GR 166032; (February, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 166032 ; February 28, 2005
ELENITA I. BALAJONDA, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (FIRST DIVISION) and MARICEL S. FRANCISCO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Elenita I. Balajonda was proclaimed the elected Barangay Chairman of Sta. Monica, Quezon City, after the July 15, 2002 elections. Private respondent Maricel S. Francisco filed an election protest with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). The MeTC dismissed the protest, upholding Balajonda’s proclamation. Francisco appealed to the COMELEC. The COMELEC First Division reversed the MeTC, annulled Balajonda’s proclamation, and declared Francisco the duly elected Barangay Chairman.
Balajonda filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Pending this motion, Francisco filed a Motion for Execution, praying for immediate execution of the COMELEC Resolution. Balajonda opposed, arguing that under the Rules of Court, only a trial court’s judgment may be executed pending appeal, not the COMELEC’s own decision. The COMELEC First Division granted the motion and issued a Writ of Execution, ordering Balajonda to vacate the post in favor of Francisco, subject to a bond.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the execution of its own judgment pending the resolution of a motion for reconsideration.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the suppletory application of the Rules of Court and the nature of election cases. While the COMELEC Rules of Procedure are silent on execution pending appeal, Section 1, Rule 41 of said Rules expressly authorizes the suppletory application of the Rules of Court. Rule 39, Section 2(a) of the Rules of Court allows discretionary execution of a judgment pending appeal upon good reasons.
The Court, citing Batul v. Bayron, affirmed that this discretionary power extends not only to judgments of trial courts but also to decisions of the COMELEC itself. The rationale is to give effect to the will of the electorate without undue delay, a paramount consideration in election cases. The COMELEC’s Order cited good reasons, including the public interest in having a legitimately elected official serve and the shortness of the remaining term. The posting of a bond safeguarded against potential damages. Therefore, the COMELEC acted within its jurisdiction and discretion.