Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82092:g-r-no-201672,-august-13,-2013-cesar-g-manalo,-petitioner,-v-commission-on-elections,-department-of-interior-and-local-government-and-ernesto-m-miranda,-respondents&catid=1573&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:40:37+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 201672, August 13, 2013 - CESAR G. MANALO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ERNESTO M. MIRANDA, Respondents.
CESAR G. MANALO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ERNESTO M. MIRANDA, Respondents.
This Petition for Certiorari1 seeks to reverse, nullify and set aside the Resolutions of Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Second Division dated 22 December 20112 and COMELEC En Banc dated 17 April 20123 which granted respondent Ernesto M. Miranda’s Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for Status Quo or Restraining Order.
Miranda, in his Answer with Counterclaim and Motion to Dismiss filed on 15 November 2010, denied any irregularities and maintained the credibility and regularity of the conduct of the Barangay Election under the strict supervision of the COMELEC. In his special and affirmative defense, as well as his motion for dismissal, he asserted that the petition of Manalo was insufficient in form and substance as it failed to allege the specific votes by precinct of the parties. Finally in his counterclaim, Miranda prayed for payment of P100,000.00 by way of attorney’s fees.
Protestee Ernesto Miranda is hereby ordered to vacate his seat and to cease and desist from further discharging the duties and functions officially vested in the Office of Punong Barangay of Sta. Maria, Mabalacat, Pampanga which is now and henceforth, unless otherwise disqualified by law, are conferred unto the declared winner and herein protestant CESAR MANALO, who is hereby ordered to act, perform and discharge the duties, functions and responsibilities and all incidents appertaining to and in connection with the office of the Punong Barangay of Barangay Sta. Maria, Mabalacat, Pampanga immediately after he shall have taken his oath of office.
No pronouncement as to damages and attorney’s fees for failure of the protestant to adduce evidence relative thereto during the trial.
As mandated under Section 7, Rule 14 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC, otherwise known as the “Rules of Procedure in Election Contests Before the Court Involving Elective Municipal and Barangay Officials” as soon as the decision becomes final, the clerk of court shall send notices to the Commission on Elections, the Department of Interior and Local Government and the Commission on Audit.
FINALLY, the ballot boxes kept under the Court’s custody are hereby ordered for transmittal to the Treasurer’s Office of Mabalacat, Pampanga as depository of the election paraphernalia and corresponding keys to the ballot boxes be returned to the designated authorized officers. The protestant is hereby ordered to transmit the same as soon as the decision becomes final and executory.
Immediately on the same day, Miranda filed a Notice of Appeal7 appealing the Decision of the lower court to the COMELEC.
On 25 May 2011, Manalo filed a Motion for Immediate Execution of Decision Pending Appeal8 before the lower court citing good reasons9 to justify immediate execution.
On 28 October 2011, a Very Urgent Ex Parte Motion for Clarification19 was filed by Manalo praying that the COMELEC Second Division clarify the phrase, “In the event that the above acts supposed to be restrained had already been done, the parties herein are hereby ordered to maintain the status quo ante prior to the filing of the instant petition,” in the 8 July 2011 Order.
On 22 December 2011, the COMELEC Second Division granted the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed by Miranda. Notably, in its Resolution, the COMELEC Second Division ruled that the trial court’s Decision showed Miranda’s defeat and herein Manalo’s victory. It said that the trial court complied with rules provided by Section 2, Rule 14 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC prescribing specific forms which must be followed in election protests. It was observed that the decision even provided for a tabulation and summary of the total number of votes and those validated, nullified and voided; and computed the total valid votes obtained by each candidate.
However, the Division also invalidated both the Special Order and Writ of Execution.20 It was explained that the Special Order did not comply with the ruling in Lim v. COMELEC21 which enumerated the instances considered as good reasons to allow execution pending appeal. It ruled further that the writ of execution issued by the trial court violated paragraph (b), Section 11, Rule 14 of A.M. No. 07-4-15-SC which specifies that a writ of execution shall be issued after 20 working days from notice of the special order granting the execution pending appeal. The COMELEC noted that in the case before it, from the time of service of the special order, only 14 workings had passed which rendered the execution of the decision premature.
THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS GRAVELY ERRED IN ISSUING A SIXTY (60) DAYS TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER ON JULY 8, 2011 WHEN THE ACT SOUGHT TO BE ENJOINED HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE BY THE FACT THAT HEREIN PETITIONER MANALO HAS ALREADY ASSUMED THE POSITION OF PUNONG BARANGAY OF STA. MARIA, MABALACAT, PAMPANGA ON JUNE 24, 2011.
THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS GRAVELY AND SERIOUSLY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE LOWER COURT FAILED TO SPECIFY IN ITS SPECIAL ORDER DATED JUNE 3, 2011 SUPERIOR CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL.
THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS GRAVELY AND SERIOUSLY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE PERIOD OF TWENTY (20) DAYS AS ENUNCIATED IN SECTION 11 (B), RULE 14 OF A.M. NO. 07-4-15-SC REFERS TO WORKING DAYS AND NOT CALENDAR DAYS.
An insight into the consequences of the case antecedents could have predicted for petitioner a course other than the present petition. Time and effort could have been saved, for better purposes, for all parties including specially this Court.
To recapitulate, out of the total number of protested ballots by the protestant of ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-TWO (122) covering six (6) protested precints in Barangay Sta. Maria, Mabalacat, Pampanga, the total number of ballots that have been voided or nullified as per Court’s findings is ELEVEN (11) to be deducted from the total number of votes obtained by the protestee and from the two (2) ballots claimed by the protestant only one (1) ballot is found to be valid claim which will be added to the votes obtained by the protestant during the October 25, 2010 Barangay Election.
The contention of [Miranda] that the Decision of the public respondent did not clearly establish the defeat of [Miranda] or the victory of the [Manalo] is unfounded.
After a careful examination of public respondent’s Decision, we are convinced that there is a clear showing of [Miranda’s] defeat and [Manalo’s] victory.
On Claimed Ballots – The court must specify the exact basis for admitting or crediting claimed votes to either party.
The Decision complied with the foregoing rule. A tabulation was presented by the public respondent which provided for a detailed ruling on each of the questioned ballots. It discussed why some ballots, e.g. Exhibits “C-1,” “C-2,” “C-3” and “C-5” of Precinct 0467A/0467B, were not considered “marked” ballots and therefore valid for [Miranda]. It also detailed out why some ballots, e.g. Exhibits “C-4,” “C-22,” “C-28,” “C-40” of Precinct 0467A/0467B, were considered “marked” ballots and therefore invalid votes for [Miranda]. Furthermore, the specific marks that made the ballots “marked”were duly explained in the Decision.
In the end, the Decision provided for a summary of the total number of votes that were nullified or voided, thus, must be deducted from [Miranda’s] total number of votes as well as the total valid claim that will be added to the votes obtained by [Manalo]. On the basis of this, public respondent made a pronouncement that [Manalo] won the said election, with a plurality of eleven (11) votes.
The COMELEC Second Division, however did not find good reason for the issuance of the Special Order of the trial court and further found that the issuance of the Writ of Execution violated the twenty-day waiting period before the Writ of Execution pending appeal can be issued.
NOW, THEREFORE, effective immediately and continuing until further orders from this Court, You, respondents ERNESTO M. MIRANDA, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, your agents, representatives, or persons acting in your place or stead, are hereby ordered to CEASE AND DESIST from implementing and enforcing the (a) assailed COMELEC Resolution dated 22 December 2011 which granted respondent Ernesto M. Miranda’s Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for Status Quo Ante Order or Restraining Order and (b) assailed COMELEC Resolution dated 17 April 2012 which denied petitioner’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration. Accordingly, the parties shall comply with the Decision dated 24 May 2011 and the Special Order dated 3 June 2011, both of the 6th Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Mabalacat and Magalang, Pampanga until further orders form this Court.
We now have to make this TRO permanent. The antecedents we recited compel the immediate remand of this case to the 6th MCTC, Mabalacat and Magalang, Pampanga for it to forthwith issue a writ of execution of the decision dated 24 May 2011 in Election Protest No. 10-003, entitled Cesar G. Manalo, protestant v. Ernesto M. Miranda, protestee.
the Temporary Restraining Order issued by this Court on 2 April 2013 be made permanent.
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo de-Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
1 Rollo, pp. 3-30; Under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
4 Id. at 54; MCTC Decision.
12 Citing Balajonda v. COMELEC, 492 Phil. 714 (2005).
13 COMELEC records, pp. 1-23.
21 G.R. No. 171952, 8 March 2007, 518 SCRA 1, 5 citing Fermo v. COMELEC, 384 Phil. 584, 592 (2000).
22 COMELEC records, p. 256.
25 Id. at 76; Order dated 23 June 2011.
26 COMELEC records, pp. 49-50.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.