G.R. No. 190082; March 9, 2010
JOSEPH BERNARDEZ, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and AVELINO TOLEAN, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Joseph Bernardez and private respondent Avelino Tolean were candidates for Vice-Mayor of Sabangan, Mountain Province in the May 14, 2007 elections. Tolean was proclaimed winner by a single vote (2,137 to 2,136). Bernardez filed an election protest. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bontoc, Branch 36, rendered a Decision on February 25, 2009, declaring Bernardez the winner by eleven (11) votes and nullifying Tolean’s proclamation. Bernardez filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal. On March 6, 2009, Tolean filed a Notice of Appeal. On March 31, 2009, the RTC granted the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal via a Special Order, which became effective after 20 working days as no restraining order was issued; Bernardez thus assumed the vice-mayoralty. Tolean filed a Petition for Injunction with the COMELEC (Second Division) on April 20, 2009. On June 1, 2009, the COMELEC Second Division dismissed Tolean’s appeal for failure to pay appeal fees on time. However, on September 22, 2009, the same COMELEC Division issued a Resolution granting Tolean’s Petition for Injunction and setting aside the RTC’s Special Order, citing lack of notice of hearing for the motion for execution and the RTC’s failure to state superior circumstances for execution pending appeal. Bernardez filed a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc. On November 4, 2009, the COMELEC En Banc denied Bernardez’s motion for failure to pay the required motion fees and declared the Second Division’s September 22 Resolution final and executory. A Writ of Execution was issued on November 19, 2009, directing Bernardez to vacate the office in favor of Tolean, who subsequently assumed the position.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC En Banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing its Order dated November 4, 2009, which denied Bernardez’s motion for reconsideration and effectively upheld the grant of injunction against the execution pending appeal.

RULING

Yes, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled and set aside the COMELEC En Banc’s Order of November 4, 2009, the COMELEC Second Division’s Resolution of September 22, 2009, the Entry of Judgment, and the Writ of Execution. The Court ordered Tolean to cease, desist, vacate the office, and turn it over to Bernardez.
The Court held that the COMELEC Second Division acted with grave abuse of discretion when it proceeded to rule on Tolean’s Petition for Injunction after it had already dismissed his main appeal for non-payment of fees. The dismissal of the appeal removed the COMELEC’s jurisdiction over the case. The Petition for Injunction was merely ancillary to the main appeal; with the appeal dismissed, there was no longer a principal action to which the injunction could attach. The COMELEC’s act of granting the injunction after dismissing the appeal amounted to a reversal of the RTC’s decision via a mere motion, circumventing the appeal process. Furthermore, the COMELEC En Banc’s denial of Bernardez’s motion for reconsideration based solely on a procedural lapse (non-payment of motion fees), while disregarding the more significant jurisdictional issue of the dismissed appeal, constituted a patent and gross disregard of established law and procedure, equivalent to grave abuse of discretion.