GR 157957; (September, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 157957 , September 18, 2003
Charito Navarosa, Petitioner, vs. Commission on Elections, Honorable Dean R. Telan, as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Kalibo, Aklan and Roger M. Esto, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Charito Navarosa and respondent Roger M. Esto were candidates for mayor of Libacao, Aklan in the May 14, 2001 elections. The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Navarosa the winner by a margin of three votes. Esto filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). After revision of ballots, the RTC declared Esto the winner by 42 votes, annulled Navarosa’s proclamation, and ordered her to pay damages and attorney’s fees. Navarosa appealed to the COMELEC. Esto moved for execution pending appeal. The RTC granted the motion but also allowed Navarosa to stay the execution by filing a supersedeas bond double the amount of Esto’s bond.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the execution pending appeal of the RTC decision.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative, granting the petition and setting aside the COMELEC resolutions. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that execution pending appeal in election cases is an exception, permissible only for “good reasons” pursuant to Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, as applied via Section 218 of the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC’s sole cited reason—that nearly one-third of the term had lapsed—was deemed insufficient. The Court emphasized that the shortness of the remaining term, by itself, does not constitute a compelling reason for immediate execution, especially when weighed against the will of the electorate and the potential for disrupting public service if the executed judgment is later reversed. Furthermore, the Court found the RTC’s initial order, which allowed a stay upon filing a supersedeas bond, to be a judicious exercise of discretion balancing the rights of both parties. The COMELEC’s reversal of that order, which effectively prioritized the mere passage of time over other equitable considerations without stronger justification, constituted a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, amounting to grave abuse of discretion. The execution order was therefore annulled.