Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Topic: Intervention Appeal From Judgment: Doctrines Only
Topic: Intervention Appeal From Judgment: Doctrines Only
Board of Airlines
Representatives, G.R. No. 193247, Sept 14,
2011
1. Hyun Hyung Park v. Eung Won Choi, G.R.
No. 220826, March 27, 2019 TOPIC: INTERVENTION; APPEAL FROM
2. Metrobank. v. Justice Sandoval, et al., G.R. JUDGMENT
No. 169677, February 18, 2013
3. Neri v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 202243, Intervention is not a matter of right but it
August 7, 2013 may be permitted by the courts when the applicant
4. People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. shows facts which satisfy the requirements
149495, August 21, 2003 authorizing intervention.20 In G.R. No. 193247, the
5. Spouses Coronel v. Solis- Quesada, G.R. Court of Appeals denied Carbonilla, et al.’s motion
No. 237465, October 07, 2019 for intervention in its 26 February 2009 Resolution
on the ground that the case was for collection of
Topic: Demurrer to evidence unpaid overtime services and thus should be
pursued in a separate proceeding against the
"A demurrer to evidence is defined as 'an objection proper respondents. A reading of the Carbonilla, et
or exception by one of the parties in an action at al.’s Omnibus Motion supports the ground invoked
law, to the effect that the evidence which his by the Court of Appeals in denying the motion.
adversary produced is insufficient in point of law
(whether true or not) to make out his case or It should be stressed that the allowance or
sustain the issue.' The demurrer challenges the disallowance of a motion for intervention is
sufficiency of the plaintiffs evidence to sustain a addressed to the sound discretion of the courts.
verdict. In passing upon the sufficiency of the The permissive tenor of the Rules of Court shows
evidence raised in a demurrer, the court is merely the intention to give the courts the full measure of
required to ascertain whether there is competent or discretion in allowing or disallowing the
sufficient proof to sustain the indictment or to intervention. Once the courts have exercised this
support a verdict of guilt." discretion, it could not be reviewed by certiorari or
controlled by mandamus unless it could be shown
that the discretion was exercised in an arbitrary or
6. Navy Officer’s Vill. Ass’n. v. Republic, G.R. capricious manner. Carbonilla, et al. failed to show
No. 177168, August 3, 2015. that the Court of Appeals rendered its resolution in
7. Metrobank v. International Exchange Bank, an arbitrary or capricious manner.
G.R. No. 176008, August 10, 2011
The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over
The purpose of intervention is to enable a stranger BAR’s petition stems from Section 1 in relation to
to an action to become a party in order for him to Section 3, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
protect his interest and for the court to settle all Procedure which states that appeals from "awards,
conflicting claims. Intervention is allowed to avoid judgments, final orders or resolutions of or
multiplicity of suits more than on due process authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the
considerations. To warrant intervention under Rule exercise of its quasi judicial functions[,]" which
19 of the Rules of Court, two requisites must includes the Office of the President, may be taken
concur: (1) the movant has a legal interest on the to the Court of Appeals. BAR’s petition for review to
matter in litigation; and (2) intervention must not the Court of Appeals from the 12 March 2007
unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the Decision and 14 March 2008 Resolution of the
rights of the parties, nor should the claim of the Office of the President falls within the jurisdiction of
intervenor be capable of being properly decided in the Court of Appeals.
a separate proceeding.
9. Ongco v. Dalisay, 691 Phil. 462 (2012)
A person seeking to intervene in a suit must show 10. Yu, et al. v. Miranda, et al., G.R. No.
that he has legal interest which must be actual and 225752, March 27, 2019
material, direct and immediate. He must show that 11. Rivero v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
he will either gain or lose by direct legal operation 141273, May 17, 2005
and effect of a judgment. 12. Solid Homes, Inc. v. Spouses Jurado, G.R.
No. 219673, September 02, 2019
13. UP v. Abueva, et al., G.R. No. 171182, decision rendered on a complaint in a civil
August 23, 2012 action or proceeding does not bind or
prejudice a person not impleaded therein,
Doctrine: Exception to the doctrine of immutability for no person shall be adversely affected by
of a final judgment the outcome of a civil action or proceeding
in which he is not a party. The principle that
It is true that a decision that has a person cannot be prejudiced by a ruling
attained finality becomes immutable and rendered in an action or proceeding in
unalterable, and cannot be modified in any which he has not been made a party
respect, even if the modification is meant to conforms to the constitutional guarantee of
correct erroneous conclusions of fact and due process of law.
law, and whether the modification is made
by the court that rendered it or by this Court When the trial court or appellate court
as the highest court of the land. Public issues a judgment or final resolution in a
policy dictates that once a judgment case involving several parties, the right of
becomes final, executory and unappealable, one party to file a motion for reconsideration
the prevailing party should not be deprived or appeal is not hinged on the motion for
of the fruits of victory by some subterfuge reconsideration or appeal of the other party.
devised by the losing party. Unjustified
delay in the enforcement of such judgment
sets at naught the role and purpose of the
courts to resolve justiciable controversies 16. Gadrinab v. Salamanca, et al., G.R. No.
with finality. Indeed, all litigations must at 194560, June 11, 2014
some time end, even at the risk of
occasional errors. A judgment on compromise agreement is a
But the doctrine of immutability of a judgment on the merits. It has the effect of
final judgment has not been absolute, and res judicata, and is immediately final and
has admitted several exceptions, among executory unless set aside because of
them: (a) the correction of clerical errors; (b) falsity or vices of consent. The doctrine of
the so-called nunc pro tunc entries that immutability of judgments bars courts from
cause no prejudice to any party; (c) void modifying decisions that have already
judgments; and (d) whenever circumstances attained finality, even if the purpose of the
transpire after the finality of the decision that modification is to correct errors of fact or
render its execution unjust and inequitable. law.
Moreover, in Heirs of Maura So v. Obliosca,
we stated that despite the absence of the
preceding circumstances, the Court is not 17. Spouses Bernardo v. Union Bank, G.R. No.
precluded from brushing aside procedural 208892, September 18, 2019
norms if only to serve the higher interests of 18. Magbanua v. Uy, 497 Phil. 511 (2005).
justice and equity. Also, in Gumaru v. 19. Santos v. Santos, G.R. No. 214593, July 17,
Quirino State College, the Court nullified the 2019
proceedings and the writ of execution Topic: Judgment upon compromise
issued by the RTC for the reason that
respondent state college had not been On one hand, the immutability and
represented in the litigation by the Office of immediate effect of judgments upon
the Solicitor General. compromise is well-settled. In Magbanua
v. Uy, it was held that: When a compromise
agreement is given judicial approval, it
14. Sioson v. Avanceña, G.R. No. 161387, becomes more than a contract binding upon
March 13, 2009 the parties. Having been sanctioned by the
15. Prescilla, et al. v. Lasquite and Andrade, court, it is entered as a determination of a
G.R. No. 205805, September 25, 2019 controversy and has the force and effect of
a judgment. It is immediately executory and
It is elementary that a judgment of a court is not appealable, except for vices of consent
conclusive and binding only upon the or forgery. The nonfulfillment of its terms
parties and their successors-in-interest after and conditions justifies the issuance of a
the commencement of the action in court. A writ of execution; in such an instance,
execution becomes a ministerial duty of the errors, such as to render a judgment
court. which the court ought to have rendered,
However, like any other judgment, a in place of the one it did erroneously
judgment upon compromise which is render, nor to supply nonaction by the
contrary to law is a void judgment; and court, however erroneous the judgment
"[a] void judgment or order has no legal may have been. (Wilmerding vs. Corbin
and binding effect. It does not divest Banking Co., 28 South., 640, 641; 126 Ala.,
rights, and no rights can be obtained 268.)
under it; all proceedings founded upon a
void judgment are equally worthless." A nunc pro tunc entry in practice is
an entry made now of something which was
20. Unirock Corporation v. Carpio, G.R. No. actually previously done, to have effect as
213421, August 24, 2020 of the former date. Its office is not to
21. Briones-Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. supply omitted action by the court, but
No. 144882, Feb. 4, 2005 to supply an omission in the record of
action really had, but omitted through
Nunc pro tunc judgments have been inadvertence or mistake. (Perkins vs.
defined and characterized by this Court in Haywood, 31 N. E., 670, 672.)
the following manner: The office of a
judgment nunc pro tunc is to record some
act of the court done at a former time which It is competent for the court to make
was not then carried into the record, and the an entry nunc pro tunc after the term at
power of a court to make such entries is which the transaction occurred, even though
restricted to placing upon the record the rights of third persons may be affected.
evidence of judicial action which has been But entries nunc pro tunc will not be ordered
actually taken. It may be used to make the except where this can be done without
record speak the truth, but not to make it injustice to either party, and as a nunc pro
speak what it did not speak but ought to tunc order is to supply on the record
have spoken. If the court has not something which has actually occurred,
rendered a judgment that it might or it cannot supply omitted action by the
should have rendered, or if it has court
rendered an imperfect or improper
judgment, it has no power to remedy
these errors or omissions by ordering 22. Spouses Mahusay v. B.E. San Diego, Inc.,
the entry nunc pro tunc of a proper G.R. No. 179675, June 8, 2011
judgment. Hence a court in entering a 23. Dizon v. Judge Lopez, A.M. No. RTJ-96-
judgment nunc pro tunc has no power to 1338, September 5, 1997
construe what the judgment means, but
only to enter of record such judgment as Merely reading the dispositive portion of the
had been formerly rendered, but which decision to the accused is not sufficient. It is the
had not been entered of record as judgment that must be read to him, stating the facts
rendered. In all cases the exercise of the and the law on which such judgment is based.
power to enter judgments nunc pro tunc
presupposes the actual rendition of a A "sin perjuicio" judgment is a judgment without a
judgment, and a mere right to a judgment statement of the facts in support of its conclusion to
will not furnish the basis for such an entry. be later supplemented by the final judgment.
(15 R. C. L., pp. 622-623.)
The object of a judgment nunc The Court has expressed approval of the practice
pro tunc is not the rendering of a new of some judges of withholding the dispositive
judgment and the ascertainment and portion from their opinions until the very last
determination of new rights, but is one moment of promulgation of their judgment in order
placing in proper form on the record, the to prevent leakage, but that refers to the
judgment that had been previously preparation of their decision, not its promulgation.
rendered, to make it speak the truth, so What must be promulgated must be the complete
as to make it show what the judicial decision. There would be no more reason to keep
action really was, not to correct judicial the dispositive portion a secret at the stage of
promulgation of judgment.
24. Sister Fernando v. Judge Sta. Maria, G.R. The reason for this is that litigation must end and
No. 160730, December 10, 2004 terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is
essential to an effective and efficient administration
Section 4, Rule 36 of the Revised Rules of of justice that, once a judgment has become final,
Civil Procedure provides – the winning party be not deprived of the fruits of the
verdict. Courts must guard against any scheme
SEC. 4. Several judgments.—In an action calculated to bring about that result and must
against several defendants, the court may, frown upon any attempt to prolong the
when a several judgment is proper, render controversies.93
judgment against one or more of them,
leaving the action to proceed against the
The doctrine rests upon the principle that “parties
others.
ought not to be permitted to litigate the same issue
more than once[.]”94 It “exists as an obvious rule of
A several judgment is proper
reason, justice, fairness, expediency, practical
when the liability of each party is clearly
necessity, and public [tranquility].”95
separable and distinct from that of his
co-parties, such that the claims against
Precluding re-litigation of the same dispute is made
each of them could have been the
in recognition that judicial resources are finite and
subject of separate suits, and judgment
the number of cases that can be heard by the court
for or against one of them will not
is limited. Thus, the principle of res judicata seeks
necessarily affect the other.
to conserve scarce judicial resources and to
25. Associated Anglo-American Tobacco v. CA, promote efficiency. Moreover, it precludes the risk
G.R. No. 167237, April 23, 2010 of inconsistent results and prevents the
26. Jose v. Javellana, G.R. No. 158239, embarrassing problem of two (2) conflicting judicial
January 25, 2012 decisions when there is re-litigation. 96 Hence, res
27. Calderon v. Roxas, G.R. No. 185595, judicata “encourages reliance on judicial decision,
January 9, 2013 bars vexatious litigation, and frees the courts to
28. Napocor v. Delta P., Inc., G.R. No. 221709, resolve other disputes.”97
October 16, 2019
29. Webb v. Gatdula, G.R. No. 194469, Res judicata embraces two (2) concepts: (1) bar by
September 18, 2019 prior judgment; and (2) conclusiveness of
judgment.
Civil contempt is one’s failure to fulfill a
court order in a civil action that would Res judicata by bar by prior judgment, enunciated
benefit the opposing party. It is, therefore, in Rule 39, Section 47(b)98 of the Rules of Court, is
an offense against the party in whose in effect when, “between the first case where the
behalf the violated order was made. Good judgment was rendered and the second case that is
faith is not a defense in civil contempt sought to be barred, there is identity of parties,
proceedings. subject matter, and causes of action.” 99
In res judicata, primacy is given to the first case. Thus, the judgment in the first case constitutes an
The underlying reason for this rule is the doctrine of absolute bar to the second action.
immutability of final judgments, which is essential
for the effective and efficient administration of The second concept, pertaining to conclusiveness
justice.91 In Siy v. National Labor Relations of judgment, is found in Rule 39, Section 47(c)100 of
Commission:92 the Rules of Court. There is conclusiveness of
judgment when “there is identity of parties in the
first and second cases, but no identity of causes of
[W]ell-settled is the principle that a decision that action[.]” Moreover, “the first judgment is
has acquired finality becomes immutable and conclusive only as to those matters actually and
unalterable and may no longer be modified in any directly controverted and determined and not as to
respect even if the modification is meant to correct matters merely involved therein.”101 Thus, when a
erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it court of competent jurisdiction judicially tried and
will be made by the court that rendered it or by the settled a right or fact, or an opportunity for a trial
highest court of the land. has been given, the court’s judgment should be
conclusive upon the parties.102 In Nabus v. Court of
Appeals:103 of judgment.106
It has been held that in order that a judgment in one The principle of res judicata, a civil law
action can be conclusive as to a particular matter in principle, is not applicable in criminal cases,
another action between the same parties or their
privies, it is essential that the issues be identical. If
a particular point or question is in issue in the 30. FGU Insurance Corp. v. RTC of Makati City,
second action, and the judgment will depend on the Br. 66, 659 Phil. 117 (2011)
determination of that particular point or question, a
former judgment between the same parties will be
final and conclusive in the second if that same point
or question was in issue and adjudicated in the first
suit; but the adjudication of an issue in the first case
is not conclusive of an entirely different and distinct
issue arising in the second. In order that this rule
may be applied, it must clearly and positively
appear, either from the record itself or by the aid of
competent extrinsic evidence that the precise point
or question in issue in the second suit was involved
and decided in the first. And in determining
whether a given question was an issue in the prior
action, it is proper to look behind the judgment to
ascertain whether the evidence necessary to
sustain a judgment in the second action would have
authorized a judgment for the same party in the first
action.104 (Citations omitted)