GR 140179; (March, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 140179. March 13, 2000.
ROQUE FERMO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and MANUEL D. LAXINA SR., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Roque Fermo and private respondent Manuel Laxina Sr. were candidates for Punong Barangay of Batasan Hills, Quezon City, in the May 12, 1997 elections. Laxina was proclaimed the winner. Fermo filed an election protest. After a judicial recount, the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) rendered a decision on January 8, 1999, declaring Fermo the winner. On the same day, Laxina filed a notice of appeal to the COMELEC.
On January 12, 1999, Fermo filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal, arguing that the term of office might expire before the appeal could be decided. The MTC granted the motion on January 20, 1999, citing the “shortness of term” as a good reason. Laxina appealed this order to the COMELEC.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in annulling the MTC’s grant of execution pending appeal and in ordering Fermo to relinquish the post to Laxina pending resolution of the appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. The Court upheld the COMELEC’s ruling that the “shortness of term” of the barangay office, standing alone, is not a “good reason” to justify execution pending appeal. The discretion to grant execution pending appeal must be exercised based on compelling or superior circumstances demanding urgency, and the reason must constitute a superior circumstance outweighing the injury or damage of a losing party being deprived of his post. Mere shortness of term is not such a circumstance.
Furthermore, the Court agreed with the COMELEC that, upon perfection of Laxina’s appeal, the MTC’s decision was stayed. The “status quo” to be maintained was the last actual, peaceful, and uncontested situation preceding the controversy, which was Laxina’s occupancy of the position as the originally proclaimed winner. Therefore, the COMELEC’s order for Fermo to cease and desist from performing the functions and to relinquish the post to Laxina was a logical and necessary consequence of the denial of the execution pending appeal, and not a grant of execution in favor of Laxina. The order did not pre-judge the merits of the pending appeal.