G.R. No. 171952 - Lim vs. Commission on Elections

Diego T. Lim (petitioner) and Francisco C. Adalim (private respondent) were candidates for mayor in Taft, Eastern Samar during the May 10, 2004 national and local elections.
The Municipal Board of Canvassers of Taft proclaimed petitioner as the duly elected mayor with a lead of 45 votes on May 12, 2004.

Private respondent filed an election protest (EPC No. 01-2004) with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Borongan, Eastern Samar, alleging irregularities in the canvassing of ballots in 35 precincts.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the protest on the ground that the private respondent had failed to pay the exact amounts of docket and legal fees prescribed by the COMELEC; both the motion to dismiss and the subsequent motion for reconsideration were denied.

Petitioner filed a petition for prohibition and injunction with the COMELEC Second Division (docketed as SPR No. 50-2004) to enjoin the trial court from hearing the election protest.
On February 9, 2005, the COMELEC Second Division issued a resolution dismissing the petition for prohibition and injunction.
Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc, which at first granted the motion on July 1, 2005, directing the trial court to defer any action on the pending election protest until a final resolution was reached.
On August 2, 2005, the COMELEC En Banc reversed its earlier position by denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration regarding the injunction petition.

On August 5, 2005, respondent Judge promulgated her decision in the election protest, declaring private respondent the winner with a lead of 456 votes over petitioner.
Petitioner filed a notice of appeal following the promulgation of the decision.
Private respondent filed a motion for execution pending appeal; the hearing was set for August 11, 2005.
On August 11, 2005, the trial court issued a Special Order granting private respondent’s motion for execution pending appeal, and the sheriff immediately implemented the writ of execution.

On the same day as the trial court’s Special Order, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, temporary restraining order, or status quo order (docketed as SPR No. 23-2005), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the trial court in granting execution pending appeal.
The COMELEC Second Division, in a resolution dated October 10, 2005, denied petitioner’s petition for certiorari for lack of merit.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner with the COMELEC En Banc was also denied in a resolution dated March 8, 2006.
In his petition before the Supreme Court, petitioner contended that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion by promulgating its decision despite the earlier COMELEC En Banc order directing deferral, and by granting execution pending appeal.

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in promulgating its decision in the election protest despite the earlier COMELEC En Banc order directing the trial court to defer action pending final resolution by COMELEC.
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion by granting private respondent’s motion for execution pending appeal, considering the procedural requisites required for such execution.
Whether the COMELEC acted within the confines of its authority in dismissing petitioner’s petition for prohibition and injunction and in denying subsequent motions for reconsideration and certiorari.