G.R. No. 144678. March 1, 2001.
JAVIER E. ZACATE, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and THELMA C. BALDADO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Javier Zacate and private respondent Thelma Baldado were candidates for Mayor of Sulat, Eastern Samar, in the 1998 elections. Baldado was proclaimed winner. Zacate filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which later declared him the winner by a one-vote margin. On the same day the RTC decision was promulgated, Baldado filed a notice of appeal. The following day, Zacate filed a Motion for Immediate Execution of Judgment Pending Appeal. The RTC subsequently issued a Supplemental Decision, which corrected Zacate’s winning margin to two votes but denied his motion for execution pending appeal, stating it had lost jurisdiction due to the perfected appeal, and ordered the elevation of the records to the COMELEC.
Six days after receiving the Supplemental Decision, Zacate filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, seeking reversal of the denial of execution. The RTC granted this motion, reversing its Supplemental Decision, and issued a Writ of Execution. Baldado then filed a petition for certiorari with the COMELEC, which annulled the RTC’s order granting execution. The COMELEC held the RTC had lost jurisdiction when it granted the motion, as the records had already been transmitted, and that the Motion for Partial Reconsideration was a prohibited pleading under COMELEC rules.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the trial court had completely lost its jurisdiction to grant execution pending appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the COMELEC’s ruling. The legal logic centers on the finality of judgments and the loss of trial court jurisdiction. The RTC’s Supplemental Decision, which denied the motion for execution and ordered record transmission, became final and executory after the lapse of the five-day period for finality under COMELEC Rule 35, Section 19, as no motion for reconsideration is allowed. Zacate’s subsequent Motion for Partial Reconsideration was a prohibited pleading and did not toll this period. Consequently, the RTC lost jurisdiction over the case upon the finality of the Supplemental Decision and the transmittal of the records. Its subsequent order granting execution was therefore issued without jurisdiction. The Court rejected Zacate’s argument that the Supplemental Decision was void for lack of a factual and legal basis, clarifying that the constitutional requirement for decisions to state facts and law refers to decisions on the merits, not mere interlocutory orders or rulings on motions. Any error in the Supplemental Decision was correctible only by a timely appeal, not by a motion for reconsideration. Thus, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion.