GR 190156; (February, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 190156 February 12, 2010
LEONOR DANGAN-CORRAL, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ERNESTO ENERO FERNANDEZ, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Leonor Dangan-Corral and private respondent Ernesto Enero Fernandez were candidates for mayor of El Nido, Palawan in the May 14, 2007 elections. Corral was proclaimed winner. Fernandez filed an election protest. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) promulgated a Decision on February 22, 2008, declaring Fernandez the duly elected mayor. On the same day, Corral filed a Notice of Appeal. Fernandez filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal. After a hearing on February 27, 2008, the RTC granted the motion and issued an Order for execution pending appeal. Corral filed a petition for certiorari before the Commission on Elections (Comelec), which the Comelec First Division dismissed in a Resolution dated December 17, 2008. The Comelec En Banc affirmed this dismissal in a Resolution dated November 10, 2009. Corral elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Comelec gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming the execution pending appeal of the RTC Decision.
RULING
Yes, the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition and declared the Comelec Resolutions null and void.
The Court ruled that for a valid execution pending appeal under Rule 14, Section 11 of the Rules of Procedure in Election Contests, it must be manifest in the decision sought to be executed that the defeat of the protestee and the victory of the protestant have been clearly established. The RTC Decision in this case failed to comply with the mandatory form prescribed under Rule 14, Section 2. Specifically, the Decision did not clearly and distinctly state in a body separate from the dispositive portion: (1) the votes received by each party per precinct, (2) the total votes for each party after revision and appreciation, and (3) the specific ballots invalidated. The Decision merely provided a final tally without the required breakdown. Furthermore, it was unclear from the Decision whether ballots written by assistors were invalidated. Consequently, the victory of the protestant and defeat of the protestee were not clearly manifest from the Decision. To allow execution of such a grossly infirm decision was arbitrary and whimsical, constituting grave abuse of discretion.