ELECTION LAW CASE DIGESTS (FROM ELECTION CONTEST)
Brgy. in QC. (1997 elections) LAXINA was proclaimedwinner
FERMO- filed election protest question results in 4 clusteredprecincts on ground of massive fraud and seriousirregularities.
MTC: ruled FERMO won the contested post (in 1999) andgranted a motion for execution pending appeal. COMELECreversed on ground that the possibility that the term of contested seat might expire by the time appeal is decided—not a “good reason” to warrant execution pendingappeal.HELD:A motion for executing pending appeal on ground of termexpiration is not “good reason” for issuance.Sec. 2, Rule 39 Rules of Court: court while it has jurisdiction andpossession of original record… in its discretion, order execution of judgment or final order even before expiration of the period toappeal
Exercise of discretion requires that it is based on “goodreasons (combination of 2 or more will suffice):1.PUBLIC INTEREST INVOLVED OR WILL OFELECTORATE2.SHORTNESS of remaining portion of term of contested office3.LENGTH OF TIME that election contest has beenPENDING
Shortness of remaining term- not good reason for executionof judgment pending appeal—RA 8524: extended term of office of Brgy. officials to 5 years (negates claim of FERMO
Upon nullification of writ of execution pending appeal,decision of FERMO’s proclamation as winner was stayed—status quo (last actual peaceful uncontested situationpreceding the controversy) restored
LAXINA: entitled to discharge functions
19SAQUILAYAN V. COMELEC416 SCRA 658(DINO)
FACTS:1.SAQUILAYAN and JARO were candidates for the Office of Municipal Mayor of Imus, Cavite.2.SAQUILAYAN was proclaimed winner.3.JARO instituted an Election Protest Case before the RTC,contesting the results of all 453 election precincts. Healleges the ff:a.Votes in favor of JARO were considered strayb.Ballots and votes were misappreciated (considerednull and void, or counted in favor of SAQUILAYAN)c.Votes that were void (containing stickers ormarkings) were counted in favor of SAQUILAYAN,etc..4.SAQUILAYAN filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was denied bythe RTC.
Questioning the denial of his Motion to Dismiss, theCOMELEC (Division) ruled in favor of SAQUILAYAN andordered the dismissal of the election protest. It ruled that JARO’s allegations failed to state a cause of action, on thebasis of Pena v. HRET.*
Pena v. HRET
held that the bare allegations of massivefraud, widespread intimidation and terrorism, withoutspecification and substantiation of where and how theseoccurrences took place, render the protest fatallydefective.
Upon reconsideration sought by JARO, the COMELEC
, SAQUILAYAN’s Motion to Dismiss was againdismissed, and the Election Protest Case was ordered toproceed.HELD:
The present case is similar to Miguel v. COMELEC, whichthe COMELEC
used as basis in ordering theElection Protest Case to proceed.2.IN both cases, the protestants questioned all the precinctsin their respective municipalities.
As Miguel v. COMELEC is more recent than Pena v. HRET (as
Through the joint efforts of the students of Ateneo Law 2D AY07-08