Facts:
Halim Asmala filed a special civil action for certiorari under
Rule 65, in relation to
Section 2, Rule 39 and
Section 1, Rule 37 of the
1993 Comelec Rules of Procedure, to review and annul a
Resolution of the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) that set aside a
March 28, 1996 Order of
Branch 11 of the Regional Trial Court in Basilan directing execution of its judgment in
Election Protest Case No. 4-95, which had found and adjudged Asmala as the duly elected
Vice Mayor of Tuburan, Basilan, and ordered his proclamation. In the
May 8, 1995 elections for Vice Mayor, the municipal canvass showed that
Hadji Husni Mohammad obtained
3,065 votes,
Emmanuel Manny Alano 2,912, and
Halim Asmala 2,542. Mohammad was proclaimed and assumed office. Asmala filed an election protest on
May 22, 1995 alleging fraud and irregularities, which was docketed as
Election Case No. 4-95; on the same day, Alano filed another protest (docketed as
Election Protest No. 6-95) which was consolidated with Asmala’s case. After trial, the court a quo invalidated certain ballots because some were written by only one hand while others were prepared by only two persons. On
February 14, 1996, the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment crediting Asmala with
2,130 votes, Alano with
1,920, and Mohammad with
1,729, and declared Asmala the duly elected Vice Mayor. On
February 26, 1996, Mohammad filed his
Notice of Appeal with the same trial court; on
February 27, 1996, Asmala moved for
Execution Pending Appeal, to which Mohammad opposed on the theory that the perfected appeal divested the trial court of authority to act on the motion. Asmala relied on
Edding vs. COMELEC, which recognized that the mere filing of a notice of appeal does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to resolve pending incidents, including execution pending appeal, when the motion is filed within the reglementary period. After hearing, on
March 28, 1996, the trial court granted Asmala’s motion, required him to post a bond of
P 30,000.00, and ordered the sheriff concerned to install him as Vice Mayor after the COMELEC’s proclamation and the taking of oath. On
April 1, 1996, the trial court approved Asmala’s property bond and authorized him to assume office. Also on
April 1, 1996, Mohammad filed a
Petition for Certiorari with the COMELEC, alleging the trial court issued the March 28, 1996 Order without or in excess of jurisdiction because his appeal had been perfected. On
August 20, 1996, the COMELEC granted Mohammad’s petition and set aside the March 28, 1996 Order for lack of jurisdiction. Asmala then filed the instant certiorari on
September 19, 1996. During the pendency of the petition before the Court, Mohammad moved on
September 21, 1996 for execution of the COMELEC’s August 20, 1996 Resolution, invoking
Section 13(a), Rule 18 of the
1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, and although a copy was mailed to Asmala’s counsel without notice of hearing, Asmala received it only on
September 26, 1996. The COMELEC issued the assailed execution order
ex parte on
September 24, 1996, prompting Asmala to file a
Supplemental Petition praying for a
Temporary Restraining Order to halt implementation. In the original petition, the core question was whether the COMELEC exceeded its jurisdiction or committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in setting aside the trial court’s March 28, 1996 execution pending appeal order; in the supplemental petition, the question involved whether COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting execution of its Resolution despite the pending certiorari before the Court.
Issues:
Whether the COMELEC acted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in setting aside the trial court’s
March 28, 1996 Order granting
execution pending appeal, on the ground that the Regional Trial Court had allegedly lost jurisdiction after Mohammad perfected his appeal.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: