G.R. No. 155618 ; March 26, 2003
EDGAR Y. SANTOS, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (FIRST DIVISION) and PEDRO Q. PANULAYA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Edgar Y. Santos and respondent Pedro Q. Panulaya were candidates for Mayor of Balingoan, Misamis Oriental in the May 2001 elections. The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Panulaya as the winner. Santos filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which, after revision, declared Santos the winner by 76 votes and set aside Panulaya’s proclamation. Santos moved for execution pending appeal. Panulaya filed both a petition for certiorari (SPR No. 20-2002) and a notice of appeal (EAC No. A-12-2002) with the COMELEC. The COMELEC First Division dismissed the certiorari petition, finding no grave abuse by the RTC, and lifted the preliminary injunction it had issued, directing the RTC to resolve pending incidents. Consequently, the RTC granted execution pending appeal, installed Santos as Mayor, and he assumed office.
While his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of SPR No. 20-2002 was pending, Panulaya filed a new petition for certiorari (SPR No. 37-2002) assailing the RTC’s orders granting execution. The COMELEC First Division, in SPR No. 37-2002, then issued a status quo ante order, effectively ousting Santos and reinstating Panulaya. Santos filed a motion for reconsideration to the COMELEC en banc, which was denied. He then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of and granting relief in SPR No. 37-2002, despite the pendency of a motion for reconsideration in SPR No. 20-2002 and the existence of a perfected appeal in EAC No. A-12-2002.

RULING

Yes, the COMELEC First Division committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court ruled that the filing of SPR No. 37-2002 constituted forum-shopping. The issues raised therein regarding the propriety of execution pending appeal were intimately related to the issues in the earlier-filed SPR No. 20-2002, where a motion for reconsideration was still unresolved. Furthermore, with Panulaya’s appeal in EAC No. A-12-2002 already perfected, the COMELEC’s exclusive jurisdiction was appellate. The RTC’s grant of execution pending appeal was an interlocutory order incidental to the appealed decision. The proper remedy against such an interlocutory order was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, not a second petition before the COMELEC. By entertaining SPR No. 37-2002, the COMELEC First Division acted without jurisdiction. The status quo ante order was issued without legal basis, as the RTC’s order of execution was valid, having found “good reasons” as required by law. Thus, the Supreme Court annulled the COMELEC’s orders in SPR No. 37-2002 and reinstated the RTC’s orders and writ of execution.