Balajonda vs. Commission on Elections

The COMELEC may order discretionary execution pending appeal of its own judgment or final order in a barangay election contest, by suppletory application of Section 2(a), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court pursuant to Section 1, Rule 41 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, upon good reasons stated in the order and notwithstanding that the judgment executed was rendered in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

Elenita I. Balajonda and Maricel S. Francisco were rival candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay Sta. Monica, Novaliches, Quezon City in the 15 July 2002 synchronized barangay elections. Election protests from barangay chairmanship contests decided by the Metropolitan Trial Court are appealable to the COMELEC. Under Republic Act No. 9164, barangay officials elected in July 2002 were to serve up to November 2005.

On 16 July 2002, Elenita I. Balajonda was proclaimed duly elected Punong Barangay of Barangay Sta. Monica, Quezon City, for the elections held the previous day. As canvassed, she received 2,759 votes against Maricel S. Francisco's 2,339 votes, a margin of 420 votes. Within ten days from proclamation, Francisco filed an election protest with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, originally raffled to Branch 33 but re-raffled to Branch 35 after the presiding judge voluntarily inhibited himself on Francisco's motion.

In answer, Balajonda alleged the protest stated no cause of action and characterized the charges of electoral fraud and irregularities as baseless, conjectural, flimsy, frivolous, preposterous and mere figments of imagination, stressing that no person had been prosecuted for the invoked election law violations. After joinder of issues, the MeTC ordered revision of ballots in sixty-nine ballot boxes; ballots in thirty-nine precincts were eventually revised, Francisco having withdrawn protest as to the thirty-six remaining precincts. After trial, the MeTC found Balajonda still led by 418 votes and denied the protest, upholding her proclamation as Barangay Captain.

On appeal, the COMELEC First Division promulgated a Resolution on 2 February 2004 reversing the MeTC. Upon recount and new appreciation of votes, it found Francisco won over Balajonda by 111 votes, annulled Balajonda's proclamation, declared Francisco the duly elected Punong Barangay, and ordered Balajonda to vacate the post and cease and desist from performing its functions. Balajonda seasonably moved for reconsideration. In the meantime, Francisco moved on 5 February 2004 for a writ of execution pursuant to Section 2(a), Rule 39, allowing discretionary execution upon good reasons. Balajonda opposed, contending only trial court judgments could be executed pending appeal. After hearing, the COMELEC First Division granted the motion, directing the Clerk of Commission to issue a writ ordering Balajonda to cease discharging the powers and duties of Barangay Captain and relinquish the office to Francisco pending final disposition of the motion for reconsideration, conditioned on Francisco's posting of a P50,000.00 bond to answer for damages if final resolution found her not entitled thereto, and declaring the order immediately executory.

• Authority to Order Execution: Petitioner argued that the COMELEC may order immediate execution only of the decision of the trial court but not its own decision, under a literal reading of Sec. 2(a), Rule 39 which refers to judgment or final order of a trial court.
• Absence of Good Reasons: Petitioner maintained that the execution order was not founded on good reasons as it was a mere pro forma reproduction of the reasons enumerated in Ramas vs. COMELEC.
• Partiality and Violation of Own Rules: Petitioner argued that the COMELEC exhibited manifest partiality and bias in favor of Francisco when it transgressed its own Rules of Procedure requiring the Clerk of Court, within twenty-four hours from filing of a motion for reconsideration, to notify the Presiding Commissioner to set the motion for hearing and certify the case to the Commission en banc.

• Discretionary Execution: Respondent Francisco prayed for a writ of execution in accordance with Section 2(a), Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, which allows discretionary execution of judgment upon good reasons to be stated in the order.
• Good Reasons Under Jurisprudence: Respondent cited as good reasons those enunciated in Ramas vs. COMELEC, to wit: (1) the public interest involved or the will of the electorate; (2) the shortness of the remaining period; and (3) the length of time that the election contest has been pending.

• Power to Execute Own Appellate Judgment: Whether the COMELEC has power to order the immediate execution of its own judgment or final order involving a disputed barangay chairmanship, rendered in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, pending motion for reconsideration.
• Good Reasons for Execution: Whether the COMELEC First Division's execution order was founded on good reasons or was merely a pro forma reproduction of Ramas vs. COMELEC.
• Bias and Non-Observance of Procedure: Whether the COMELEC exhibited manifest partiality and bias by failing to observe its own Rules of Procedure on certification of the motion for reconsideration to the Commission en banc.

• Power to Execute Own Appellate Judgment: Yes. Discretionary execution under Sec. 2(a), Rule 39 applies suppletorily to COMELEC judgments, whether rendered in original or appellate jurisdiction, pursuant to Sec. 1, Rule 41 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
• Good Reasons for Execution: Yes. Public interest in installing the recount winner and shortness of the unexpired barangay term constituted good reasons, with filing of a motion for reconsideration not suspending execution.
• Bias and Non-Observance of Procedure: No. The record did not bear out the charge, the delayed transmittal to the en banc being due to the pendency of the execution motion and petitioner's own manifestations and motions.

• Power to Execute Own Appellate Judgment: Election laws being silent on execution pending appeal, suppletory application of the Rules of Court is expressly authorized where the COMELEC Rules contain no applicable provision. Batul vs. Bayron had already affirmed a similar COMELEC First Division order of immediate execution of its own judgment, holding that Sec. 2 allowing execution pending appeal applies suppletorily to election cases and is not exclusive to barangay and municipal contests. Although Batul involved original jurisdiction over a city vice-mayoralty protest while the present decision was rendered in appellate jurisdiction, no different disposition was warranted because the underlying public policy is to obviate a hollow victory for the duly elected candidate as determined by either the courts or the COMELEC, liberally construing procedural rules so the people's will is not defeated by technical objections.
• Good Reasons for Execution: The cited reasons were either self-evident or borne out by law. Public interest demanded immediate installation of the winner on full recount and new appreciation of votes, since it is neither fair nor just to retain one whose right is under suspicion; petitioner's theory that the electorate's will is determined only upon finality would negate execution pending appeal altogether. Under Republic Act No. 9164, the July 2002 barangay officials served only up to November 2005, so that when the 26 November 2004 order issued, only about twelve months remained, making further prolongation of protestee's tenure a virtual denial of protestant's right to assume office. The Court could not take judicial notice of an alleged consensus to extend barangay terms, lacking power to prognosticate future legislation, and the filing of a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc did not divest the Division of jurisdiction nor suspend execution.
• Bias and Non-Observance of Procedure: The COMELEC records showed the case was not forwarded to the en banc immediately precisely because of the pendency of Francisco's motion for immediate execution and Balajonda's motions, including a Manifestation with Motion for Leave to Xerox Contested Ballots and a Manifestation with Motion for Partial Reconsideration both filed 03 March 2004. Moreover, the First Division did not rely on the third Ramas reason concerning length of pendency, rendering pointless petitioner's attribution of delay to Francisco.

• Suppletory execution pending appeal in election cases — Where COMELEC Rules of Procedure are silent on execution pending appeal, Section 2(a), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court applies by analogy or in suppletory character pursuant to Section 1, Rule 41 of the COMELEC Rules. The remedy is not confined to judgments of trial courts nor to barangay and municipal contests, but extends to COMELEC judgments in both original and appellate jurisdiction, including city and provincial offices. Applied to sustain the First Division's immediate execution of its appellate reversal despite pendency of reconsideration.
• Liberal construction of procedural rules in election cases — Procedural rules in election contests are liberally construed to give effect to the will of the electorate in the choice of public officers and to prevent defeat by mere technical objections. Applied to reject a simplistic literalist reading of Sec. 2(a), Rule 39 that would deny the COMELEC authority to execute its own decisions.
• Non-suspensive effect of motion for reconsideration on execution — The filing of a motion for reconsideration of a COMELEC Division resolution with the COMELEC en banc does not suspend execution thereof where good reasons support discretionary execution. Applied to hold that Balajonda's reconsideration motion did not divest the First Division of jurisdiction to grant execution.
• Good reasons for discretionary execution in election protests — Public interest or will of the electorate and shortness of the remaining unexpired term, as enunciated in Ramas vs. COMELEC, constitute good reasons for execution pending appeal. Applied to uphold installation of the recount winner where only about twelve months remained in the barangay term under Republic Act No. 9164.

• "The public policy underlying the suppletory application of Sec. 2(a), Rule 39 is to obviate a hollow victory for the duly elected candidate as determined by either the courts or the COMELEC." — States the policy justification for extending discretionary execution to COMELEC judgments and for treating Batul vs. Bayron as controlling despite the original-versus-appellate distinction.
• "Towards that end, we have consistently employed liberal construction of procedural rules in election cases to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officers may not be defeated by mere technical objections." — Defines the interpretive approach rejecting petitioner's literalist limitation of execution to trial court judgments.
• "[I]t is neither fair nor just to keep in office for an uncertain period one whose right is under suspicion." — Borrowed from Unda vs. COMELEC to support public interest as good reason for installing the candidate found to have received the highest votes on recount without awaiting finality.

• Batul vs. Bayron, G.R. Nos. 157687 & 158959, 26 February 2004 — Controlling precedent affirming COMELEC First Division authority to order immediate execution of its own judgment via suppletory Sec. 2(a), Rule 39; followed to sustain execution of an appellate judgment and to hold that reconsideration does not suspend execution.
• Ramas vs. COMELEC, 349 Phil. 857, 868 (1998) — Source of the good-reasons enumeration for execution pending appeal, namely public interest or will of electorate, shortness of remaining period, and length of pendency; invoked by Francisco and substantially adopted by the Division.
• Unda vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 94090, 18 October 1990, 190 SCRA 820, 831 — Cited for the principle that it is neither fair nor just to keep in office one whose right is under suspicion, supporting immediate installation of the recount winner.
• Idulza vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 160130, 14 April 2004 — Cited, with Punzalan vs. COMELEC and other cases, for liberal construction of procedural rules in election cases to effectuate the people's will.

• Section 2(a), Rule 39, Revised Rules of Court — Allows discretionary execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal upon good reasons stated in the order; applied suppletorily to authorize COMELEC execution of its own appellate election judgment.
• Section 1, Rule 41, COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Provides that absent applicable COMELEC provisions, the pertinent Rules of Court apply by analogy or suppletorily; basis for invoking Sec. 2(a), Rule 39 despite silence of COMELEC Rules on execution pending appeal.
• Republic Act No. 9164 — Fixed the term of barangay officials elected in July 2002 up to November 2005; used to establish shortness of the remaining twelve-month period as good reason for execution.
• Sections 5 and 6, Rule 19, COMELEC Rules of Procedure — Require the Clerk within twenty-four hours from filing of a motion for reconsideration to notify the Presiding Commissioner, who shall set hearing and certify the case to the en banc; invoked by petitioner to allege bias, but found not violated on the record.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Chico-Nazario, and Garcia, JJ., concur. No separate concurring opinion with additional significant reasoning appears in the text.