G.R. No. 141952-53 April 20, 2001 G.R. No.

136351 July 28, 1999

RODOLFO DUMAYAS, JR., petitioner, JOEL G. MIRANDA, petitioner,

vs. vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE MUNICIPAL ANTONIO M. ABAYA and the COMMISSION ON
BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF ELECTIONS, respondents.
CARLES, PROVINCE OF ILOILO and FELIPE BERNAL,
JR., respondents.
 substitution by Luna for Hans Roger was invalid. Private
respondents alleged that Hans Roger was only 20 years old on
G.R. No. 165983            April 24, 2007 election day and, therefore, he was disqualified to run for vice-
mayor and cannot be substituted by Luna
JOY CHRISMA B. LUNA, Petitioner,
vs. Issue: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, TOMAS LAYAO, discretion when it ruled that there was no valid substitution by
SOLOMON LALUGAN III, NELIA LAZAGA, ANTHONY Luna for Hans Roger
LAYAO, CIPRIANO LAPEZ, JR., VICTORIA LAYAO,
MODERNO LAPEZ, RODRIGO PARIÑAS, and EUGENIO Ruling: Where a candidate withdrew his/her certificate of
CABER DONATO, Respondents. candidacy and COMELEC found that the substitute complied with
all the procedural requirements for valid substitution, the latter
Facts:  On 15 January 2004, Luna filed her certificate of can validly substitute for the former. COMELEC may not, by itself,
candidacy for the position of vice-mayor of Lagayan, Abra as a without the proper proceedings, deny due course to or cancel a
substitute for Hans Roger, who withdrew his certificate of certificate of candidacy filed in due form. The question of eligibility
candidacy on the same date. Ruperto Blanco, Election Officer of or ineligibility of a candidate for non-age is beyond the usual and
Lagayan, Abra removed the name of Hans Roger from the list of proper cognizance of the COMELEC. If the candidate made a
candidates and placed the name of Luna. material misrepresentation as to his/her date of birth or age in
his/her certificate of candidacy, his/her eligibility may only be
On 20 April 2004, private respondents Tomas Layao, Solomon impugned through a verified petition to deny due course to or
Lalugan III, Nelia Lazaga, Anthony Layao, Cipriano Lapez, Jr., cancel such certificate of candidacy under Section 78 of the
Victoria Layao, Moderno Lapez, Rodrigo Pariñas, and Eugenio Election Code. There can be no substitution of a person whose
Caber Donato (private respondents) filed a petition for the certificate of candidacy has been cancelled and denied due course.
cancellation of the certificate of candidacy or disqualification of The certificate of candidacy was withdrawn before the COMELEC
Luna. Private respondents alleged that Luna made a false material could declare that the candidate was not a valid for the said
representation in her certificate of candidacy because Luna is not a position. For if he was declared as such, substitution will be invalid
registered voter of Lagayan, Abra but a registered voter of
Bangued, Abra. Private respondents also claimed that Luna’s
certificate of candidacy was not validly filed because the
G.R. No. 205136               December 2, 2014 G.R. No. 147741       May 10, 2001

OLIVIA DA SILVA CERAFICA, Petitioner, REP. MA. CATALINA L. GO, petitioner,

vs. vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FELIPE V. MONTEJO
and ARVIN V. ANTONI, respondents.
G.R. Nos. 186007 & 186016               July 27, 2009 G.R. No. 155618            March 26, 2003
SALVADOR DIVINAGRACIA, JR., Petitioner, EDGAR Y. SANTOS, petitioner,
vs. vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ALEX A. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (FIRST DIVISION) and
CENTENA, Respondents. PEDRO Q. PANULAYA, respondents.
 Petitioner Navarosa appealed the trial courts ruling to the
COMELEC (EAC Case No. A-9-2002). Respondent Esto, on the
[G.R. No. 157957. September 18, 2003.] other hand, filed with the trial court a motion for execution of the
judgment pending petitioner Navarosas appeal. Petitioner
CHARITO NAVAROSA, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON Navarosa opposed respondent Estos motion. In the alternative,
ELECTIONS, HONORABLE DEAN R. TELAN, as petitioner Navarosa offered to file a supersedeas bond to stay
Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Kalibo, execution pending appeal, should the trial court grant respondent
Estos motion.
Aklan and ROGER M. ESTO, Respondents.
In its Resolution dated 28 November 2002 (Resolution), the
COMELEC Second Division affirmed the trial courts Order
FACTS : Petitioner Charito Navarosa (petitioner Navarosa) and granting execution pending appeal and nullified the stay of the
respondent Roger M. Esto (respondent Esto) were candidates for execution. The Second Division also found that respondent Esto
mayor of Libacao, Aklan in the 14 May 2001 elections. On 17 May duly paid the COMELEC filing fee.
2001, the COMELEC Municipal Board of Canvassers of Libacao
proclaimed petitioner Navarosa as the duly elected mayor, with a Petitioner Navarosa sought reconsideration of this ruling but the
winning margin of three (3) votes over respondent Esto COMELEC En Banc denied her motion on 15 April 2003.

Claiming that irregularities marred the canvassing of ballots in Hence, this petition.
several precincts, respondent Esto filed an election protest
docketed as Election Case No. 129 (election protest) in the On 10 June 2003, the Court required the parties to maintain the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Kalibo, Aklan (trial court). status quo pending resolution of this petition.
Petitioner Navarosa, who also claimed that canvassing
irregularities prejudiced her, filed a counter-protest in the same ISSUE : WON the Trial court had power to order the stay of
case. execution pending appeal

On 4 March 2002, after revision of the contested ballots, the trial HELD :
court rendered judgment in favor of respondent Esto
to grant execution pending appeal in election protest cases, the jurisdiction, execution of judgment pending appeal under Section
following requisites must concur: (1) there must be a motion by the 2 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court are permissible pursuant to Rule
prevailing party with notice to the adverse party; (2) there must be 143 of the Rules of Court, which is now Section 4, Rule 1 of the
good reasons for the execution pending appeal; and (3) the order 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
granting execution pending appeal must state the good reasons.
[23] Petitioner Navarosa concedes respondent Estos compliance In insisting that the simple expedient of posting a supersedeas
with the first and third requisites. What she contests is the trial bond can stay execution pending appeal, petitioner Navarosa
courts finding that there are good reasons to order discretionary neither claims nor offers a more compelling contrary policy
execution of its decision. consideration. Instead, she merely contends that Section 3 of Rule
39 (Section 3) applies also in a suppletory character because its
Unlike the Election Code of 1971,[27] which expressly provided for Siamese twin[30] provision, Section 2, is already being so applied.
execution pending appeal of trial courts rulings in election Such simplistic reasoning both ignores and negates the public
protests, the present election laws are silent on such remedy. interest underlying Section 2s application. We cannot countenance
Nevertheless, Section 2, Rule 39 (Section 2) of the Rules of Court such argument.
(now 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) applies in suppletory
character to election cases, thus allowing execution pending appeal T]he bond thus given may be proceeded against on motion with
in the discretion of the court. notice to the surety. Consequently, it finds no application in
election protest cases where judgments invariably include orders
he Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines (B.P. Blg. 881) and which are not capable of pecuniary estimation such as the right to
the other election laws do not specifically provide for execution hold office and perform its functions.
pending appeal of judgment in election cases, unlike the Election
Code of 1971 whose Section 218 made express reference to the Furthermore, a supersedeas bond under Section 3 cannot fully
Rules of Court on execution pending appeal The failure of the protect the interests of the prevailing party in election protest
extant election laws to reproduce Section 218 of the Election Code cases
of 1971 does not mean that execution of judgment pending appeal
is no longer available in election cases. In election contests A supersedeas bond secures the performance of the judgment or
involving elective municipal officials, which are cognizable by order appealed from in case of its affirmation.[31] Section 3 finds
courts of general jurisdiction; and those involving elective application in ordinary civil actions where the interest of the
barangay officials, which are cognizable by courts of limited prevailing party is capable of pecuniary estimation, and
consequently, of protection, through the filing of a supersedeas
bond. Thus, the penultimate sentence of Section 3 states: [T]he
bond thus given may be proceeded against on motion with notice
to the surety. Consequently, it finds no application in election
protest cases where judgments invariably include orders which are
not capable of pecuniary estimation such as the right to hold office
and perform its functions

As applied to the present case, the supersedeas bond petitioner

Navarosa filed can only answer for that portion of the trial courts
ruling ordering her to pay to respondent Esto actual damages,
attorneys fees and the cost of the suit. It cannot secure execution of
that portion proclaiming respondent Esto duly elected mayor of
Libacao, Aklan by popular will of the electorate and authorizing
him to assume the office. This anomalous situation defeats the
very purpose for the filing of the supersedeas bond in the first
place.

In sum, the Court holds that the COMELEC did not commit grave
abuse of discretion in ordering execution pending appeal of the
trial courts decision. Grave abuse of discretion implies capricious
and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of
jurisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of
passion or personal hostility. The grave abuse of discretion must
be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or refusal to
perform a duty enjoined by law.[33] This does not obtain in the
present case.