Santos v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Edgar Y. Santos and respondent Pedro Q. Panulaya were candidates for Mayor of Balingoan, Misamis Oriental in the May 14, 2001 elections. Following the canvass, respondent Panulaya was proclaimed the winner. Petitioner Santos contested this proclamation by filing an election protest. Procedural History: After a trial and revision of ballots, the Regional Trial Court declared petitioner Santos the duly elected Mayor with a plurality of 76 votes, setting aside the proclamation of respondent Panulaya. Petitioner then moved for execution pending appeal. Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) assailing the trial court's decision, and separately appealed the decision to the COMELEC. The COMELEC dismissed the certiorari petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the trial court, and directed the trial court to proceed with pending incidents. The trial court then granted execution pending appeal, and petitioner was installed as Mayor. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration and a supplemental petition in the dismissed certiorari case, and subsequently filed another petition for certiorari with the COMELEC, seeking to nullify the trial court's orders for execution and to be reinstated as Mayor. The COMELEC issued a status quo ante order, enjoining petitioner from assuming mayoral functions, and later issued a resolution setting aside the trial court's order for execution pending appeal and enjoining petitioner from assuming office until the final determination of the election appeal. The Petition: Petitioner Edgar Y. Santos filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the COMELEC's September 3, 2002 status quo ante order and its October 14, 2002 resolution. Petitioner argued that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by not dismissing respondent's second petition (SPR No. 37-2002) outright due to forum-shopping, and by setting aside the trial court's order for execution pending appeal. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling and setting aside the COMELEC's orders and dismissing the case filed with the COMELEC on the ground of forum-shopping, while reinstating the trial court's order for execution pending appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Pedro Q. Panulaya was guilty of forum-shopping. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to respondent's petition in SPR No. 37-2002. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the RTC's order granting execution pending appeal.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The COMELEC's Order dated September 3, 2002, and Resolution dated October 14, 2002, in SPR No. 37-2002 are annulled and set aside, and the said case is dismissed on the ground of forum-shopping. The RTC's Order dated August 20, 2002, granting execution pending appeal, and the Writ of Execution dated August 21, 2002, are reinstated and ordered to be fully enforced.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forum-shopping: Respondent Pedro Q. Panulaya was indubitably guilty of forum-shopping. He obtained an adverse decision when his initial petition for certiorari (SPR No. 20-2002) was dismissed by the COMELEC. Thereafter, while his motion for reconsideration and supplemental petition concerning the same matter were still pending before the COMELEC, he filed a separate and wholly new petition for certiorari (SPR No. 37-2002) with the same COMELEC. This second petition sought the same reliefs as the supplemental petition, namely, the nullification of the trial court's orders for execution pending appeal and his reinstatement as Mayor. The Court reiterated that forum-shopping is the institution of two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition, which was precisely what respondent did. Such conduct adversely affects the efficient administration of justice by clogging dockets and trifling with judicial processes. Therefore, the COMELEC should have dismissed SPR No. 37-2002 outright. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC in giving due course to SPR No. 37-2002: The COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to respondent's petition in SPR No. 37-2002, instead of dismissing it outright due to forum-shopping. Forum-shopping is considered a pernicious evil and a ground for summary dismissal. By allowing the petition to proceed, the COMELEC failed to uphold the integrity of the judicial process and the efficient administration of justice. The Court emphasized that willful and deliberate forum-shopping is a ground for summary dismissal and constitutes direct contempt of court. The COMELEC's action in entertaining the second petition despite the pendency of related pleadings in the first petition demonstrated a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to a lack of jurisdiction. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC in setting aside the RTC's order granting execution pending appeal: The COMELEC also committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the trial court's order granting execution pending appeal. The grant of execution pending appeal is a discretionary power of the trial court, which can only be annulled in a petition for certiorari if it is shown that the court gravely abused its discretion. In this case, the RTC found "good reasons" for the execution, citing the shortness of the remaining term of office and the fact that the election protest had been pending for almost a year. The Supreme Court clarified that while shortness of term and posting of bond alone may not be sufficient, a combination of factors, including the will of the electorate, the shortness of the remaining term, and the length of time the contest has been pending, constitute "good reasons." The Court held that the RTC's decision to give effect to the will of the electorate, as determined by the court, was a valid exercise of its discretion, especially considering the rationale that a trial judge's decision should be given as much recognition as the proclamation by the board of canvassers. To deprive trial courts of this discretion would revive "grab-the-proclamation-prolong the protest" techniques.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to a petition filed by a party guilty of forum-shopping and in setting aside a trial court's order granting execution pending appeal in an election case.