Case Digest (G.R. No. 188240)
Facts:
Michael L. San Miguel v. Commission on Elections and Christopher V. Aguilar, G.R. No. 188240, December 23, 2009, Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.In the October 29, 2007 barangay elections for Punong Barangay of Barangay Marcelo Green, Parañaque City, Michael L. San Miguel (petitioner) was proclaimed winner with 2,969 votes while Christopher V. Aguilar (private respondent) obtained 2,867 votes. After proclamation, Aguilar filed an election protest (E.P. Case No. 07-4) before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Parañaque City. Following recount and revision of ballots from contested precincts, the trial court issued a Decision dated May 9, 2008 declaring Aguilar to have 2,898 votes and San Miguel 2,886 votes, annulled San Miguel’s proclamation, and declared Aguilar the duly elected barangay captain.
San Miguel filed a Notice of Appeal to the Commission on Elections, docketed as EAC No. 208-2008; the administrative appeal remained pending before the Comelec. Three days after the trial court’s Decision, on May 12, 2008, Aguilar filed an Urgent Motion for Execution Pending Appeal; San Miguel received the motion on May 13, 2008 and was given notice of a hearing set for May 14, 2008. The trial court, however, reset the hearing to May 19, 2008 and subsequently denied the Urgent Motion by Order of May 22, 2008.
Aguilar petitioned the Commission on Elections via certiorari, which, by a Resolution dated February 25, 2009, reversed the trial court’s May 22, 2008 Order, set it aside, and directed the issuance of a writ of execution pendente lite pursuant to Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure in Election Contests; the Comelec denied reconsideration by Resolution of May 25, 2009. San Miguel filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court challenging those Comelec Resolutions, arguing chiefly that the trial c...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Commission on Elections gravely abuse its discretion in directing the issuance of a writ of execution pendente lite when the trial court did not issue a special order within the five-day period to appeal?
- Was the trial court’s denial of the motion for execution pending appeal justified because the trial court’s Decision did not clearly establish the protestant’s victory (i.e., was the Comelec wrong to find the trial court’s co...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)