Weighty circumstances

If an election protest is decided against the proclaimed winner who already assumed office, can he stay the execution of the decision pending appeal on the sole ground of disruption of public service since he may eventually win the appeal? This is the issue in this case between brothers Mon and Jess.

Mon and Jess ran against each other for Mayor of their municipality in the May 14, 2007 election. After canvassing, Mon was proclaimed winner with 4,818 votes against Jess’ 4,540 votes or a margin of 278 votes. Jess however filed an election protest in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) questioning the election results in 36 out of 56 precincts.

After considering the evidence submitted by the parties and the expert testimony of the witnesses from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the RTC made its own assessment and findings on the contested ballots and arrived at a decision that: (1) 981 votes were stray votes and deducted from Mon’s score thereby giving Jess an edge of 708 votes; and (2) based on marked ballots, ballots written by one person and ballots written by two persons, 315 votes were also deducted from Mon’s score or another difference of 37 votes. The RTC concluded that the victory of Jess has been clearly established.

On February 12, 2008, Mon filed his notice of appeal of said decision while Jess on the other hand filed a motion for the issuance of the writ of execution pending appeal. On February 15, 2008, the RTC issued its special order granting Jess’ motion for the issuance of the writ of execution pending appeal on the following superior circumstances: (1) allowing the status quo to continue would eventually give premium to the perpetrators of the fraud, anomalies and irregularities and suppress the will of the electorate; (2) the sovereign will of the people should be given utmost respect; and (3) the injury or damage to be sustained by Jess would far outweigh the injury or damage of Mon.

On February 19, 2008, Mon filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the COMELEC questioning said special order of the RTC raising as ground the grave abuse of discretion committed by the latter.

On July 30, 2008, the COMELEC first division issued its resolution granting Mon’s petition, setting aside the RTC special order, quashing the accompanying writ of execution, directing the parties to observe the status quo prevailing prior to the February 15, 2008 special order and allowing Mon to continue as the Municipal Mayor. This was affirmed by the COMELEC en banc.

In setting aside the RTC special order, the COMELEC ruled that Mon’s presumptive victory must prevail in the light of the fact that Mon would still be the winning candidate in case the RTC’s appreciation of the votes is overturned. The COMELEC thus concluded that it is more prudent to preserve the status quo prior to the RTC decision dated February 8, 2008 so as not to disrupt government service. Was the COMELEC correct?

No. Decisions of the courts in election protest cases resulting as they do from a judicial evaluation of the ballots and after full blown adversarial proceedings should at least be given similar worth and recognition as the decisions of the board of canvassers. This is especially true when attended by equally weighty circumstances of the case such as shortness of the term of the contested elective office.

Similarly in this case the COMELEC should have accorded respect and weight to the RTC decision proclaiming Jess as winner since it was based on the evidence presented by the parties, the expert testimonies of NBI experts and it own evaluation and findings on the contested ballots. Aside from these, the RTC also laid down the superior circumstances necessitating the grant of execution pending appeal pursuant to the standards set by Section 11, Rule 14 of A.M. 07-4-15-SC, in the grant or denial of execution pending appeal.

The “disruption of public service” cannot per se be a basis to deny execution pending appeal. Such disruption necessarily results from any order allowing execution pending appeal that has already been weighed and factored in by the SC when it promulgated the above Rule allowing such execution (Calo vs COMELEC, G.R. 185222, January 19, 2010).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]