1. FERMO v.
COMELEC
FACTS:
Laxina and Fermo were both candidates for
the position of Punong Barangay in Barangay
Batasan Hills, Quezon City. Laxina garnered the
highest votes and was proclaimed duly elected to
the post. Fermo filed an election protest on the
ground of massive fraud and serious irregularities
during the elections, so the Court ordered for a
recount.  possession of either the original record or
The MTC ruled that Fermo won the elections.
Laxina filed a Notice of Appeal manifesting his
intent to elevate the case to the COMELEC. Fermo,
on the other hand, filed a Motion for Execution
Pending Appeal on the ground that the Court
declared him winner by plurality of 134 votes over
Laxina. The MTC granted the motion.
Fermo went to the SC, assailing the validity of the
Comelec Resolution. He contends that Comelec
committed grave abuse of discretion in annulling
the orders of the MTC. Moreover, according to
Fermo, when the Comelec ordered him to relinquish
his post, the Comelec was in effect, issuing an order
for the execution of the Comelec Resolution pending
appeal, but in favor of Laxina
ISSUE: WON the Comelec committed grave abuse of
discretion in annulling the decision of the MTC
granting the motion for execution pending appeal
HELD: NO.
 
Execution pending appeal in election cases is
governed by Section, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
Sec. 2. Discretionary execution. —
(a) Execution of a judgment or final order
pending appeal. — On motion of the
prevailing party with notice to the adverse
party filed in the trial court while it has
jurisdiction over the case and is in
the record on appeal, as the case may be, at
the time of the filing of such motion, said
court may, in its discretion, order execution
of a judgment or final order even before the
expiration of the period to appeal.
After the trial court has lost jurisdiction, the motion
for execution pending appeal may be filed in the
appellate court.
Discretionary execution may only issue upon good
reasons to be stated in a special order after due
hearing.
A valid exercise of the discretion to allow execution
pending appeal requires that it should be based
"upon good reasons to be stated in a special
order." The following constitute "good reasons" and
a combination of two or more of them will suffice
to grant execution pending appeal:
(1.) public interest involved or will of the electorate;
(2.) the shortness of the remaining portion of the
term of the contested office; and
(3.) the length of time that the election contest has
been pending (emphasis supplied).

In the present case:

1. Fermo relies solely on one ground of
shortness of term. As previously ruled in
Lauban vs. Comelec, shortness of term alone
by itself cannot justify premature execution.
It must be manifest in the decision sought to
be executed that the defeat of the protestee
and the victory of the protestant has been
clearly established.

2. Moreover, the ground of shortness of term

no longer exists because of the passage of
RA 8524 which effectively extended the
term of office of barangay officials to 5
years beginning 1998. (Now, there is still
more than 3 years left in the term).

3. The Comelec was only trying to maintain the

status quo when it ordered Fermo to
relinquish his post.

2. CALINGIN v. CA
FACTS:
The Office of the President issued a Resolution,
suspending Gov. Calingin for 90 days. The DILG
issued a memorandum implementing the said
Resolution of the Office of the President. Gov.
Calingin filed before the OP a Motion for
Reconsideration before the OP and a Petition for
Prohibition before the CA to prevent the DILG from
executing the assailed suspension order. However,
on May 11, 2001, the Court of Appeals dismissed
the said petition and by resolution issued on July 1,
2002, denied the petitioner's motion for
reconsideration. Hence, this petition before the
Supreme Court.
Gov. Calingin:
1. Contended that decisions of the OP on cases
where it has original jurisdiction become final
and executory only after the lapse of 15 days
from receipt thereof pursuant to Sec. 15,
Chapter 3, Book VII of the Admin Code; and
that the Motion for Reconsideration shall
suspend the running of the said period.
4. Section 67 of the LGC, providing that the
decisions of the OP are final and executory
does not apply to provincial governors.
ISSUE: WON the DILG Memorandum implementing
the suspension order of the OP may be executed
pending the appeal of the case to the CA.
HELD: YES.
The decision of the OP is already final and
executory. Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court in
relation to Sec. 68 of the Local Government Code
provides for the immediate execution pending
appeal. Citing Lapid v. CA, the Court ruled that the
decisions of the Office of the President under the
Local Government Code are immediately executory
even pending appeal because the pertinent laws
under which the decisions were rendered mandated
them to be so.
In sum, the decisions of the Office of the President
are final and executory. No motion for
reconsideration is allowed by law but the parties
may appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals.
The appeal, however, does not stay the execution of
the decision. Thus, the DILG Secretary may validly
move for its immediate execution.
NOTE: Although there appears to be a contradiction
between Section 15 of the Admin Code and Section
67 of the LGC, in this case, the LGC is applicable
law because it deals specifically on disciplinary
actions against an elective official. Moreover, the
LGC is the latter law (1987 vs. 1991).

3. Pecson v. COMELEC
FACTS:
Pecson and Cunanan were candidates for the
mayoralty position in the Municipality of Magalang,
Pampanga in the May 2007 elections. Cunanan was
proclaimed the winning candidate hence he took his
oath and assumed the position of Mayor of
Magalang.
Pecson filed an election protest, with the RTC. On
November 23, 2007, the RTC rendered a Decision in
Pecson's favor. The RTC ruled that Pecson received
a total of 14,897 votes as against Cunanan's 13,758
- a vote margin of 1,139.  jurisdiction of the RTC to settle pending incidents;
On November 27, 2007, Cunan filed a Notice of
Appeal.
The RTC issued on November 27, 2008 an Order
noting notice of appeal and directing the transmittal
of the records of the case to the Electoral Contests
Adjudication Department (ECAD) of the COMELEC.
Pecson, on the other hand, filed on November 28,
2007 an Urgent Motion for Immediate Execution
Pending Appeal, claiming that Section 11, Rule 14
of the Rules of Procedure in Election Contests
before the Courts Involving Elective Municipal and
Barangay Officials allows this remedy.  (3) Public interest and the will of the electorate must
The RTC granted Pecson's motion for execution
pending appeal via a Special Order dated December
3, 2007 (Special Order) but suspended, pursuant to
the Rules, the actual issuance of the writ of
execution for twenty (20) days.
The Second Division of the COMELEC issued on
January 4, 2008 a 60-day TRO directing: (1) the
RTC to cease and desist from issuing or causing the
issuance of a writ of execution or implementing the
Special Order; and (2) Cunanan to continue
performing the functions of Mayor of Magalang. 
The COMELEC's Second Division denied Cunanan's
petition in a Resolution dated March 6, 2008. It
ruled that: (1) the resolution of the motion for
execution pending appeal is part of the residual
the motion was filed prior to the expiration of the
period to appeal and while the RTC was still in
possession of the original record; and (2) there is
good reason to justify the execution of the Decision
pending appeal to wit:
(1) The victory of the protestant was clearly and
manifestly established;
(2) Execution pending appeal in election cases
should be granted to give as much recognition to the
worth of a trial judge's decision as that which is
initially ascribed by the law to the proclamation by
the board of canvassers;
be respected and given meaning; and
(4) Public policy underlies it, as something had to
be done to strike the death blow at the pernicious
grab-the-proclamation-prolong-the-protest
technique often, if not invariably resorted to by
unscrupulous politicians.
Ruling on the alleged defect in the RTC count, the
Second Division  found that the error lies in the trial
court's computation of the results. The formula used
by the trial court is erroneous , using the correct
formula, private respondent still obtained a
plurality of the votes cast and enjoys a margin of
384 votes over the petitioner;
Pecson thus asked for the issuance of a writ of
execution via an Ex-Parte Motion. Despite
Cunanan's opposition, the RTC granted Pecson's
motion and issued the writ of execution on March
11, 2008. Pecson thereafter assumed the duties and
functions of Mayor of Magalang. 
On Cunanan's motion, the COMELEC en banc
issued its Resolution reversing the ruling of the
Second Division insofar as it affirmed the RTC's
findings of good reasons to execute the decision
pending appeal. It affirmed the authority of the RTC
to order execution pending appeal; it however
nullified the March 11, 2008 writ of execution on
the ground that the RTC could no longer issue the
writ because it had lost jurisdiction over the case
after transmittal of the records and the perfection of
the appeals of both Cunanan and Pecson (to be
accurate, the lapse of Pecson's period to appeal). 
ISSUE: WON there was a proper execution pending
appeal
Petitioner’s argument: that: (1) the RTC Decision
clearly showed Pecson's victory; (2) the reasons for
the reversal of the RTC Decision practically render
impossible a grant of an execution pending appeal;
and (3) the RTC correctly found the presence of the
requisites for execution pending appeal. 
HELD: We find the petition meritorious.
RATIO:
The remedy of executing court decisions pending
appeal in election contests is provided under the
Rules as follows: 
SEC. 11. Execution pending appeal. - 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 the
execution of the decision in an election contest
before the expiration of the period to appeal,
subject to the following rules:
(a) There must be a motion by the prevailing
party with three-day notice to the adverse party.
Execution pending appeal shall not issue
 without prior notice and hearing. There must be
good reasons for the execution pending appeal.
The court, in a special order, must state the
good or special reasons justifying the execution
pending appeal. Such reasons must:
(1) constitute superior circumstances
demanding urgency that will outweigh the
injury or damage should the losing party
secure a reversal of the judgment on appeal;
and  the pernicious grab-the-proclamation-prolong-the-
(2) be manifest, in the decision sought to be
executed, that the defeat of the protestee or
the victory of the protestant has been clearly
established.
(b) If the court grants execution pending appeal,
an aggrieved party shall have twenty working
days from notice of the special order within
which to secure a restraining order or status quo
order from the Supreme Court of the
Commission on Elections. The corresponding
writ of execution shall issue after twenty days, if
no restraining order or status quo order is
issued. During such period, the writ of execution
pending appeal shall be stayed.
(PROPRIETY OF EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL) As
heretofore cited, the RTC found all these requisites
present. The Second Division of the COMELEC
supported the RTC's ruling.
Other than the clarity of Pecson's victory under the
RTC Decision, the Special Order cited good and
special reasons that justified an execution pending
appeal, specifically: (1) the need to give as much
recognition to the worth of a trial judge's decision as
that which is initially given by the law to the
proclamation by the board of canvassers; (2) public
interest and/or respect for and giving meaning to
the will of the electorate; and (3) public policy -
something had to be done to deal a death blow to
protest technique often, if not invariably, resorted to
by unscrupulous politicians who would render
nugatory the people's verdict against them. 
The RTC Decision, on its face, shows that Pecson
garnered more valid votes than Cunanan after the
revision of ballots. The Second Division properly
recognized, however, that the RTC computation
suffered from a facial defect that did not affect the
final results; as Cunanan pointed out, the votes for
Pecson and Cunanan, if totally summed up,
exceeded the total number of valid votes for mayor. 
Unfortunately, the COMELEC en banc simply
glossed over the RTC's cited reasons and did not
fully discuss why these reasons were not sufficient
to justify execution pending appeal. A combination,
however, of the reasons the RTC cited, to our mind,
justifies execution of the RTC Decision pending
appeal. 
A striking feature of the present case is the time
element involved. We have time and again noted the
well known delay in the adjudication of election
contests that, more often than not, gives the
protestant an empty or hollow victory in a long
drawn-out legal battle. Some petitions before us
involving election contests have been in fact
dismissed for being moot, the term for the contested
position having long expired before the final ruling
on the merits came.
In the present case, the term for mayor consists of
only three (3) years. One year and six months has
lapsed since the May 2007 election; thus, less than
two years are left of the elected mayor's term. The
election protest, while already decided at the RTC
level, is still at the execution-pending-appeal stage
and is still far from the finality of any decision on the
merits, given the available appellate remedies and
the recourses available through special civil actions.
To be sure, there is nothing definite in the horizon
on who will finally be declared the lawfully elected
mayor.  This is clearly evident from the cited provision of the
(Jurisdiction or What level to institute the
action) when the COMELEC ruled in this regard
that the writ of execution the RTC issued on March
11, 2008 was void; the RTC could no longer issue
the writ because of the lapse of the period for
appeal, and because the RTC no longer held the
records of the election contest which had then been
transmitted to the ECAD-COMELEC. 
SC: The writ of execution issued by the RTC is a
mere administrative enforcement medium of the
Special Order - the main order supporting Pecson's
motion for the issuance of a writ of execution. The
nullification of the Special Order effectively carries
with it the nullification of its implementing writ and
removes the basis for the issuance of another
implementing writ. In the present case, the reality is
that if and when we ultimately affirm the validity of
the Special Order, nothing will thereafter prevent
the RTC from issuing another writ.
That the RTC is still in possession of the records
and that the period to appeal (of both contending
parties) must have not lapsed are important for
jurisdictional purposes if the issue is the authority
of the RTC to grant a Special Order allowing
execution pending appeal; they are requisite
elements for the exercise by the RTC of its residual
jurisdiction to validly order an execution pending
appeal, not for the issuance of the writ itself.
Rules which does not require the issuance of the
implementing writ within the above limited
jurisdictional period. The RTC cannot legally issue
the implementing writ within this limited period for
two reasons: (1) the cited twenty-day waiting period
under Section 11(b); and (2) the mandatory
immediate transmittal of the records to the ECAD of
the COMELEC under Section 10 of the Rules.
(Issue of Balancing Act) COMELEC’S ruling
of"balancing act" is a view that essentially posits
that given the pendency of the appeal and the lack
of finality of a decision in the election protest, the
unseating of the protestee, and the need for
continuity of public service, the balance should tilt
in favor of continuity or non-disruption of public
service; hence, the execution pending appeal should
be denied. 

SC: This reasoning effectively prevents a winner (at

the level of the courts) of an election protest from
ever availing of an execution pending appeal;
COMELEC cannot, on its own, render ineffective a
rule of procedure we established by formulating its
own ruling requiring a final determination at its
level before an RTC decision in a protest case can
be implemented. 

"disruption of public service" necessarily results

from any order allowing execution pending appeal
and is a concern that this Court was aware of when
it expressly provided the remedy under the Rules.
Such disruption is therefore an element that has
been weighed and factored in and cannot be per se
a basis to deny execution pending appeal. 
4. DANGAN-CORRAL v. COMELEC,
FACTS:
Corral and Fernandez were candidates for the
position of mayor of the Municipality of El Nido,
Palawan during the May 14, 2007 elections. Corral
was eventually proclaimed the winner with 5,113
votes as against Fernandez's 3,807. Fernandez filed
an election protest in the RTC Puerto Princesa,
Palawan and won, with him winning by a margin of
465 votes.
Corral filed her formal Notice of Appeal while
Fernandez filed a Motion for Execution Pending
Appeal. After the hearing, the RTC judge issued the
Order granting the motion for execution of his
Decision pending its appeal. Corral’s Motion for
Reconsideration was denied so she filed a petition
for certiorari before the Comelec imputing grave
abuse of discretion to the RTC for granting
Fernandez's motion for execution pending appeal
despite the absence of good and special reasons or
superior circumstances as expressly required by
existing rules.
Comelec First Division and Comelec en Banc:
Dismissed the case due to lack of merit hence,
bringing the case to the Court.
Petitioner's Arguments:
Petitioner contends that the RTC Decision sought to
be executed pending appeal violates the mandatory
required form of decisions in election cases and
thus should not be executed. She further contends
that the determination of whether the victory of the
protestant was clearly established should be made
from the entire decision and not, as what the
Comelec did, merely from the dispositive portion.
She insists that the RTC Decision readily shows the
inconclusive, defective and infirmed nature of
protestant's alleged victory. Petitioner also posits
that there was no valid or good reason given for
granting the execution pending appeal. She also
contends that the Comelec refused to apply the new
rules on protest cases and is thus guilty of grave
abuse of discretion.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the execution pending appeal was
properly granted despite not containing the specific
matters required by the Rules of Procedure in
Election Contests?
HELD: No.
RATIO: Under Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure in
Election Contests, the court, in a special order,
must state the good or special reasons justifying the
execution pending appeal. Such reasons must: xxxx
be manifest, in the decision sought to be executed,
that the defeat of the protestee or the victory of the
protestant has been clearly established.
In this case, the RTC Decision does not conform
to the requirements set forth in Section 2 of the
Rules. It does not give the specifics of its findings.
The general statement invalidating 67% of the total
votes cast on the ground that the ballots were
written by one person or written by two persons is
grossly infirm.
The Decision does not specify why the court
considered particular groups of ballots to have been
written by one person, and other invalidated ballots
to have been written by two persons. Worse, the
Decision does not state which and how many
ballots were written by one person; and which and
how many ballots were written by two persons. The
entire Decision, even the lengthy part enumerating
the exhibits offered by each party, fails to yield the
exact number of and which ballots were written by
one person, and the exact number of and which
ballots were written by two persons. There is also
no mention in the decision of whether or not the
RTC took into consideration the entries of the
Minutes of Voting and Counting relative to illiterate
or disabled voters, if any, who cast their votes
through assistors.
The Decision merely states that "[a] careful and
cursory examination of these ballots indubitably
shows that these ballots are written either by one
(1) or two (2) persons, given the palpable similarity
in the handwritings indicated in these ballots earlier
declared by Protestant's revisors as written by one
(1) and two (2) persons." It utterly violates the
mandatory requirement that "the court must clearly
and distinctly specify why the pair or group of
ballots has been written by only one person. The
specific figures or letters indicating that the ballots
have been written by one person must be specified."
It being unclear from the Decision whether these
ballots, if any, were invalidated, it follows that the
victory of the protestant and defeat of the protestee
are unclear and not manifest therein. Consequently,
to allow the execution of such a grossly infirm RTC
Decision in disregard of established jurisprudence
and clear and straightforward rules is arbitrary and
whimsical and constitutes grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Hence, execution pending appeal of RTC decision is
not valid.