILED WITH THE
COMELEC.
III
IT
WAS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE COMELEC TO DISREGARD THE
DOCTRINE THAT EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE ON
EXECUTION OF JUDGMENTS. NO SPECIAL ORDER WAS EVEN ISSUED TO ALLOW SUCH ADVANCE
EXECUTION.
IV
IT
WAS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE COMELEC TO RULE THAT THE
STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER DATED
The
primary issue to be resolved is whether or not the COMELEC committed grave
abuse of discretion in allowing the execution of the trial court’s decision
pending appeal.
In the absence of an express
provision in the Omnibus Election Code, execution of judgment pending appeal in
election cases is governed by Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court[12] which
finds suppletory application in this case, thus:
Section
2. Discretionary execution. –
(a)
Execution of a judgment or a
final order pending appeal. -- On motion of the prevailing party with
notice to the adverse party filed in the trial court while it has jurisdiction
over the case and is in possession of either the original record or the record
on appeal, as the case may be, at the time of the filing of such motion, said
court may, in its discretion, order execution of a judgment or final order even
before the expiration of the period to appeal.
After
the court has lost jurisdiction, the motion for execution pending appeal may be
filed in the appellate court.
Discretionary execution may only issue upon good reasons to be stated in a special order after hearing….
To grant execution pending appeal in election
protest cases, the following requisites must concur: a) there must be a motion
by the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party; b) there must be “good
reasons” for the execution pending appeal; and c) the order granting execution
pending appeal must state “good reasons.”[13]
Ramas v. Commission on Elections[14]
held that the following constitute “good reasons” and a combination of two or
more of them will suffice to justify execution pending appeal: (1) public
interest involved or the will of the electorate; (2) the shortness of the
remaining portion of the term of the contested office; and (3) the length of
time that the election contest has been pending.
The
above reasons were adopted by the trial court when it issued a resolution granting
the execution of its decision pending appeal:
CONSIDERING that the attendant circumstances in this motion is in accord with the jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court in the RAMAS and NAVAROSA[15] cases, supra, and finding the “good reasons” submitted by movant-petitioner, consisting:
1. the fact that the above-entitled case has been pending for more than one (1) year by reason of protestee’s delaying tactics, (to be precise for almost seventeen (17) months;
2. the fact that the remaining portion of the term of the contested office is also more than one (1) year before it will be due for the next election (to be precise, for almost twenty (20) months from now; and,
3.
by reason of public interest, convincing and
meritorious, this court hereby GRANTS the motion of protestant-movant for the execution pending appeal of the decision of
this Court in this case dated
The
Court agrees that these constitute justifiable and good reasons for the
issuance of an order of execution pending appeal. Similarly, in Lindo v. Comelec,[17]
it was held that the grant of execution pending appeal would give substance and
meaning to the people’s mandate because they had the right to be governed by
their chosen mayor, and barely eighteen months were left in the tenure of the
Mayor.
Petitioner, however, in questioning
the propriety of the execution pending appeal, is also putting in issue the
basis for the trial court’s decision, particularly the grounds upon which the
annulment of the election results were based that resulted in the victory of
private respondent, who is now sitting as mayor of the Municipality of Gutalac by virtue of the challenged resolution ordering
execution pending appeal.
Petitioner opines that the trial
court’s reasons for invalidating the ballots, i.e., the lack of necessary oath by the assistors of illiterate and
disabled voters, and the absence of the signature of the Chairman of the BEI at
the back of the ballots, are not valid grounds for the annulment of election
returns but merely constitute election offenses under the Omnibus Election Code,
which states:
Sec. 196. Preparation of ballots for illiterate and disabled persons. – a voter who is illiterate or physically unable to prepare the ballot by himself may be assisted in the preparation of his ballot by a relative by affinity or consanguinity within the fourth civil degree or if he has none, by any person of his confidence who belong to the same household or any member of the board of election inspectors, except the two party members. Provided, That no voter shall be allowed to vote as illiterate or physically disabled unless it is so indicated in his registration record: Provided, further, that in no case shall an assistor assist more than three times except the non-party members of the board of election inspectors. The person thus chosen shall prepare the ballot for the illiterate or disabled voter inside the voting booth. The person assisting shall bind himself in a formal document under oath to fill out the ballot strictly in accordance with the instructions of the voter and not to reveal the contents of the ballot prepared by him. Violation of this provision shall constitute an election offense (Sec. 141, 1978 EC).[18]
Thus, according to petitioner, pursuant to the
above provision, the 466 votes garnered by petitioner out of a total of 666
votes from these four precincts should not have been invalidated. The COMELEC
erred in allowing execution pending appeal of a decision which disenfranchised hundreds
of voters on grounds not authorized by law and existing jurisprudence.
Therefore, since the assailed resolutions of the COMELEC and the trial court’s
decision contravene existing laws and jurisprudence, they should be nullified. Consequently,
the resolution allowing execution pending appeal must be set aside because a
void judgment can never be validly executed.
With respect to the above contentions
by petitioner, the Court agrees with the COMELEC that they involve an alleged error
of judgment on the part of the trial court for which the proper judicial remedy
is an appeal from the decision rendered by that court. It is settled that where
the issue or question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the
decision – not the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision – the same
is beyond the province of a special civil action for certiorari.[19]
Thus, in a special civil action of
certiorari[20] under
Sec. 1 of Rule 65, such as in the instant case, the only question that may be
raised and/or resolved is whether or not the respondent has acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.[21]
The Court cannot correct errors of fact or law which the lower court may have
committed.[22]
Moreover, the rule is that certiorari
will not lie to review a discretionary action of any tribunal except when the
latter has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, where an order does not
conform to the requirements prescribed by law and may reasonably cause material
injury throughout subsequent proceedings for which the remedy of appeal will be
inadequate, or where there is a clear or serious abuse of discretion.[23] In
this case, absent such a finding of a capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment, therefore, the Court holds that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in granting execution pending appeal.
Finally, the Court notes that at this
stage, a resolution of the errors attributed by petitioner to the trial court’s
decision would result in a final disposition of the election case on its merits
which will, in effect, render the appeal pending before the COMELEC (EAC No.
A-27-2005 and EAC No. A-28-2005) moot and academic.[24]
In view of the foregoing, the Court
finds it unnecessary to delve into the other arguments made by petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DISMISSED. The
resolutions of the First Division of the COMELEC and the COMELEC en banc,
respectively dated
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice |
||
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
|
|
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
|
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
|
|
DANTE
O. TINGA Associate Justice |
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
|
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Under rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Promulgated on
[3] Mariano C.Candelaria, Jr. v. Pet Angeli R. Carloto and Municipal
Board of Canvassers of Gutalac, Zamboanga
del Norte.
[4] Rollo, pp.95-105.
[5]
[6] G.R. No. 130831,
[7] Rollo, pp. 135-136.
[8] Rollo, pp. 155-156.
[9]
[10] Emphasis supplied.
[11] Rollo, p. 44.
[12] The rule
must be strictly construed against the movant as it is an exception to the general rule on execution of judgments. Sec.1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court states:
”Execution shall issue as a matter of right, on motion, upon a judgment or
order that disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the
period of appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly
perfected…” The reason for allowing
immediate execution pending appeal must constitute superior circumstances
demanding urgency as to outweigh the injury or damage of the losing party
should it secure a reversal of the judgment on appeal. Absent any such
justification, the order of execution must be struck down as flawed with grave
abuse of discretion [Camlian v. Commision on Elections, 338 Phil. 474 (1997)].
[13] Navarosa v. COMELEC, 458 Phil. 233 (2003).
[14] Supra, note 6.
[15] Supra, note 13.
[16] Rollo, pp. 132-134.
[17] G.R. No. 127311,
[18] Emphasis supplied.
[19] Planters Products, Inc. v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 76591,
[20] The function of a writ of certiorari is to keep an inferior court witin the bounds of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. It is available only for these purposes and not to correct errors of procedure or mistakes in the judge’s findings or conclusions (Regala v. CFI of Bataan, 77 Phil. 684).
[21] The mere fact that the court decides the question wrongly is utterly immaterial to the question of its jurisdiction (Estrada v. Sto. Domingo, 28 SCRA 891). Thus, assuming arguendo that the court had committed a mistake, the error does not vitiate the decision considering that it had jurisdiction over the case (People v. Francisco, 128 SCRA 110 ).
[22] Ybanez v. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 540.
[23] Fortune Corporation v . Court of appeals, 229 SCRA 359.
[24] Article
IX-C, Section 2(2), of the 1987 Constitution states that “[t]he Commission on
Elections shall exercise…appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving
elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction,
or involving elective barangay officals
decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction. Decisions, final orders, or
rulings of the Commission on election contests involving elective municipal;
and barangay offices shall be final, executory, and not appealable.”
This does not preclude the Supreme Court, however,
from reviewing the decisions of the COMELEC
via certiorari under Rules 64 and 65.
[25] Promulgated on