EN BANC
|
JERRY B. AGUILAR, Petitioner, - versus - THE COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS and ROMULO R. INSOY, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 185140 Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES,* CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, and BERSAMIN, JJ. Promulgated: June
30, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
NACHURA, J.:
This petition for certiorari under Rules 64 and 65, which
stems from pertinent facts and proceedings narrated below, assails the
issuances of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in EAC (BRGY) No. 211-2008.
In the October 2007 barangay elections, petitioner Aguilar
won the chairmanship of Brgy. Bansarvil 1, Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte, over
private respondent Insoy by a margin of one vote. Not conceding his defeat, Insoy
timely instituted a protest docketed as Election Case No. 516 in the Municipal
Trial Court (MTC) of Kapatagan.[1] On
April 17, 2008, the MTC rendered its Decision[2] finding
Insoy, who, during the revision garnered 265 votes as against Aguilar’s 264
votes, as the duly elected punong
barangay. The trial court consequently nullified the proclamation of
Aguilar and directed him to vacate the office.
Aggrieved, Aguilar filed on April 21,
2008 his notice of appeal[3]
and paid to the trial court the appeal fee of P1,000.00[4] in
accordance with Rule 14, Sections 8 and 9 of the recently promulgated A.M. No.
07-4-15-SC or the Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts
Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials.[5]
When the COMELEC received the records
elevated by the trial court, its First Division issued on July 31, 2008 the
first assailed Order[6] which
pertinently reads:
Pursuant to Sections 3 and 4, Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure which provide for the payment of appeal fee in the amount of P/3,000.00 within the period to file the notice of appeal, and Section 9(a), Rule 22 of the same Rules, which provides that failure to pay the correct appeal fee is a ground for the dismissal of the appeal, the Commission (First Division) RESOLVED as it hereby RESOLVES to DISMISS the instant appeal for Protestant-Appellant’s (sic) failure to pay the appeal fee as prescribed by the Comelec Rules of Procedure within the five-(5)-day reglementary period.
SO ORDERED.[7]
Adversely
affected, Aguilar moved for reconsideration, arguing that the newly promulgated
A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC only requires the payment of P1,000.00 as appeal
fee.[8] The
COMELEC First Division, however, issued on September 4, 2008 the second
assailed Order[9] stating—
Acting on the “Motion for Reconsideration” filed by protestee-appellant Jerry B. Aguilar, through registered mail on 13 August 2008 and received by this Commission on 21 August 2008, seeking reconsideration of this Commission’s (First Division) Order dated 31 July 2008, this Commission (First Division) RESOLVES to DENY the instant motion for movants’ (sic) failure to pay the complete P700.00 motion fee.
SO ORDERED.[10]
Unperturbed, Aguilar filed another
motion for reconsideration, contending, among others, that the order was null
and void because it was issued in violation of the rule that motions for
reconsideration should be resolved by the COMELEC en banc. On October 6, 2008, the COMELEC First Division issued the
third assailed Order,[11]
which reads in part:
Applying suppletorily Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, the second motion for reconsideration filed by protestee-appellant Jerry Aguilar on 25 September 2008 is hereby DENIED for being a prohibited pleading. And considering that the Motion for Reconsideration filed by protestee-appellant was denied per Order dated 4 September 2008 by the Commission (First Division) for movant’s failure to pay the complete motion fee, the Order dated 31 July 2008 is now final and executory.
WHEREFORE, let entry of judgment be issued in the instant case. The Judicial Records Division-ECAD, this Commission, is hereby directed to remand within three (3) days from receipt hereof the entire records of this case to the court of origin for its proper disposition and return to the protestee-appellant the Postal Money Order representing her motion fee in the amount of one thousand one hundred pesos (P/1,100.00) pesos.
SO ORDERED.[12]
On
October 16, 2008, the COMELEC First Division issued the Entry of Judgment.[13]
Faced
with imminent ouster from office, petitioner instituted the instant petition to
assail the aforementioned issuances of the COMELEC First Division.
Readily
discernable is that the challenged September 4 and October 6, 2008 Orders[14] were
issued not by the COMELEC en banc but
by one of its divisions, the First Division. Settled is the rule that it is the
decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC en
banc which, in accordance with Article IX-A, Section 7[15]
of the Constitution, may be brought to this Court on certiorari.[16] But this rule should not apply when a
division of the COMELEC arrogates unto itself, and deprives the en banc of the authority to rule on a motion
for reconsideration, as in this case. Further, the rule is not ironclad; it admits
of exceptions as when the decision or resolution sought to be set aside, even
if it were merely a Division action, is an absolute nullity.[17]
The
invalidity of the September 4 and October 6, 2008 Orders arises from the very fact
that they were issued by a division of the COMELEC. The Constitution explicitly
establishes, in Article IX-C, Section 3, the procedure for the resolution of election
cases by the COMELEC, thus:
Sec. 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in two divisions, and shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to expedite disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies. All such election cases shall be heard and decided in division, provided that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the Commission en banc.[18]
The COMELEC Rules of Procedure,[19]
complementing the constitutional provision, also details the course of action
to be undertaken in the event motions for reconsideration are filed; thus, Rule
19, Sections 5 and 6 provide that—
Sec. 5. How Motion for Reconsideration Disposed Of.—Upon the filing of a motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order or ruling of a Division, the Clerk of Court concerned shall, within twenty-four (24) hours from the filing thereof, notify the Presiding Commissioner. The latter shall within two (2) days thereafter certify the case to the Commission en banc.
Sec. 6. Duty of Clerk of Court of Commission to Calendar Motion for Reconsideration.—The Clerk of Court concerned shall calendar the motion for reconsideration for the resolution of the Commission en banc within ten (10) days from the certification thereof.[20]
In
this case, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing his
appeal was not resolved by the COMELEC en
banc, but by the COMELEC First Division, in obvious violation of the
provisions of the Constitution and the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Stated
differently, the division, after dismissing petitioner’s appeal, arrogated unto
itself the en banc’s function of
resolving petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. In Soriano, Jr. v. Commission on Elections,[21]
we emphasized the rule that a motion to reconsider a decision, resolution,
order or ruling of a COMELEC division, except with regard to interlocutory
orders, shall be elevated to the COMELEC en
banc. Here, there is no doubt that the order dismissing the appeal is not
merely an interlocutory, but a final order.[22]
It was, therefore, incumbent upon the Presiding Commissioner of the COMELEC
First Division to certify the case to the COMELEC en banc within two days from notification of the filing of the
motion.
This
rule should apply whether the motion fee has been paid or not, as what happened
in Olanolan v. Commission on Elections.[23]
Indeed, Rule 40, Section 18[24]
of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure gives discretion to the COMELEC, in this
case, to the en banc and not to the
division, either to refuse to take action until the motion fee is paid, or to
dismiss the action or proceeding.[25]
The
COMELEC First Division’s unceremonious departure from this constitutionally
mandated procedure in the disposition of election cases must have brought
confusion to the parties, so much so, that petitioner filed a second motion for
reconsideration raising this issue. Yet, the COMELEC First Division, in the
further assailed October 6, 2008 Order, committed another obvious error when it
again usurped the en banc’s authority
to resolve motions for reconsideration.
Being a violation of the Constitution
and the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the assailed September 4 and October 6,
2008 Orders are null and void. They were issued by the COMELEC First Division with
grave abuse of discretion. By grave abuse of discretion
is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack
of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. It must be
grave, as when it is exercised arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion
or personal hostility. The abuse must be so patent and so gross as to
amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the
duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.[26]
Clearly, by arrogating unto itself a power constitutionally lodged in the
Commission en banc, the COMELEC First Division, in this
case, exercised judgment in excess of, or without, jurisdiction.
However,
instead of remanding this case to the COMELEC en banc for appropriate action on petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration, we will resolve the propriety of the appeal’s dismissal,
considering the urgent need for the resolution of election cases, and
considering that the issue has, after all, been raised in this petition.
Sections
8 and 9, Rule 14 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC[27]
provide for the following procedure in the appeal to the COMELEC of trial court
decisions in election protests involving elective municipal and barangay officials:
SEC. 8. Appeal.— An aggrieved party may appeal
the decision to the Commission on Elections, within five days after
promulgation, by filing a notice of appeal with the court that rendered the
decision, with copy served on the adverse counsel or party if not represented
by counsel.
SEC. 9. Appeal fee.— The appellant in an election contest shall pay to the court that rendered the decision an appeal fee of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00), simultaneously with the filing of the notice of appeal.
Section
8 was derived from Article IX-C, Section 2(2)[28]
of the Constitution and Rule 40, Section 3, par. 1[29]
and Rule 41, Section 2(a)[30]
of the Rules of Court.[31]
Section 9 was taken from Rule 141,[32]
Sections 7(l)[33] and
8(f)[34]
of the Rules of Court.[35]
It should be noted from the
afore-quoted sections of the Rule that the appeal fee of P1,000.00 is
paid not to the COMELEC but to the trial court that rendered the decision.
Thus, the filing of the notice of appeal and the payment of the P1,000.00
appeal fee perfect the appeal, consonant with Sections 10 and 11 of the same
Rule. Upon the perfection of the appeal, the records have to be transmitted to
the Electoral Contests Adjudication Department of the COMELEC within 15 days.
The trial court may only exercise its residual jurisdiction to resolve pending
incidents if the records have not yet been transmitted and before the
expiration of the period to appeal.[36]
With the promulgation of A.M. No.
07-4-15-SC, the previous rule that the appeal is perfected only upon the full
payment of the appeal fee, now pegged at P3,200.00, to the COMELEC Cash
Division within the period to appeal, as stated in the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure, as amended,[37]
no longer applies.
It
thus became necessary for the COMELEC to clarify the procedural rules on the
payment of appeal fees. For this purpose, the COMELEC issued on July 15, 2008, Resolution
No. 8486,[38] which
the Court takes judicial notice of. The resolution pertinently reads:
WHEREAS, the Commission on Elections is
vested with appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective
municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, and those
involving elective barangay officials, decided by trial courts of limited
jurisdiction;
WHEREAS, Supreme Court Administrative
Order No. 07-4-15 (Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts
Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials) promulgated on May 15,
2007 provides in Sections 8 and 9, Rule 14 thereof the procedure for
instituting the appeal and the required appeal fees to be paid for the appeal
to be given due course, to wit:
Section 8. Appeal. - An
aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the Commission on Elections, within
five days after promulgation, by filing a notice of appeal with the court that
rendered the decision, with copy served on the adverse counsel or party if not
represented by counsel.
Section 9. Appeal fee. - The appellant in an election contest shall pay to the court that
rendered the decision an appeal fee of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00),
simultaneously with the filing of the notice of appeal.
WHEREAS, payment of appeal fees in
appealed election protest cases is also required in Section 3, Rule 40 of the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure the amended amount of which was set at P3,200.00 in
COMELEC Minute Resolution No. 02-0130 made effective on September 18, 2002.
WHEREAS, the requirement of these two
appeal fees by two different jurisdictions had caused confusion in the
implementation by the Commission on Elections of its procedural rules on
payment of appeal fees for the perfection of appeals of cases brought before it
from the Courts of General and Limited Jurisdictions.
WHEREAS, there is a need to clarify the
rules on compliance with the required appeal fees for the proper and judicious
exercise of the Commission's appellate jurisdiction over election protest cases.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
Commission hereby RESOLVES
to DIRECT
as follows:
1.
That if the appellant
had already paid the amount of P1,000.00 before the Regional Trial Court,
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court or lower courts within
the five-day period, pursuant to Section 9, Rule 14 of the Rules
of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective
Municipal and Barangay Officials (Supreme Court Administrative Order No.
07-4-15) and his Appeal was given due course by the Court, said appellant is
required to pay the Comelec appeal fee of P3,200.00 at the Commission's Cash
Division through the Electoral Contests Adjudication Department (ECAD) or by
postal money order payable to the Commission on Elections through ECAD, within
a period of fifteen
days (15) from the time of the filing of the Notice of Appeal with the lower
court. If no payment is made within the prescribed period, the
appeal shall be dismissed pursuant to Section 9(a) of Rule 22 of the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure, which provides:
Sec. 9. Grounds for Dismissal of Appeal. The appeal may
be dismissed upon motion of either party or at the instance of the Commission
on any of the following grounds:
(a)
Failure of the appellant to pay the correct appeal fee; x x x
2.
That if the appellant
failed to pay the P1,000.00 - appeal fee with the lower court within the five
(5) day period as prescribed by the Supreme Court New Rules of Procedure but
the case was nonetheless elevated to the Commission, the appeal shall be
dismissed outright by the Commission, in accordance with the aforestated
Section 9(a) of Rule 22 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure.
The
Education and Information Department is directed to cause the publication of
this resolution in two (2) newspapers of general circulation. This resolution
shall take effect on the seventh day following its publication.
SO
ORDERED.[39]
The
foregoing resolution is consistent with A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC and the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure, as amended. The appeal to the COMELEC of the trial court’s
decision in election contests involving municipal and barangay officials is perfected upon the filing of the notice of
appeal and the payment of the P1,000.00 appeal fee to the court that
rendered the decision within the five-day reglementary period. The non-payment
or the insufficient payment of the additional appeal fee of P3,200.00 to
the COMELEC Cash Division, in accordance with Rule 40, Section 3 of the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure, as amended, does not affect the perfection of the appeal
and does not result in outright or ipso
facto dismissal of the appeal. Following, Rule 22, Section 9(a) of the
COMELEC Rules, the appeal may be
dismissed. And pursuant to Rule 40, Section 18[40]
of the same rules, if the fees are not paid, the COMELEC may refuse to take action thereon until they are paid and may dismiss the action or the
proceeding. In such a situation, the COMELEC is merely given the discretion to
dismiss the appeal or not.[41]
Accordingly, in the instant case, the
COMELEC First Division, may dismiss petitioner’s appeal, as it in fact did, for
petitioner’s failure to pay the P3,200.00 appeal fee.
Be that as it may, the Court still finds
that the COMELEC First Division gravely abused its discretion in issuing the order
dismissing petitioner’s appeal. The Court notes that the notice of appeal and
the P1,000.00 appeal fee were, respectively, filed and paid with the MTC
of Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte on April 21, 2008. On that date, the petitioner’s
appeal was deemed perfected. COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8486 clarifying the
rule on the payment of appeal fees only on July 15, 2008, or almost three
months after the appeal was perfected. Yet, on July 31, 2008, or barely two
weeks after the issuance of Resolution No. 8486, the COMELEC First Division
dismissed petitioner’s appeal for non-payment to the COMELEC Cash Division of
the additional P3,200.00 appeal fee.
Considering that petitioner filed his
appeal months before the clarificatory resolution on appeal fees, petitioner’s
appeal should not be unjustly prejudiced by COMELEC Resolution No. 8486. Fairness
and prudence dictate that the COMELEC First Division should have first directed
petitioner to pay the additional appeal fee in accordance with the
clarificatory resolution, and if the latter should refuse to comply, then, and
only then, dismiss the appeal. Instead, the COMELEC First Division hastily
dismissed the appeal on the strength of the recently promulgated clarificatory resolution—which
had taken effect only a few days earlier. This unseemly haste is an invitation
to outrage.
The COMELEC First Division should
have been more cautious in dismissing petitioner’s appeal on the mere technicality
of non-payment of the additional P3,200.00 appeal fee given the public
interest involved in election cases. This is especially true in this case where
only one vote separates the contending parties. The Court stresses once more
that election law and rules are to be interpreted and applied in a liberal
manner so as to give effect, not to frustrate, the will of the electorate.[42]
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the petition for certiorari
is GRANTED. The July 31, September 4
and October 6, 2008 Orders and the October 16, 2008 Entry of Judgment issued by
the COMELEC First Division in EAC (BRGY) No. 211-2008 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
The case is REMANDED to the COMELEC
First Division for disposition in accordance with this Decision.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
|
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO Associate Justice
|
RENATO
C. CORONA
Associate Justice
|
|
(On leave) CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice
|
MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice
|
|
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
|
ARTURO D.
BRION Associate Justice
|
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA Associate Justice
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I
certify that the conclusions in the above decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* On leave.
[1] Rollo, p. 15.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] Promulgated on April 24, 2007, and became effective on May 15, 2007.
[6] Rollo, p. 42.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] Supra notes 9 and 11.
[15] The full text of the provision reads:
Sec. 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members any case or matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.
[16] Reyes v. RTC of Oriental Mindoro, G.R. No. 108886, May 5, 1995, 313 Phil. 727, 734, citing Ong, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 105717, December 23, 1992, 216 SCRA 806 and Sarmiento v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 105628, August 6, 1992, 212 SCRA 307.
[17] Blanco v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 180164, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 755, 761; Repol v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 161418, April 28, 2004, 428 SCRA 321, 330.
[18] Underscoring supplied. See Milla v. Balmores-Laxa, G.R. No. 151216, July 18, 2003, 454 Phil. 452, 462; Ambil, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 143398, October 25, 2000, 398 Phil. 257, 275; and Soller v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 139853, September 5, 2000, 394 Phil. 197, 205, in which the Court stressed on the COMELEC’s compliance to the constitutionally mandated procedure in resolving election cases.
[19] Approved on February 15, 1993.
[20] Underscoring supplied.
[21] G.R. No. 164496-505, April 2, 2007, 520 SCRA 88, 106.
[22] See Ang v. Grageda, G.R. No. 166239, June 8, 2006, 490 SCRA 424, 437. See, however, Salazar, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 85742, April 19, 1990, 184 SCRA 433, 441, in which the Court declared that the resolution dismissing a pre-proclamation petition for lack of interest due to the failure of the petitioner or his counsel to appear for hearing, was not a decision nor of such a nature that a motion for reconsideration thereof would call for resolution by the COMELEC en banc. It should be noted, nevertheless, that in Salazar, the pre-proclamation petition raised issues that were appropriate for an election contest, and that the pre-proclamation controversy was no longer viable because proclamation had already been made.
[23] G.R. No. 165491, March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 807, 812.
[24] Rule
40, Sec. 18 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides:
Sec.
18. Non-payment of Prescribed Fees.—If
the fees above prescribed are not paid, Commission may refuse to take action
thereon until they are paid and may dismiss the action or the proceeding.
[25] Olanolan v. Commission on Elections, supra note 23, at 815-816; Jaramilla v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 155717, October 23, 2003, 460 Phil. 507, 514; Rodillas v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 119055, July 10, 1995, 315 Phil. 789, 794-795..
[26] Cantoria v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 162035, November 26, 2004, 486 Phil. 745, 751.
[27] Supra note 5.
[28] Article IX-C, Sec. 2(2) reads:
Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions:
x x x x
(2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials 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.
[29] Rule 40, Sec. 3, par. 1 of the Rules of Court reads:
Sec. 3. How to appeal.—The appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court that rendered the judgment or final order appealed from. The notice of appeal shall indicate the parties to the appeal, the judgment or final order or part thereof appealed from, and state the material dates showing the timeliness of the appeal.
x x x x
[30] Rule 41, Sec. 2(a) reads:
Sec. 2. Modes of Appeal.—
(a) Ordinary appeal.—The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner.
x x x x
[31] Rationale of the Proposed Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Regular Courts Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials, April 19, 2007, p. 19.
[32] As revised by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC effective August 16, 2004.
[33] Rule 141, Sec. 7(l) reads:
Sec. 7. Clerks of Regional Trial Courts.—
x x x x
(l)
For appeals from Regional Trial Courts to Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, or
Supreme Court—THREE THOUSAND (P3,000.00) PESOS;
x x x x
[34] Rule 141, Sec. 8(f) reads:
Sec. 8. Clerks of Court of the First Level Courts.—
x x x x
(f)
For appeals in all actions or proceedings, including forcible entry and
detainer cases, taken from the courts of first level and petitions to the 2nd
level courts—ONE THOUSAND (P1,000.00) PESOS;
x x x x
[35] Working Draft of the Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Regular Courts Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials, April 20, 2007, p. 32.
[36] Rule 14, Secs. 10 and 11 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC read:
Sec. 10. Immediate transmittal of records of the
case.—The clerk of court shall, within fifteen days from the filing of the
notice of appeal, transmit to the Electoral Contests Adjudication Department,
Commission on Elections, the complete records of the case, together with all
the evidence, including the original and three copies of the transcript of
stenographic notes of the proceedings.
Sec. 11. Execution pending appeal.—On motion of
the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party, the court, while still
in possession of the original records, may, at its discretion, order the
execution of the decision in an election contest before the expiration of the
period to appeal, subject to the following rules:
a. There must be a motion by the prevailing party with
three-day notice to the adverse party. Execution pending appeal shall not issue
without prior notice and hearing. There must be good reasons for the execution
pending appeal. The court, in a special order, must state the good or special
reasons justifying the execution pending appeal. Such reasons must:
1. constitute superior circumstances demanding urgency
that will outweigh the injury or damage should the losing party secure a
reversal of the judgment on appeal; and
2. be manifest, in the decision sought to be executed,
that the defeat of the protestee or the victory of the protestant has been
clearly established.
b. If the court grants an execution pending appeal, an
aggrieved party shall have twenty working days from notice of the special order
within which to secure a restraining order or status quo order from the
Supreme Court or the Commission on Elections. The corresponding writ of
execution shall issue after twenty days, if no restraining order or status
quo order is issued. During such period, the writ of execution pending
appeal shall be stayed.
[37] Zamoras v. Commission on Elections, G.R.
No. 158610, November 12, 2004, 442 SCRA 397, 402-405; Villota v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 146724, August 10,
2001, 415 Phil. 87, 91-94; Reyes v. RTC
of Oriental Mindoro, supra note 16, at 735-736.
[38] Entitled
“In the Matter of Clarifying the Implementation of COMELEC Rules Re: Payment of
Filing Fees for Appealed Cases Involving Barangay and Municipal Elective
Positions From the Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts,
Metropolitan Trial Courts and Regional Trial Courts;” http://www.comelec.gov.ph/resolutions/2008armm/res_8486.html
(visited: May 21, 2009).
[39] Published on July 17, 2008 in
Philippine Star,
[40] Supra
note 24.
[41] Jaramilla v. Commission on Elections,
supra note 25, at 514.
[42] Rodriguez v. Commission on Elections,
G.R. No. 61545, December 27, 1982, 204 Phil. 784, 796.