Zacate v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Javier E. Zacate and respondent Thelma C. Baldado were candidates for Mayor in Sulat, Eastern Samar, in the May 1998 elections. The Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed Baldado as the winner with 2,958 votes against Zacate's 2,719 votes. 2. Procedural History: Zacate filed an election protest with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which on August 3, 1999, declared Zacate the winner with 2,638 votes over Baldado's 2,637. Baldado appealed, and Zacate filed a motion for immediate execution pending appeal. The RTC issued a Supplemental Decision on August 27, 1999, correcting Zacate's winning margin to two votes and denying the motion for execution pending appeal due to lack of jurisdiction after Baldado perfected her appeal. On October 11, 1999, the RTC reversed its Supplemental Decision, asserting jurisdiction and granting the motion for execution pending appeal. A Writ of Execution was issued on October 25, 1999. Baldado's motion to cancel this writ was denied, leading her to file a petition for certiorari with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). 3. The Petition: The COMELEC Second Division, on March 21, 2000, granted Baldado's petition, setting aside the RTC's resolution and writ of execution, ruling that the RTC had lost jurisdiction. The COMELEC En Banc denied Zacate's motion for reconsideration. Zacate filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the trial court had lost jurisdiction over his motion for immediate execution pending appeal, which he contends was timely filed and erroneously denied. He asserts the trial court retained jurisdiction to correct its own error. The Supreme Court, however, found that Zacate's motion for partial reconsideration of the Supplemental Decision was filed out of time, rendering the denial of the motion for execution pending appeal final and beyond the trial court's jurisdiction to rectify.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that it had lost jurisdiction over petitioner's motion for immediate execution of judgment pending appeal; and whether the Supplemental Decision was void for failing to state the facts and law on which it was based. Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to grant petitioner's motion for execution pending appeal after private respondent had perfected her appeal and the records were ordered transmitted to the COMELEC. Whether petitioner's motion for partial reconsideration of the Supplemental Decision was filed within the reglementary period.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Resolution of the COMELEC granting the petition of private respondent and setting aside the Resolution of the trial court dated October 11, 1999 and Writ of Execution dated October 25, 1999 is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the trial court's jurisdiction over the motion for execution pending appeal and the alleged voidness of the Supplemental Decision: The Supreme Court ruled in the negative regarding jurisdiction. The Court reiterated that the perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is jurisdictional. While petitioner timely filed his motion for execution pending appeal, he belatedly filed his motion for reconsideration of the denial of this motion. The Supplemental Decision, which denied the motion for execution pending appeal and ordered the transmission of records to the COMELEC, became final and executory with respect to petitioner due to his failure to timely seek reconsideration. Consequently, the trial court lost jurisdiction to act on the motion for partial reconsideration and to grant the execution pending appeal. The Court disagreed with petitioner's contention that the Supplemental Decision was void for failing to state the facts and law on which it was based, clarifying that this constitutional provision refers to decisions, not to rulings on mere motions. Even if the denial of the motion for execution pending appeal was erroneous, petitioner's remedy was to timely seek relief, which he failed to do. On the application of the rule on finality of judgments and motions for reconsideration: The Court emphasized that by the mere lapse of time, the Supplemental Decision was rendered final and executory with respect to petitioner. He had no more right to move for its reconsideration, even on an incidental matter. Correspondingly, the trial court had the duty not to act on the motion for partial reconsideration when the decision, as to petitioner, was already final. The Court distinguished the case from Asmala vs. COMELEC, noting that in Asmala, the trial court still had jurisdiction because the period to appeal had not yet lapsed when the motion for execution was granted, whereas in the present case, petitioner's period to appeal had already lapsed and the records were transmitted to the COMELEC. On the timeliness of petitioner's motion for partial reconsideration: The Supreme Court found that petitioner's motion for partial reconsideration was filed out of time. Petitioner admitted receiving the Supplemental Decision on September 1, 1999, and filing his motion on September 7, 1999, which was six days later. Petitioner's claim that September 6, 1999, was a Sunday and thus the filing on September 7 was timely was found to be untrue; September 6, 1999, was a Monday. Therefore, the motion was filed a day after the period to appeal had lapsed, rendering the Supplemental Decision, including the denial of the motion for immediate execution, final and executory.
Main Doctrine
The trial court loses jurisdiction over a motion for execution pending appeal once all parties have perfected their appeals or the period to appeal has lapsed, and the records have been transmitted to the appellate court. A motion for reconsideration of a denial of such motion, if filed out of time, renders the denial final and executory, precluding the trial court from granting the execution.