Lindo v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the results of the May 8, 1995 elections for the position of Mayor of Ternate, Cavite. Petitioner Conrado Lindo was initially declared the winner by the board of canvassers, garnering 2,711 votes compared to private respondent Rosario Velasco's 2,195 votes. Velasco, the incumbent mayor, subsequently filed an election protest, contesting the results in all 19 precincts. 2. Procedural History: Following the election protest, a revision of ballots was conducted in 24 precincts. This revision revealed significant discrepancies in vote counts in five precincts, favoring Velasco. After the revision and appreciation of ballots, the RTC, through Assisting Judge Emerito Agcaoili, issued a decision on September 23, 1996, declaring Velasco the duly elected mayor and ordering Lindo to vacate the office. Lindo appealed this decision to the COMELEC. Meanwhile, Velasco filed a motion for execution pending appeal, which was granted by Judge Napoleon Dilag on October 29, 1996, upon posting of a P100,000.00 bond. A writ of execution was issued, directing Velasco's installation as mayor. Lindo then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the COMELEC, seeking to annul the writ of execution. The COMELEC issued a preliminary injunction on November 7, 1996, but later lifted it and denied Lindo's petition in a resolution dated December 9, 1996, finding sufficient grounds for execution pending appeal. 3. The Petition: This petition for certiorari and prohibition, filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeks to annul the COMELEC's December 9, 1996 resolution. Petitioner Lindo argues that the COMELEC erred in lifting its injunction and allowing the execution of the RTC decision pending appeal. His specific contentions include the alleged non-payment of the cash bond, the trial court's reliance on xerox copies of ballots, the potential introduction of fake ballots, the COMELEC's refusal to open ballot boxes for examination of original ballots, and the improper application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court regarding execution pending appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC erred in allowing the implementation of the writ of execution which was issued without payment by private respondent of the cash bond required in the Order. Whether the COMELEC erred when it sustained the execution of the trial court's decision despite the COMELEC's finding that the decision was based only on the xerox copy of the contested ballots and that fake and spurious ballots may have been introduced. Whether the COMELEC erred when it refused to open the ballot boxes and examine the original ballots to determine whether there were spurious ballots used to increase private respondent's votes. Whether the COMELEC erred when it ruled that the good reason for the execution of the decision pending appeal is that the result of the physical count alone shows that fraud was perpetrated, especially with the increase of votes of the proclaimed candidate. Whether the COMELEC erred in applying Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The temporary restraining order issued by the Supreme Court is lifted. Petitioner Conrado Lindo is ordered to vacate the office of the mayor of Ternate, Cavite, and surrender said position to private respondent Rosario Velasco pending the resolution of his appeal with the COMELEC. The Commission on Elections is mandated to resolve with reasonable dispatch petitioner's pending appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the cash bond: The records reveal that the writ of execution was issued on October 29, 1996, but was implemented only on October 30 after private respondent paid the P100,000.00 cash bond. Although the PNP Director of Cavite was deputized to implement the writ, it was the sheriff who actually executed the writ. Therefore, the contention that the writ was issued without payment of the bond is without merit. On the issue of reliance on xerox copies and potential fake ballots: The Supreme Court clarified that the COMELEC's statement about the possibility of fake and spurious ballots was taken out of context and could not be the basis for denying execution pending appeal. The COMELEC correctly ruled that an examination of the ballots to resolve the petition for certiorari was not proper at that stage, as the only issue was whether there was grave abuse of discretion in granting execution pending appeal. The determination of the authenticity of ballots is a factual issue best left for the appeal proper before the COMELEC. On the issue of refusing to open ballot boxes and examine original ballots: The Supreme Court reiterated that the issue of whether the trial judge examined original ballots or only xerox copies is a factual issue that pertains to the merits of the case. Such determination is to be made during the appeal proper before the COMELEC, where the opening of ballot boxes and examination of original ballots can be conducted to ascertain the true will of the electorate. The present petition only concerns the propriety of execution pending appeal. On the issue of good reason for execution pending appeal based on physical count: While the Supreme Court disagreed with the COMELEC's rationale that the physical count alone showed private respondent as the winner (as voided ballots could alter the outcome), it affirmed that the reasons cited by the trial court in its order of execution constituted good reasons. These reasons were that execution would give substance to the people's mandate, as the RTC had established private respondent's right to office, and that with only 18 months left in the term, the people had the right to be governed by their chosen official. These grounds were found to be valid, citing the case of Gutierrez v. COMELEC. On the issue of applying Rule 39 of the Rules of Court: The Supreme Court held that Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court applies suppletorily to election cases. It is settled that as long as the motion for execution pending appeal is filed before the perfection of appeal, the writ of execution may issue even after the period to appeal has expired. The Court emphasized that requiring the trial court to decide a motion for execution within the short appeal period in election cases would be impractical and could cause injustice, as the motion requires notice, hearing, and scrutiny of good reasons.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the COMELEC's resolution lifting its injunction and allowing execution pending appeal of the trial court's decision in an election protest, finding that the trial court cited good reasons for the execution and that the issue of the authenticity of ballots is a matter for the appeal proper.