G.R. No. 142527. March 1, 2001.
ARSENIO ALVAREZ, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and LA RAINNE ABAD-SARMIENTO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Arsenio Alvarez was proclaimed Punong Barangay of Doña Aurora, Quezon City, after the May 12, 1997 elections, receiving 590 votes against private respondent La Rainne Abad-Sarmiento’s 585 votes. Abad-Sarmiento filed an election protest alleging irregularities in the appreciation of ballots. The Metropolitan Trial Court ordered a recount of ballots from ten precincts, which resulted in a reversal: Abad-Sarmiento garnered 596 votes to Alvarez’s 550, and she was declared the duly elected official.
Alvarez appealed to the COMELEC. The COMELEC’s Second Division affirmed the trial court’s finding that Abad-Sarmiento won. Alvarez filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc. Meanwhile, Abad-Sarmiento filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal. The COMELEC En Banc subsequently denied Alvarez’s Motion for Reconsideration and granted the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal. Alvarez then filed this petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) allegedly failing to decide the election appeal within the mandated preferential period; (2) granting the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal; and (3) misinterpreting the finality of its decisions on barangay election contests.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. On the first issue, the Court clarified that the constitutional and statutory mandate for “preferential disposition” (Section 258 of the Omnibus Election Code) applies specifically to courts, not to the COMELEC itself. While the COMELEC is directed to decide cases within ninety days from submission, strict adherence is tempered by practical considerations like the detailed nature of ballot examination and the Commission’s workload. The delay here did not amount to an abdication of duty. Moreover, Alvarez raised this delay for the first time on appeal, having actively participated without earlier objection, which bars him from later impugning the proceeding on this ground.
On the second issue, the grant of execution pending appeal was proper. The requisites for such execution—a motion by the prevailing party with notice, and a good reason stated in a special order—were satisfied. The COMELEC’s order cited the public interest in filling the barangay leadership without further delay as a good reason. The motion was also timely, as Alvarez’s own Motion for Reconsideration had kept the case pending and suspended the finality of the Second Division’s resolution.
On the third issue, the Court affirmed that decisions of the COMELEC in barangay election contests are final, executory, and not appealable. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is only available to question jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion, not to re-evaluate factual findings. The COMELEC’s factual conclusions, derived from its meticulous review of the ballots and supported by evidence, are accorded finality and respect. No grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, or error of law was demonstrated to warrant the Court’s intervention.