Facts:

The case involves Halim Asmala as the petitioner and the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and Hadji Husni Mohammad as the respondents. The events leading to this case began with the elections held on May 8, 1995, for the position of Vice Mayor of the Municipality of Tuburan, Province of Basilan. In this election, eight candidates participated, with Hadji Husni Mohammad receiving 3,065 votes, Emmanuel Alano 2,912 votes, and Halim Asmala 2,542 votes. Based on these results, Mohammad was proclaimed the winner and subsequently assumed office.

On May 22, 1995, Asmala filed an election protest (Election Case No. 4-95) with the Regional Trial Court of Basilan, alleging election fraud and irregularities. Another candidate, Emmanuel Alano, filed a separate protest (Election Protest No. 6-95), which was consolidated with Asmala's case. During the hearings, the trial court discovered that several ballots were written by the same hand, leading to their invalidation. On February 1...

Facts:

Background of the Election

• In the May 8, 1995, elections for Vice Mayor of the Municipality of Tuburan, Basilan, eight candidates vied for the position.
• The canvass of votes by the Municipal Board of Canvassers showed:
• Hadji Husni Mohammad secured 3,065 votes.
• Emmanuel Amannya Alano obtained 2,912 votes.
• Halim Asmala, the petitioner, received 2,542 votes.
• Based on the canvass, Hadji Husni Mohammad was initially proclaimed and subsequently assumed office as Vice Mayor.

The Electoral Protest and Trial Court Proceedings

• On May 22, 1995, petitioner Halim Asmala filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Basilan, docketed as Election Case No. 4-95.
• Simultaneously, another candidate, Emmanuel Alano, filed a protest (Election Protest No. 6-95) which was later consolidated with petitioner’s case.
• During the trial:
• The court discovered irregularities including ballots written by one hand and others prepared by only two persons, leading to the invalidation of such ballots.
• On February 14, 1996, the RTC rendered its decision, crediting:
• Halim Asmala with 2,130 votes.
• Emmanuel Alano with 1,920 votes.
• Hadji Husni Mohammad with 1,729 votes.
• The court adjudged petitioner Halim Asmala as the duly elected Vice Mayor of Tuburan and ordered his proclamation.

Appeal and Motion for Execution Pending Appeal

• On February 26, 1996, after the promulgation of the RTC decision, Hadji Husni Mohammad filed his Notice of Appeal.
• On February 27, 1996, petitioner filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal.
• Respondent argued that his perfected appeal had divested the court of jurisdiction to entertain the motion.
• Petitioner, in his rejoinder, cited Edding vs. COMELEC to assert that filing a Notice of Appeal does not automatically divest the RTC of jurisdiction over pending incidents.
• On March 28, 1996, after a hearing, the RTC issued a Special Order:
• Granting the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal.
• Requiring petitioner to post a bond of P30,000.00.
• Instructing the sheriff to install petitioner as Vice Mayor after the COMELEC’s proclamation.
• On April 1, 1996, the RTC approved the property bond and authorized petitioner to assume office.

Action by the Commission on Elections

• On the same day petitioner was authorized to take office, respondent Hadji Husni Mohammad filed a Petition for Certiorari with the COMELEC.
• He contended that the RTC’s March 28, 1996 order was issued without or in excess of jurisdiction, since his appeal was perfected by filing a Notice of Appeal and paying the requisite fees.
• On August 20, 1996, COMELEC, after submissions of memoranda from both parties,:
• Granted the petition of the respondent.
• Set aside the RTC’s order on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
• Undeterred, petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari filed on September 19, 1996.

Developments Post-Certiorari Petition and the Execution Issue

• On September 21, 1996, two days after the petition was filed, respondent moved for the execution of the August 20, 1996, COMELEC Resolution.
• He argued that the COMELEC Resolution had become final and executory pursuant to Section 13(a), Rule 18 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
• The motion for execution was served without a notice of hearing initially.
• Petitioner's counsel received the motion by registered mail on September 26, 1996.
• On September 27, 1996, petitioner submitted his Opposition to the motion for execution, while simultaneously drawing attention to his pending Petition for Certiorari.
• Nonetheless, on September 24, 1996, the COMELEC issued ex parte the Order granting the motion for execution and subsequently the corresponding writ of execution.
• In response, petitioner filed a Supplemental Petition seeking a Temporary Restraining Order to forestall the implementation of the COMELEC Resolution.

Issue:

• Whether the COMELEC exceeded its jurisdiction or committed grave abuse of discretion by setting aside the RTC’s Order (dated March 28, 1996) for execution pending appeal, on the ground of the perfected appeal by the respondent.
• Whether the respondent COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in granting the motion for execution of its August 20, 1996, Resolution notwithstanding the pending Petition for Certiorari challenging the same resolution.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)