GR 188240; (December, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 188240 ; December 23, 2009
MICHAEL L. SAN MIGUEL, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and CHRISTOPHER V. AGUILAR, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Michael San Miguel and private respondent Christopher Aguilar were candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay Marcelo Green, Parañaque City in the October 29, 2007 elections. San Miguel was initially proclaimed the winner. Aguilar filed an election protest before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), which, after a recount, declared Aguilar the winner by a margin of 12 votes and annulled San Miguel’s proclamation. San Miguel filed a notice of appeal to the COMELEC.
Aguilar then filed an Urgent Motion for Execution Pending Appeal before the MeTC. The MeTC denied the motion, reasoning that under Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure in Election Contests, a special order for execution pending appeal must be issued before the expiration of the five-day period to appeal, which had lapsed. Aguilar elevated the matter to the COMELEC via certiorari. The COMELEC granted the petition, reversed the MeTC, and ordered the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal. San Miguel’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering execution pending appeal despite the motion being resolved after the expiration of the period to appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court held that Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure is directory, not mandatory, regarding the timing of the issuance of the special order for execution pending appeal. The use of the word “may” in the provision denotes discretion. The crucial requirements are that the motion for execution must be filed within the five-day reglementary period for appeal, and the special order must be issued before the trial court transmits the original records to the COMELEC.
In this case, Aguilar’s Urgent Motion was filed within the five-day period. The MeTC retained possession of the records, as the appeal was still pending. Therefore, it retained jurisdiction to resolve the motion. The COMELEC correctly found that the MeTC’s detailed, 419-page decision constituted good and special reasons justifying execution pending appeal, as it clearly established the victory of the protestant. The permissive nature of the rule allows the trial court to apply it practically, ensuring that hurried proceedings do not compromise justice. The petition was dismissed, affirming the COMELEC’s resolutions.