Tolentino vs. Commission on Elections (First Division), et al.

A writ of execution pending appeal issued by the MTCC after it has lost residual jurisdiction is void and cannot be enforced; the COMELEC may direct its election officer to await the Commission’s resolution, and certiorari is premature where a motion for reconsideration remains available. The COMELEC’s directives also have precedence over those emanating from any other authority except the Supreme Court and those issued in habeas corpus proceedings.

Rolando P. Tolentino and Henry Manalo were rival candidates for Barangay Captain in Barangay Calingcuan, Tarlac City in the 2013 barangay elections. Their contest is governed by the Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials (AM No. 07-4-15-SC), under which the MTCC exercises original jurisdiction over barangay election protests and the COMELEC exercises appellate authority over the MTCC’s decisions. The COMELEC is statutorily vested with the administration and enforcement of election laws, including supervision over election officers.

During the 2013 barangay elections, Rolando P. Tolentino and Henry Manalo both ran for the position of Barangay Captain in Barangay Calingcuan, Tarlac City. The election was held on October 28, 2013. Manalo was proclaimed the winner after garnering 441 votes compared to Tolentino’s 440. Tolentino immediately filed an election protest before the MTCC on October 30, 2013, docketed as Election Case No. 03-2013.

During the revision of votes, the MTCC’s initial tally was 439 votes for Tolentino and 442 votes for Manalo. The MTCC invalidated six ballots cast for Manalo and one ballot cast for Tolentino, leaving Tolentino ahead. On November 26, 2014, the MTCC proclaimed Tolentino as the winner with 438 votes compared to Manalo’s 436. On the very same day, Manalo filed a Notice of Appeal with the MTCC. The following day, November 27, 2014, Tolentino moved for execution pending appeal, which Manalo opposed.

On December 16, 2014, the MTCC issued a Special Order granting Tolentino’s motion for execution pending appeal pursuant to Rule 14, Section 11(b) of the Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials, but held the issuance of the writ in abeyance. The MTCC also gave due course to Manalo’s appeal. On January 8, 2015, Manalo filed with the COMELEC a Petition for Certiorari, with a corresponding application for a temporary restraining order, a status quo ante order, or a writ of preliminary injunction. Manalo argued that the MTCC issued the Special Order with grave abuse of discretion because execution pending appeal was not justified and because Manalo, not Tolentino, was the clear winner. The petition was docketed as SPR (BRGY) No. 03-2015.

On January 30, 2015, the MTCC issued the writ of execution. On the same day, the COMELEC First Division issued a 60-day TRO prohibiting the MTCC from implementing its Special Order in Election Protest Case No. 03-2013 and required Tolentino to file his answer. On February 5, 2015, Tolentino filed his answer and moved for reconsideration of the TRO. On February 9, 2015, the Commission required Manalo to file his Comment/Opposition to the motion for reconsideration, and Manalo complied on February 17, 2015. On February 27, 2015, Tolentino filed an urgent motion for the Commission to resolve his pending motion for reconsideration; the Commission resolved to include the matter in the hearing of the main petition scheduled on March 4, 2015. After hearing the parties on March 4, 2015, the Commission directed both parties to submit their respective memoranda within 10 days, after which the case was deemed submitted for resolution.

The 60-day TRO lapsed on April 1, 2015, without the Commission issuing a writ of preliminary injunction or rendering a decision. Thus, on April 10, 2015, Tolentino wrote the MTCC and the City Election Officer of Tarlac requesting implementation of the writ of execution pending appeal. On April 27, 2015, the MTCC denied Tolentino’s request/motion because it no longer had jurisdiction to entertain further motions after it had transmitted the records of the case to the Commission. Despite the MTCC’s denial, Tolentino, through Atty. Ramon D. Facun, wrote a “Final Request” to the COMELEC City Election Office demanding implementation of the writ of execution pending appeal within five days and threatening to file contempt charges if immediate implementation did not take place. Atty. Cristina T. Guiao-Garcia, Election Officer IV, endorsed the matter to the Commission’s Law Department, which in turn endorsed it to the First Division where the case was pending.

Acting on the endorsement, the Commission issued the assailed Order on May 25, 2015, advising Atty. Guiao-Garcia to await the Order and Resolution of the case by the Commission First Division. On June 26, 2015, Tolentino filed the present petition. The MTCC’s revision had shown an initial tally of 439 for Tolentino and 442 for Manalo; after invalidating six Manalo ballots and one Tolentino ballot, the MTCC proclaimed Tolentino the winner with 438 votes against Manalo’s 436. The COMELEC, for its part, advised the City Election Officer to await its resolution, and the Supreme Court later found that the MTCC had issued the writ after the period to appeal had expired and after the records were presumed transmitted to the COMELEC.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioner protested that the Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Order dated May 25, 2015, pursuant to the endorsement of the Law Department.
• Denial of Hearing: Petitioner argued that the assailed Order was issued without giving him the benefit of a hearing.
• Prohibition Without Injunction: Petitioner maintained that the Order effectively prohibited the implementation of the writ of execution pending appeal without the issuance of a writ of injunction.
• Election Officer’s Refusal: Petitioner argued that Atty. Guiao-Garcia’s refusal to implement the writ of execution pending appeal amounted to willful disobedience and was unethical for a lawyer.

• No Grave Abuse: Manalo countered that nothing in the assailed Order constituted grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Commission.
• Subversion of COMELEC Authority: Manalo argued that Tolentino was trying to subvert the Commission’s authority, in blatant disregard of the pendency of the case, by seeking relief from another forum—the local COMELEC office.
• Failure to Exhaust Remedies: Manalo argued that Tolentino failed to exhaust his available remedies because he did not move for reconsideration of the COMELEC’s Order.
• Prematurity and Adequate Remedy: The Commission maintained that the present petition was premature because Tolentino had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available—a motion for reconsideration of the May 25 Order.
• Election Officer’s Conduct: The Commission maintained that the petition failed to show that Atty. Guiao-Garcia, who even sought guidance from the Commission, brazenly disregarded the appropriate processes.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion / COMELEC Order: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the May 25, 2015 Order advising the Election Officer to await resolution.
• COMELEC Power Over Election Officers: Whether the COMELEC had the power and jurisdiction to issue the assailed Order to its election officer.
• Precedence of COMELEC Directives: Whether the COMELEC’s directives have precedence over the MTCC’s writ of execution pending appeal.
• MTCC Residual Jurisdiction: Whether the MTCC’s writ of execution pending appeal may be enforced after the MTCC lost residual jurisdiction.
• Notice and Hearing: Whether the assailed Order was issued without notice and opportunity to be heard.
• Prematurity / Exhaustion of Remedies: Whether the petition is premature for failure to move for reconsideration.
• Counsel’s Threat / Legal Ethics: Whether Atty. Ramon D. Facun’s threat against the election officer warrants disciplinary action.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion / COMELEC Order: No. The COMELEC acted within its jurisdiction and did not gravely abuse its discretion; its order to its election officer was within its power and its directives have precedence under Section 52(f).
• COMELEC Power Over Election Officers: Yes. Election officers are under the COMELEC’s direct and immediate control and supervision; the COMELEC may issue orders and discipline or relieve non-compliant employees.
• Precedence of COMELEC Directives: Yes. Under Section 52(f) of the Omnibus Election Code, COMELEC directives have precedence over those from any other authority except the Supreme Court and those issued in habeas corpus proceedings.
• MTCC Residual Jurisdiction: No. The writ cannot be enforced because the MTCC issued it after the period to appeal expired and after records were presumed transmitted; any order without jurisdiction is void.
• Notice and Hearing: No. Tolentino filed an answer, moved for reconsideration, was heard, and was allowed to submit memoranda.
• Prematurity / Exhaustion of Remedies: Yes. Certiorari is a remedy of last resort; a motion for reconsideration was available, so the petition was premature.
• Counsel’s Threat / Legal Ethics: Yes. Atty. Ramon D. Facun was warned; his threat of a baseless contempt charge against an election officer lay at the margins of Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion / COMELEC Order: Certiorari is available when a court or other tribunal exercising quasi-judicial powers acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Grave abuse exists when there is capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or when power is exercised arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion or prejudice, or when action is impelled by personal hostility amounting to evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined. After evaluating the facts, no action of the Commission constituted grave abuse of discretion or absence of jurisdiction. The assailed Order was directed to City Election Officer IV Atty. Guiao-Garcia, who as an agent of the Commission is under its direct and immediate control and supervision. The Commission has the power and jurisdiction to issue orders to its employees to carry out its mandate and may discipline or relieve any officer or employee who fails to comply. The Commission is also authorized to enforce its directives, which by law enjoy precedence over those of the MTCC. The MTCC’s writ could not be enforced because it was issued after the MTCC lost residual jurisdiction. Even assuming the writ was issued before loss of jurisdiction, the MTCC remained subject to the Commission’s appellate jurisdiction, including the power to affirm, reverse, vacate, or annul the MTCC’s judgment and to restrain implementation through injunctive writs. Manalo’s filing of a petition for certiorari rather than an appeal brief did not prevent the Commission from treating the petition as an appeal, given the liberal spirit of the COMELEC Rules and its authority to suspend any portion thereof in the interest of justice.
• COMELEC Power Over Election Officers: An election officer is an agent of the Commission and is under the Commission’s direct and immediate control and supervision. The Commission clearly has the power and jurisdiction to issue orders to its employees to carry out its mandate. It is even clothed with the power to discipline or relieve any officer or employee who fails to comply with its instructions. The May 25, 2015 Order advising Atty. Guiao-Garcia to await the Commission’s resolution was therefore a valid exercise of the Commission’s authority over its own personnel.
• Precedence of COMELEC Directives: The Omnibus Election Code explicitly provides that the Commission shall enforce and execute its decisions, directives, orders, and instructions, which shall have precedence over those emanating from any other authority, except the Supreme Court and those issued in habeas corpus proceedings. The COMELEC’s order to await resolution thus prevailed over the MTCC’s writ of execution pending appeal.
• MTCC Residual Jurisdiction: Rule 14, Section 11 of AM No. 07-4-15-SC provides that, on motion of the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party, the court, while still in possession of the original records, may, at its discretion, order execution of the decision in an election contest before the expiration of the period to appeal. Under this Rule, the MTCC retains residual jurisdiction while two conditions concur: the records of the case have not yet been transmitted to the Commission, and the period to appeal has not yet expired. The MTCC rendered its decision on November 26, 2014, and both parties received copies on the same day. Manalo had a reglementary period of five days, or until December 1, to file his notice of appeal, and he filed it on the same day. Under Rule 14, Section 10, the MTCC clerk of court was duty bound to transmit the records to the Electoral Contests Adjudication Department within fifteen days, or until December 11. Tolentino moved for execution pending appeal on November 27, 2014, but the MTCC ordered execution on December 16, 2014. At that point, the five-day period to appeal had already expired, and under the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, the clerk of court was presumed to have already transmitted the records to the Commission. The MTCC had thus lost complete jurisdiction when it issued the writ. The proper forum that could have granted execution pending appeal was the Commission itself, which had already acquired jurisdiction over the case. Any order issued without jurisdiction is void and without legal effect.
• Notice and Hearing: Tolentino insisted that he was not given notice or the opportunity to be heard, but the records and even his own pleadings indicated otherwise. He filed his answer to the petition and motion for reconsideration of the Commission’s TRO on February 5, 2015; the Commission heard his motion for reconsideration of the TRO on March 4, 2015; and the Commission even allowed him to file his memoranda. No basis exists for the allegation that he was denied the right to notice and hearing.
• Prematurity / Exhaustion of Remedies: Certiorari is a remedy of last resort and is not available if a party still has another speedy and adequate remedy available. The petition was premature because Tolentino could still have moved for reconsideration. He sought relief from everywhere, particularly from the MTCC and the local COMELEC office, except from the proper body that had jurisdiction to order execution pending appeal.
• Counsel’s Threat / Legal Ethics: Section 261(f) of the Omnibus Election Code penalizes any person who, directly or indirectly, threatens, intimidates, terrorizes, or coerces any election official or employee in the performance of election functions or duties. Atty. Ramon D. Facun already knew that the MTCC refused to enforce the writ after having lost jurisdiction and that the matter was already before the Commission in Division. Yet, in his zeal to advance his client’s interests, he threatened an election officer with the filing of a baseless contempt charge, in violation of Canon 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility in relation to Section 261(f) of the Omnibus Election Code. While the Commission has the prerogative of prosecuting election offenses, the Supreme Court retains disciplinary authority over all members of the Bar. Canon 19 requires a lawyer to represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law, and Rule 19.01 requires a lawyer to employ only fair and honest means and not to present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage. Canon 15, Rule 15.07 also obliges lawyers to impress upon their clients compliance with the laws and the principle of fairness. Lawyers owe entire devotion to their clients, but they are first and foremost officers of the court, bound to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

• Certiorari as a remedy of last resort — Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy available only when a court or other tribunal exercising quasi-judicial powers acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. It is not available if the party still has another speedy and adequate remedy. In this case, the petition was premature because Tolentino could have moved for reconsideration of the May 25 Order.
• Grave abuse of discretion — Grave abuse of discretion exists when there is capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; when power is exercised arbitrarily or despotically by reason of passion or prejudice; or when action is impelled by personal hostility amounting to evasion of positive duty, virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or refusal to act at all in contemplation of law. The Court found no such abuse in the COMELEC’s issuance of the assailed Order.
• COMELEC control and supervision over election officers — An election officer is an agent of the Commission on Elections and is under its direct and immediate control and supervision. The COMELEC has the power and jurisdiction to issue orders to its employees to carry out its mandate and may discipline or relieve any officer or employee who fails to comply with its instructions. This doctrine supported the validity of the May 25 Order to Atty. Guiao-Garcia.
• Precedence of COMELEC directives — Under Section 52(f) of the Omnibus Election Code, the COMELEC shall enforce and execute its decisions, directives, orders, and instructions, which shall have precedence over those emanating from any other authority, except the Supreme Court and those issued in habeas corpus proceedings. The COMELEC’s directive to await resolution therefore prevailed over the MTCC’s writ of execution pending appeal.
• Residual jurisdiction of the MTCC in election contests and execution pending appeal — Under Rule 14, Section 11 of AM No. 07-4-15-SC, the MTCC retains residual jurisdiction to order execution pending appeal while two conditions concur: the records of the case have not yet been transmitted to the Commission, and the period to appeal has not yet expired. Both conditions failed when the MTCC issued the writ on December 16, 2014, after the appeal period expired and after the records were presumed transmitted.
• Void orders without jurisdiction — Any order issued without jurisdiction is void and without legal effect. Because the MTCC had lost complete jurisdiction when it issued the writ of execution pending appeal, the writ was void and could not be enforced.
• Liberal construction and suspension of COMELEC rules — The COMELEC Rules of Procedure are to be liberally construed to promote the effective and efficient implementation of election objectives and to achieve just, expeditious, and inexpensive disposition of proceedings. The COMELEC may also suspend any portion of its rules in the interest of justice. This supported the Commission’s prerogative to treat Manalo’s petition for certiorari as an appeal.
• Lawyer’s duty to represent client with zeal within the bounds of law — Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires a lawyer to represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law. Rule 19.01 requires the use of only fair and honest means and prohibits presenting, participating in presenting, or threatening to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage. Canon 15, Rule 15.07 obliges lawyers to impress upon clients compliance with laws and fairness. Atty. Facun was warned for threatening a baseless contempt charge against an election officer.

• "It is an extraordinary remedy of last resort designed to correct errors of jurisdiction." — Defines certiorari and supports the ruling that the petition was premature because Tolentino had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in a motion for reconsideration.
• "Under this Rule, the MTCC retains residual jurisdiction while two conditions concur: (1) records of the case have not yet been transmitted to the Commission; and (2) the period to appeal has not yet expired." — States the controlling test for the MTCC’s residual jurisdiction; because both conditions failed, the writ of execution pending appeal was void.
• "It is a fundamental legal tenet that any order issued without jurisdiction is void and without legal effect - a lawless thing which can be treated as an outlaw and slain on sight." — Articulates the consequence of the MTCC’s loss of jurisdiction and is the ratio for denying enforcement of the writ.
• "Rule 19. 01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding." — The ethical rule cited in warning Atty. Ramon D. Facun for threatening the election officer with a baseless contempt charge.

• Nazareno vs. Court of Appeals, 428 Phil. 32, 42 (2002) — Cited as authority for the rule that an order issued without jurisdiction is void and without legal effect; applied to the MTCC’s writ of execution pending appeal.
• Atty. Briones vs. Atty. Jimenez, 550 Phil. 402, 408 (2007), citing Suzuki vs. Atty. Tiamson, 508 Phil. 130, 140-141 (2005) — Cited for the principle that lawyers, while devoted to their clients, are officers of the court bound to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice; applied in admonishing Atty. Facun.
• Abad Santos vs. The Province of Tarlac, 67 Phil. 480-481 (1939); Tan vs. People, 88 Phil. 609 (1951); Pajo vs. Ago, 108 Phil. 905, 916 (1960) — Cited in support of the definition of grave abuse of discretion.
• Tavera-Luna, Inc. vs. Nable, 67 Phil. 340-341 (1939); Alafriz vs. Nable, 72 Phil. 278-279 (1941); Liwanag vs. Castillo, 106 Phil. 375 (1959) — Cited in support of the definition of grave abuse of discretion.

• Article VII, Section 52(f), Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881) — The COMELEC shall enforce and execute its decisions, directives, orders, and instructions, which shall have precedence over those emanating from any other authority, except the Supreme Court and those issued in habeas corpus proceedings. Applied to uphold the COMELEC’s order over the MTCC’s writ.
• Article VII, Section 52(a), Omnibus Election Code — The COMELEC has exclusive charge of the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections. Cited in relation to the Commission’s control and supervision over election officers.
• Rule 14, Section 11, AM No. 07-4-15-SC — Execution pending appeal may be ordered by the court, while still in possession of the original records, before the expiration of the period to appeal. Applied to hold that the MTCC lost residual jurisdiction when it issued the writ on December 16, 2014.
• Rule 14, Section 11(b), AM No. 07-4-15-SC — An aggrieved party has twenty working days from notice of the special order within which to secure a restraining order or status quo order from the Supreme Court or the COMELEC; the writ of execution shall issue after twenty days if no such order is issued, and during such period the writ shall be stayed. Applied to the MTCC’s Special Order and the COMELEC TRO.
• Rule 14, Section 5, AM No. 07-4-15-SC — The reglementary period to file a notice of appeal is five days. Applied to Manalo’s appeal, which was filed on November 26, 2014, with the period expiring on December 1, 2014.
• Rule 14, Section 10, AM No. 07-4-15-SC — The clerk of court shall, within fifteen days from the filing of the notice of appeal, transmit to the Electoral Contests Adjudication Department the complete records of the case. Applied to presume transmission by December 11, 2014.
• Article XXII, Section 261(f), Omnibus Election Code — Coercion of election officials and employees is an election offense; any person who directly or indirectly threatens, intimidates, terrorizes, or coerces any election official or employee in the performance of election functions or duties is liable. Cited in relation to Atty. Facun’s threat against Atty. Guiao-Garcia.
• Canon 19, Rule 19.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage. Applied in warning Atty. Facun.
• Canon 15, Rule 15.07, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness. Cited as part of the ethical standards governing Atty. Facun’s conduct.
• Article VIII, Section 5(5), Constitution — The Supreme Court has disciplinary authority over all members of the Bar. Cited to support the Court’s warning to Atty. Facun notwithstanding the COMELEC’s prerogative to prosecute election offenses.
• Rule 1, Sections 3 and 4, COMELEC Rules of Procedure — The COMELEC Rules shall be liberally construed to promote the effective and efficient implementation of election objectives, and the Commission may suspend any portion of its rules in the interest of justice. Applied to the Commission’s prerogative to treat Manalo’s petition for certiorari as an appeal.

Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno (Chief Justice), Antonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Jose Portugal Perez, Jose Catral Mendoza, Bienvenido L. Reyes, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, and Francis H. Jardeleza.