G.R. No. 126298 EN BANC March 25, 1997
PATRIA C. GUTIERREZ, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND VICENTE TOMAS VERA III, respondents.

FACTS

In the May 1995 elections, Naomi Corral was proclaimed Mayor of Tiwi, Albay, over protestant Patria Gutierrez. Gutierrez filed an election protest. During its pendency, Corral died, and Vice-Mayor Vicente Tomas Vera III assumed the mayoralty and intervened in the case. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) subsequently rendered a decision declaring Gutierrez the duly elected mayor by a margin of 710 votes, annulling Corral’s proclamation, and ordering Vera to vacate the office. Gutierrez immediately moved for execution pending appeal, which the RTC granted, citing public interest and the short term of local office. Gutierrez posted the required bond, assumed office, and took her oath.
Vera filed a notice of appeal with the COMELEC and also petitioned the COMELEC for certiorari to assail the RTC’s order for execution pending appeal. The COMELEC issued a temporary restraining order and later a writ of preliminary injunction, commanding Gutierrez to cease and desist from performing mayoral duties and enjoining the RTC from enforcing its writ of execution. Gutierrez then filed the instant petition before the Supreme Court to nullify the COMELEC’s TRO and writ of preliminary injunction.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the TRO and writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the execution pending appeal granted by the RTC in an election protest case.

RULING

Yes, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition, nullified the COMELEC’s orders, and made permanent its own restraining order. The Court ruled that the authority to grant execution pending appeal in election protest cases decided by courts of general jurisdiction is expressly conferred upon said courts by Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. The COMELEC Rules of Procedure, in a suppletory character under its Section 1, adopt this provision. Therefore, the RTC acted within its discretionary power in granting execution pending appeal upon Gutierrez’s motion, finding good reasons in the paramount public interest and the brevity of the elective term. The COMELEC, in issuing the injunctive writs, effectively substituted its own judgment for the trial court’s sound discretion without any clear showing that such discretion was exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. The COMELEC’s role in an appealed election contest is to review the merits of the decision on appeal, not to interfere with the trial court’s interlocutory orders on execution, absent a grave abuse of discretion by that court. By enjoining the execution, the COMELEC overstepped its authority and disrupted the statutory process, thereby committing grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari.