Facts:

The case involves Javier E. Zacate (petitioner) and Thelma C. Baldado (private respondent), both candidates for the position of Mayor in the Municipality of Sulat, Eastern Samar, during the May 1998 elections. The Municipal Board of Canvassers declared Baldado as the duly elected mayor, having received 2,958 votes compared to Zacate's 2,719 votes, resulting in a margin of 239 votes. Dissatisfied with the election results, Zacate filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court of Borongan, Samar, which was docketed as Election Protest No. 01-98. On August 3, 1999, the trial court issued a decision declaring Zacate as the duly elected mayor with 2,638 votes against Baldado's 2,637 votes, giving him a winning margin of one vote. On the same day, Baldado filed a notice of appeal. The following day, Zacate filed a Motion for Immediate Execution of Judgment Pending Appeal, which Baldado opposed, claiming that her appeal had already been perfected. On August 24, 19...

Facts:

Election Protest and Initial Decision

• Petitioner Javier E. Zacate and private respondent Thelma C. Baldado were candidates for Mayor in Sulat, Eastern Samar, during the May 1998 elections.
• Private respondent was proclaimed the winner with 2,958 votes against petitioner’s 2,719 votes, a margin of 239 votes.
• Petitioner filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Borongan, Samar, docketed as Election Protest No. 01-98.
• On August 3, 1999, the RTC declared petitioner the winner with 2,638 votes against private respondent’s 2,637 votes, a margin of one vote.

Appeal and Motion for Execution Pending Appeal

• On August 13, 1999, private respondent filed a notice of appeal.
• On August 14, 1999, petitioner filed a Motion for Immediate Execution of Judgment Pending Appeal, which private respondent opposed, arguing that her appeal had already been perfected.
• On August 24, 1999, private respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Clarificatory Judgment, claiming both candidates had equal votes (2,637).
• On August 27, 1999, petitioner filed a Supplemental Memorandum, asserting that valid votes in his favor were omitted in Precincts 4A and 15A1, and he should have won by 21 votes, not one.

Supplemental Decision and Denial of Execution

• On August 27, 1999, the RTC issued a Supplemental Decision, correcting petitioner’s winning margin to two votes instead of one.
• The Supplemental Decision denied petitioner’s motion for execution pending appeal, citing lack of jurisdiction due to private respondent’s perfected appeal.
• The RTC ordered the transmission of the case records to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).

Motion for Partial Reconsideration

• On September 7, 1999, petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Supplemental Decision, contesting the denial of his motion for execution pending appeal.
• On October 11, 1999, the RTC reversed its Supplemental Decision, ruling that it still had jurisdiction to grant execution pending appeal and that valid grounds existed for such execution.
• On October 25, 1999, the RTC issued a Writ of Execution.

COMELEC Proceedings

• On November 11, 1999, private respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the COMELEC to annul the RTC’s order granting execution pending appeal.
• On March 21, 2000, the COMELEC Second Division granted private respondent’s petition, ruling that the RTC had lost jurisdiction when it granted execution pending appeal.
• On September 12, 2000, the COMELEC En Banc denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Final COMELEC Resolution

• On November 24, 2000, the COMELEC First Division affirmed the RTC’s decision declaring petitioner the winner, this time with a margin of 108 votes.
• Petitioner argued that the issue of execution pending appeal had become moot and academic.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Jurisdiction Over Execution Pending Appeal: Under Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a trial court may grant discretionary execution only while it has jurisdiction over the case and is in possession of the original records. Once an appeal is perfected and the records are transmitted to the appellate court, the trial court loses jurisdiction.
2. Finality of Supplemental Decision: The Supplemental Decision denying execution pending appeal became final and executory when petitioner failed to timely file his Motion for Partial Reconsideration. The COMELEC Rules of Procedure provide a five-day period to appeal, and petitioner filed his motion six days after receiving the Supplemental Decision.
3. Prohibition on Motions for Reconsideration: The COMELEC Rules prohibit motions for reconsideration of decisions, and petitioner’s motion for partial reconsideration was barred under Rule 35, Section 19.
4. Residual Jurisdiction: The RTC’s residual jurisdiction to correct errors or omissions in its decision does not extend to reconsidering a final and executory decision. The Supplemental Decision could not be corrected after the period to appeal had lapsed.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court affirmed the COMELEC’s ruling, holding that the RTC had no jurisdiction to grant execution pending appeal after private respondent perfected her appeal and the records were transmitted to the COMELEC. Petitioner’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration was filed out of time, rendering the Supplemental Decision final and executory. The petition was dismissed, and costs were imposed on petitioner.