Nazareno v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Elvira B. Nazareno and Edwina P. Mendoza were candidates for Mayor of Naic, Cavite, in the May 8, 1995 elections. The initial canvass declared Mendoza the winner by 1,272 votes. Nazareno filed an election protest, and Mendoza filed a counter-protest. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), through an assisting judge, later declared Nazareno the winner by 185 votes and ordered Mendoza to vacate the office. Procedural History: Following the RTC's decision, Nazareno moved for immediate execution. Mendoza filed a notice of appeal. Subsequently, the assisting judge was recalled, and a new regular judge was appointed to the RTC. This new judge granted Nazareno's motion for execution pending appeal, and Nazareno took her oath of office. Mendoza then filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) seeking to set aside the execution order, arguing it was issued without jurisdiction and based on flawed grounds. The COMELEC issued a preliminary injunction restraining the RTC judge and Nazareno from proceeding with the execution and from Nazareno assuming office, pending the COMELEC's resolution of the appeal. The Petition: Nazareno filed this special civil action for certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to nullify the COMELEC's Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction. She contends the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by issuing the injunction without affording her due process, by considering the merits of the underlying decision rather than the propriety of the execution pending appeal, and by relying on unverified or unoffered evidence. The Supreme Court, referencing a prior similar case, found that the COMELEC acted within its jurisdiction to maintain the status quo and that Nazareno failed to demonstrate grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction. Whether NAZARENO was denied due process by not being given an opportunity to submit a formal opposition or answer before the COMELEC issued the questioned order. Whether the COMELEC erred in enjoining the execution pending appeal based on considerations going into the merits of the decision rather than the order granting execution. Whether the COMELEC erred in issuing the questioned order and writ based on an allegedly impaired decision not submitted or offered in evidence, and on xerox and uncertified copies of transcripts. Whether the COMELEC erred in depriving the RTC of its competence to order execution pending appeal.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Supreme Court found that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the challenged order and writ of preliminary injunction. The COMELEC acted within its jurisdiction in aid of its appellate jurisdiction to maintain the status quo pending its determination of the merits of the election protest.
Ratio Decidendi
On the COMELEC's jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court affirmed the COMELEC's jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. The decision of the RTC in the election protest was appealable to the COMELEC, thus, the issuance of execution pending appeal by the trial court could be challenged before the COMELEC via a special civil action for certiorari. The Court found that NAZARENO failed to demonstrate that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion, whimsicality, capriciousness, oppressiveness, patent untenability, or unreasonableness in issuing the questioned order and writ. The injunctive writ was deemed to do nothing more than maintain the status quo pending the COMELEC's determination of the election protest's merits. On the alleged denial of due process: The Court found NAZARENO's first assigned error, regarding denial of due process for not being given an opportunity to oppose, to be without merit. The COMELEC did not issue a temporary restraining order but required respondents to file an answer and set a hearing for the injunction application. The Court noted that due to the urgency, the hearing on the injunction application need not have awaited the filing of the answer. NAZARENO was represented by counsel at the hearing and did not move for a postponement, nor did she show how her answer would have significantly altered the defenses against the injunction. Furthermore, she failed to attach a copy of her answer to her petition before the Supreme Court. On enjoining execution based on merits vs. order granting execution: The Court held that in resolving a certiorari petition assailing an order granting execution pending appeal for grave abuse of discretion, an appellate tribunal, like the COMELEC, is not limited to the challenged order but must consider the decision itself. This is because execution pending appeal is an exception to the general rule that only final judgments may be executed and must be strictly construed, requiring "good reasons" of urgency that outweigh potential injury to the losing party. The COMELEC's inquiry into the basis of the RTC decision was therefore proper. On the basis of the COMELEC's findings (xerox copies, impaired decision): The Court found substantial evidence supporting the COMELEC's conclusion that the RTC decision was based on mere xerox copies of contested ballots that were never offered in evidence. This was supported by admissions of Judge Agcaoili himself during a hearing, as evidenced by the transcript of stenographic notes. The COMELEC correctly noted that invalidating ballots on grounds like being written by one hand or being marked requires visual examination of original ballots, which would be impossible based solely on photocopies. Thus, the COMELEC's finding that the RTC decision was "seriously impaired" was judicious and not attended by grave abuse of discretion. On the alleged use of uncertified copies and deprivation of RTC's competence: The Court found NAZARENO's argument regarding uncertified copies of transcripts to be without merit. NAZARENO did not candidly deny that the decision was based on photocopies, nor did she challenge the correctness of the attached portions of the transcript during the COMELEC hearing. The COMELEC's action was not a deprivation of the RTC's competence but a proper exercise of its power, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, to maintain the status quo through an injunctive writ.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) may issue a writ of preliminary injunction in aid of its appellate jurisdiction to maintain the status quo pending its determination of the merits of an election protest, even if it involves enjoining the execution pending appeal of a Regional Trial Court (RTC) decision, provided there is sufficient justification and no grave abuse of discretion is committed.