|
DIEGO T. LIM, Petitioner, -versus- COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, HON. ELVIE P.
LIM (Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch I, Borongan, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 171952 Present: Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CARPIO MORALES, *CALLEJO,
SR., azcuna, TINGA, chico-nazario, GARCIA, velasco, jr., and nachura, JJ. Promulgated: March
8, 2007 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
For
our resolution is the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Resolution[1]
dated
Diego T. Lim, petitioner, and Francisco C. Adalim, private
respondent, were candidates for mayor in Taft,
On
Private respondent then filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1,
Borongan,
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the election protest on
the ground that private respondent failed to pay the exact amount of docket and
other legal fees prescribed by the COMELEC, but the motion was denied. His motion for reconsideration was likewise
denied.
Subsequently, petitioner filed with the COMELEC Second
Division a petition for prohibition and injunction praying that the trial court be enjoined from hearing respondent’s election protest. The petition was docketed as SPR No. 50-2004.
On
Meanwhile, upon private respondent’s motion, respondent Judge directed the parties to
proceed with the photocopying of contested ballots and to formally offer their evidence
in writing on or before
Subsequently, respondent Judge issued an Order setting on
In an Order dated
Three days thereafter, or on
For his part, private respondent filed a motion for execution
pending appeal. It was set for hearing
on
On
Immediately, petitioner filed with the COMELEC Second
Division a Petition for Certiorari with prayer for a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order or Status Quo Order, docketed as SPR
No. 23-2005, alleging that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion
in granting private respondent’s motion for execution pending appeal.
The COMELEC Second Division, in a Resolution dated
Petitioner then filed with the COMELEC En Banc a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied in a
Resolution dated
Petitioner, in his petition before us, contends that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion
when it promulgated its Decision despite the Order of the COMELEC En Banc of
Petitioner
should have remembered that on
As to petitioner’s other contention that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion
by granting private respondent’s motion for execution pending appeal, the same lacks merit.
Before granting an execution pending appeal in election cases,
the following requisites must concur: (1) there must be a motion by the
prevailing party with notice to the adverse party; (2) there must be “good
reasons” for the execution pending appeal; and (3) the order granting execution
pending appeal must state the good reasons.[2]
In Fermo v. Comelec,[3] we
held that the paramount consideration for a valid exercise of discretion to
allow execution pending appeal is the existence
of good reasons which must be stated in a special order. The following
constitute good reasons and a combination of two or more of these will suffice
to grant execution pending appeal: (1) public interest involved or will of the
electorate; (2) the shortness of the remaining term of the contested office;
and (3) the length of time that the election contest has been pending.
As correctly found by the trial court, the grant of the
execution pending appeal is justified considering the presence of these good
reasons: the public interest or will of the electorate, as well as the
shortness of the remaining term of the contested office, thus:
Examination of the motion for execution pending appeal with the
opposition thereto, indeed reveals that the motion for execution pending appeal
is with merit. There being, therefore, good reasons to grant the same, taking
into consideration that this involves public interest which will be better
served and it would give meaning to the electoral will in Taft, Eastern Samar,
if their chosen Mayor, the protestant herein, should immediately sit as Mayor
and govern them, as the one being found to be the true winner in the mayoralty
race for Taft, Eastern Samar and should have been sitting as such from July 1,
2004 to the present but was not able to sit; that as of today, more than
one-third of the very short term of office of three (3) years has already
expired or lapsed (as of today, barely two (2) months is left on the
tenure of the Mayor of Taft, Eastern Samar); and, further, depriving the herein
protestant the assumption of the duties and functions of the Office of the
Mayor of Taft, Eastern Samar will only resurrect the
evils that the Court has long sought to contain, the
“grab-the-proclamation-prolong-the-protest” technique, which route herein
protestee is now taking.[4]
In fine, the COMELEC acted within the confines of its
authority in issuing the assailed Resolution.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the instant petition. Costs
against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice |
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice (On sick leave) ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
(No part)
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice