GR 124169; (April, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 124169 , April 18, 1997
ASAN “SONNY” CAMILIAN, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and LEONARDO A. PIOQUINTO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Asan Camlian and private respondent Leonardo Pioquinto were candidates for mayor of Isabela, Basilan in the May 8, 1995 elections. Pioquinto was proclaimed winner and assumed office. Camlian filed an electoral protest before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). On January 22, 1996, the RTC rendered a decision declaring Camlian the duly elected mayor. Pioquinto filed a notice of appeal, while Camlian filed a motion for execution pending appeal. The RTC granted the motion and issued a writ of execution, allowing Camlian to assume office.
Pioquinto filed a petition for certiorari with the COMELEC, which issued a temporary restraining order and, subsequently, a writ of preliminary injunction directing Camlian to cease discharging mayoral functions. The COMELEC later issued a resolution declaring the RTC’s order of execution pending appeal null and void, directing Camlian to vacate the office and relinquish it to Pioquinto, pending the final resolution of the appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in nullifying the RTC’s order granting execution pending appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Execution pending appeal is an exception to the general rule that a judgment must be final and executory before execution. It requires good reasons stated in a special order. The RTC’s order cited “urgency and expediency” and the alleged dilatory nature of Pioquinto’s appeal as grounds. The COMELEC found these reasons insufficient, noting that the RTC failed to specify concrete facts demonstrating the appeal’s dilatory intent or any extraordinary circumstance justifying immediate execution.
The Court emphasized that the paramount public interest in election cases is to ensure the true winner is finally adjudged. Expediency cannot substitute for truth and credibility. The COMELEC, exercising its appellate jurisdiction and authority to issue extraordinary writs, correctly determined that the RTC’s stated reasons did not constitute the “good reasons” required by the Rules. Its resolution was a valid exercise of its corrective power to prevent a premature execution based on an insufficiently justified order. Therefore, the petition was denied, and the COMELEC’s resolutions were affirmed.