Execution of election decision pending appeal
There are clear cut requirements on when RTC decisions may be executed pending
appeal. Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure in Election Contests states:
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(b) If the court grants an 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 or 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. (Emphasis supplied)
(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.
A valid exercise of discretion to allow execution pending appeal requires that it must be manifest in the decision sought to be executed that the defeat of the protestee and the victory of the protestant have been clearly established.[1] The Rules of Procedure in Election Contests now embody this doctrine, which the COMELEC has in the past[1] given value to and used in resolving cases before it, and which has formed part of our jurisprudence.[3]
[1] Pecson v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 182856, December 24, 2008, 575 SCRA 634, 649.
[2] Fermo v. Commission on Elections, 384 Phil. 584, 592 (2000); Istarul v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 170702, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA 300, 309.
[3] G.R. No. 190156, February 12, 2010.
