Halim Asmala v. Commission on Elections and Hadji Husni Mohammad
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In the May 8, 1995 elections for Vice Mayor of Tuburan, Basilan, Hadji Husni Mohammad was initially proclaimed winner with 3,065 votes, followed by Emmanuel Alano with 2,912 votes, and Halim Asmala with 2,542 votes. Procedural History: Halim Asmala and Emmanuel Alano filed election protests alleging fraud and irregularities. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), after invalidating certain ballots, rendered a decision on February 14, 1996, crediting Halim Asmala with 2,130 votes, Emmanuel Alano with 1,920 votes, and Hadji Husni Mohammad with 1,729 votes, thus declaring Asmala the duly elected Vice Mayor. The Petition: Hadji Husni Mohammad filed a Notice of Appeal on February 26, 1996. The following day, February 27, 1996, Asmala filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal. Mohammad opposed this, arguing that his perfected appeal divested the RTC of jurisdiction. The RTC granted Asmala's motion on March 28, 1996, requiring a bond. Mohammad then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), which set aside the RTC's order on August 20, 1996, citing lack of jurisdiction. Asmala filed the present Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. Subsequently, Mohammad moved for the execution of the COMELEC Resolution, which the COMELEC granted ex parte on September 24, 1996, prompting Asmala to file a Supplemental Petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commission on Elections exceeded its jurisdiction and/or committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the Special Order of the Regional Trial Court for execution pending appeal. Whether the respondent Commission on Elections acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in granting private respondent's motion for execution of its Resolution, notwithstanding the pendency of the Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the questioned Resolution of the Commission on Elections dated August 20, 1996, and reinstated the order of execution pending appeal issued by the Regional Trial Court in favor of Halim Asmala. The decision was declared immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the COMELEC exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the RTC's order for execution pending appeal: The Court held that the RTC was competent to act upon and grant the motion for execution pending appeal. The settled rule, as reiterated in Edding vs. Commission on Elections, is that the mere filing of a notice of appeal does not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction over a case and to resolve pending incidents. Where the motion for execution pending appeal was filed within the reglementary period for perfecting an appeal, the filing of a notice of appeal by the opposing party is of no moment and does not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction to resolve the motion. The Court emphasized that an appeal is perfected upon the expiration of the last day to appeal by any party, not on the date the notice of appeal was filed. Since Asmala filed his Motion for Execution Pending Appeal on February 27, 1996, and the period to appeal was five days from February 26, 1996, the appeal was not yet perfected as to Asmala when he filed his motion. Therefore, the RTC still had jurisdiction over the case at the time it acted on the motion. On the issue of whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting execution of its Resolution pending the Supreme Court petition: The Court found that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to absence of jurisdiction in setting aside the March 28, 1996 Order of execution pending appeal on jurisdictional grounds. The COMELEC's subsequent ex parte order granting execution of its own resolution, despite the pendency of the petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court assailing that very resolution, further demonstrated this grave abuse of discretion. The Court noted that the private respondent's motion for execution of the COMELEC resolution lacked a notice of hearing, and the COMELEC issued its order granting the motion ex parte.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a notice of appeal does not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction to resolve a motion for execution pending appeal, provided such motion is filed within the reglementary period for perfecting an appeal. The appeal is deemed perfected only upon the expiration of the last day to appeal by any party.