4/9/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly an Australian citizen. The petitioner, after obtaining an unfavorable decision, cannot be permitted to disavow the en banc’s exercise of discretion on the substantial merits of her appeal when she herself invoked the same in the first place. The fact that the COMELEC en banc had remanded similar appeals to the Division that initially dismissed them cannot serve as a precedent to the disposition of the petitioner’s appeal. A decision or resolution of any adjudicating body can be disposed in several ways. To sustain petitioner’s argument would be virtually putting a straightjacket on the COMELEC en banc’s adjudicatory powers. More significantly, the remand of the appeal to the COMELEC Second Division would be unnecessarily circuitous and repugnant to the rule on preferential disposition of quo warranto cases espoused in Rule 36, Section 15 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. [14] II. The COMELEC en banc has the power to order discretionary execution of judgment. We cannot subscribe to petitioner’s submission that the COMELEC en banc has no power to order the issuance of a writ of execution and that such function belongs only to the court of origin. There is no reason to dispute the COMELEC’s authority to order discretionary execution of judgment in view of the fact that the suppletory application of the Rules of Court is expressly sanctioned by Section 1, Rule 41 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.[15] Under Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, execution pending appeal may be issued by an appellate court after the trial court has lost jurisdiction. In Batul v. Bayron,[16] we stressed the import of the provision vis-à-vis election cases when we held that judgments in election cases which may be executed pending appeal includes those decided by trial courts and those rendered by the COMELEC whether in the exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction. III. Private respondents are not estopped from questioning petitioner’s eligibility to hold public office. The fact that the petitioner’s qualifications were not questioned when she filed certificates of candidacy for 2007 and 2010 elections cannot operate as an estoppel to the petition for quo warranto before the RTC. Under the Batas Pambansa Bilang 881 (Omnibus Election Code), there are two instances where a petition questioning the qualifications of a registered candidate to elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/55170 5/18