Short answer. Yes, as a rule. Rule 52, Section 4 provides that a motion for reconsideration filed on time and by the proper party automatically stays execution of the judgment or final resolution being reconsidered, unless the Court of Appeals, for good reasons it must state, directs execution to proceed anyway.

What the law says

The pendency of a motion for reconsideration filed on time and by the proper party shall stay the execution of the judgment or final resolution sought to be reconsidered unless the court, for good reasons, shall otherwise direct.

Rule 52, Section 4 — Stay of execution. Read the full provision →

The automatic stay

Rule 52, Section 4 gives a real, practical benefit to filing a motion for reconsideration on time: while it is pending, the judgment or final resolution it attacks cannot be enforced. This spares the losing party from having to comply with, or suffer execution of, a ruling that the court itself might still change. The stay is not something the party has to separately request — it follows automatically from the pendency of a timely, properly filed motion.

Two conditions that must be met

The protection only applies if the motion was filed on time — within the fifteen-day period — and by the proper party, meaning someone with standing to seek reconsideration of that particular judgment. A late motion, or one filed by someone not entitled to bring it, does not trigger the automatic stay, leaving the judgment enforceable despite the motion being on file.

The court's power to lift the stay

The stay is not absolute. The section expressly allows the Court of Appeals, for good reasons, to direct that execution proceed anyway despite the pending motion. This gives the court flexibility in situations where letting the judgment sit unenforced during reconsideration would cause disproportionate harm or where the motion appears to be a delaying tactic, though the section does not itself define what counts as a good reason.

What the moving party should still expect

Because the stay depends on the motion having been filed on time and by a proper party, a movant should not treat the automatic stay as guaranteed simply because a motion labeled 'motion for reconsideration' was filed. The safer practice is confirming the filing date falls within the reglementary period and that the party bringing the motion actually has standing to seek reconsideration of that specific judgment, since either defect can leave the judgment enforceable notwithstanding the motion on file. A party who mistakenly believes any motion labeled reconsideration halts enforcement may find execution has already proceeded by the time the timeliness or standing defect is raised, so verifying both conditions before relying on the stay is worth doing immediately after filing.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.