Case Digest (G.R. No. 144678)
Facts:
Javier E. Zacate v. Commission on Elections and Thelma C. Baldado, G.R. No. 144678, March 01, 2001, Supreme Court En Banc, Gonzaga-Reyes, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Javier E. Zacate and private respondent Thelma C. Baldado were opponents for Mayor of Sulat, Eastern Samar in the May 1998 elections; the Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed private respondent the winner by 239 votes. Petitioner filed an election protest in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Borongan, Samar (Election Protest No. 01-98).On August 3, 1999 the RTC rendered a decision later promulgated on August 13, 1999 declaring petitioner the winner by one vote (2,638 to 2,637). On the same promulgation date private respondent filed a notice of appeal to the COMELEC. The next day (August 14, 1999) petitioner moved for immediate execution of the judgment pending appeal; private respondent opposed, citing her perfected appeal.
On August 24–27, 1999 the RTC issued a Supplemental Decision: it corrected the winning margin to two votes and denied petitioner’s motion for execution pending appeal on the ground that the court had lost jurisdiction because private respondent had perfected her appeal, and it ordered transmission of the records to the COMELEC. Petitioner received the Supplemental Decision on September 1, 1999 and filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration on September 7, 1999 (six days later).
After hearings the RTC on October 11, 1999 reversed its Supplemental Decision, held it retained jurisdiction to entertain the execution motion, and ordered a writ of execution (issued October 25, 1999). Private respondent moved to rescind; that motion was denied, and on November 11, 1999 she filed with the COMELEC a petition for certiorari to annul the RTC’s order granting execution pending appeal.
On March 21, 2000 the COMELEC Second Division granted private respondent’s petition and set aside the RTC’s October 11, 1999 Resolution and the writ of execution, ruling that the RTC had lost jurisdiction because private respondent had perfected her appeal and the RTC had already transmitted the records to the COMELEC; the Division also held petitioner’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration was filed out of the five-day period and that Rule 35, Section 19 of the COMELEC Rules prohibits motions for reconsideration. The COMELEC En Banc denied petitioner’s reconsideration on September 12, 2000.
Petitioner sought certiorari relief from the Supreme Court under Section 3, Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Court in relation to Section 13(a) of COMELEC Rule 18, contending the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in holding the RTC had completely lost jurisdiction over petitioner’s timely motion for immediate execution pending appe...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the trial court had completely lost jurisdiction over petitioner’s motion for immediate execution of judgment pendin...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)