Ust Golden Notes Remedial Law 2 152 200

C2
C2
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
a. If the application is granted – the court The court may make such orders in regard to the
shall require the refusing party or refusal as are just, and among others the following:
deponent to answer the question or
interrogatory. 1. An order that the matters regarding which the
questions were asked, or the character or
b. If the court also finds that the refusal to description of the thing or land, or the contents
answer was without substantial of the paper, or the physical or mental condition
justification – it may require the refusing of the party, or any other designated facts shall
party or deponent or the counsel advising be taken to be established for the purposes of
the refusal, or both of them, to pay the the action in accordance with the claim of the
proponent the amount of the reasonable party obtaining the order;
expenses incurred in obtaining the order,
including attorney’s fees. 2. An order refusing to allow the disobedient
party to support or oppose designated claims or
c. If the application is denied and the court defenses or prohibiting him from introducing in
finds that it was filed without evidence designated documents or things or
substantial justification – the court may items of testimony, or from introducing
require the proponent or the counsel evidence of physical or mental condition;
advising the filing of the application, or
both of them, to pay to the refusing party or 3. An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof,
deponent the amount of the reasonable or staying further proceedings until the order is
expenses incurred in opposing the obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding
application, including the attorney’s fees. or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by
(Sec. 1, Rule 29) default against the disobedient party; and
Contempt of Court 4. In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in

addition thereto, an order directing the arrest
If a party or other witness refuses to be sworn or of any party or agent of a party for disobeying
refuses to answer any question after being directed any of such orders except an order to submit to
to do so by the court of the place in which the a physical or mental examination. (Sec. 3, Rule
deposition is being taken, the refusal may be 29)
considered a contempt of that court. (Sec. 2, Rule 29)
Effect of Failure to Serve Written
Other Consequences Interrogatories
If any party or an officer or managing agent of a GR: A party not served with written interrogatories
party refuses to obey: may not be compelled by the adverse party to give
1. An order made under Sec. 1 of Rule 29 requiring testimony in open court, or to give a deposition
him to answer designated questions; pending appeal.
2. An order under Rule 27 to produce any XPN: When allowed by the court and there is good
document or other thing for inspection, cause shown and the same is necessary to prevent a
copying, or photographing or to permit it to be failure of justice. (Sec. 6, Rule 25, ROC, as amended)
done, or to permit entry upon land or other
property; or Q: Spouses XY filed a complaint for nullification
of mortgage and foreclosure against XYZ Bank
3. An order made under Rule 28 requiring him to before the trial court. Spouses XY filed a Motion
submit to a physical or mental examination. for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum Ad
Testificandum to require XYZ Bank’s officers to
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 138

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2
III. CIVIL PROCEDURE

appear as Spouses XY’s initial witnesses during The answer to a request for admission properly
a hearing for the presentation of their evidence- served which was signed and sworn to by the
in-chief, and to bring the documents relative to counsel of the party so requested is sufficient
their loan with Metrobank, as well as those compliance with this rule, especially in the light of
covering the extrajudicial foreclosure and sale counsel’s authority under Secs. 21 and 23, Rule 138.
of Spouses XY’s land. XYZ Bank opposed arguing (Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 102404, 01 Feb.
that its officers may not be compelled to appear 2002)
and testify in court for the Spouses since they
were not initially served with written When Request for Admission is made
interrogatories. RTC denied the Motion for
Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum Ad At any time after issues have been joined, a party
Testificandum ruling that XYZ Bank and its may file and serve upon any other party a written
officers are adverse parties who cannot be request for the admission by the latter. (Sec. 1, Rule
summoned to testify unless written 26, ROC, as amended)
interrogatories are first served upon them. Is
service of written interrogatories upon Bank’s IMPLIED ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY;
officers necessary before the latter can be CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO ANSWER
subpoenaed? REQUEST FOR ADMISSION
A: YES. As a rule, in civil cases, the procedure of GR: Each of the matters of which an admission is
calling the adverse party to the witness stand is not requested shall be deemed admitted.
allowed, unless written interrogatories are first
served upon the latter. The rule aims to prevent XPN: The request for admission must be served
fishing expeditions and needless delays; it is there directly upon the party; otherwise, the party to
to maintain order and facilitate the conduct of trial. whom the request is directed cannot be deemed to
It will be presumed that a party who does not serve have admitted the genuineness of any relevant
written interrogatories on the adverse party document described in and exhibited with the
beforehand will most likely be unable to elicit facts request or relevant matters of fact set forth therein
useful to its case if it later opts to call the adverse on account of failure to answer the request for
party to the witness stand as its witness. (Sps. admission. (Briboneria v. CA, G.R. No. 101682, 14 Dec.
Afulugencia v. Metropolitan Bank, G.R. No. 185145, 1992)
05 Feb. 2014)
Period within which to answer Request for
3. ADMISSION BY ADVERSE PARTY Admission
(RULE 26)
Under the Rules, each of the matters of which an
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION admission is requested shall be deemed admitted
unless within a period designated in the request
Matters requested to be admitted by the which shall not be less than fifteen (15) calendar
Adverse Party days after service thereof, or within such further
time as the court may allow on motion, the party to
1. Genuineness of any material and relevant whom the request is directed files and serves upon
document described in and exhibited with the the party requesting the admission a sworn
request; or statement either denying specifically the matter of
2. Truth of any material and relevant matter of which an admission is requested or setting forth in
fact set forth in the request. (Sec. 1, Rule 26, ROC, detail the reason why he or she cannot truthfully
as amended) either admit or deny those matters. (Sec. 2, Rule 26,
ROC, as amended)
139 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
NOTE: Objections to any request for admission shall 4. PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION
be submitted to the court by the party requested OF DOCUMENTS OR THINGS
within the period for and prior to the filing of his or (RULE 27)
her sworn statement as contemplated in the
preceding paragraph and his or her compliance Court Order under this Mode of Discovery
therewith shall be deferred until such objections are
resolved, which resolution shall be made as early as Upon motion of any party showing good cause
practicable. (Ibid.) therefor, the court in which an action is pending
may order any party to:
EFFECT OF ADMISSION
1. Produce and permit the inspection and copying
Any admission made by a party pursuant to such or photographing, by or on behalf of the moving
request is for the purpose of the pending action only party, or of any designated documents, papers,
and shall not constitute an admission by him or her books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects
for any other purpose nor may the same be used or tangible things, not privileged, which
against him or her in any other proceeding. (Sec. 3, constitute or contain evidence material to any
Rule 26, ROC, as amended) matter involved in the action and which are in
his or her possession, custody or control; or
Objections to any Request for Admission
2. Permit entry upon designated land or other
They shall be submitted to the court by the party property in his or her possession or control for
requested within the period for and prior to the the purpose of inspecting, measuring,
filing of his or her worn statement. The period for surveying, or photographing the property or
compliance to the request for admission shall be any designated relevant object or operation
deferred until such objections are resolved, which thereon. (Sec. 1, Rule 27, ROC, as amended)
resolution shall be made as early as practicable.
(Sec. 2(b), Rule 26, ROC, as amended) Limitations on the Request for Production or
Inspection of Documents or Things
Withdrawal of Admission
1. Should not be privileged;
The court may allow the party making the
admission to withdraw or amend the admission NOTE: On the ground of public policy, the rules
upon such terms as may be just. (Sec. 4, Rule 26, ROC, providing for production and inspection of
as amended) books and papers do not authorize the
production or inspection of privileged matter;
Effect of Failure to File and Serve Request for that is books and papers which, because of their
Admission confidential and privileged character, could not
be received in evidence. (Riano, 2019)
Unless otherwise allowed by the court for good
cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice a 2. Should constitute or contain evidence material
party who fails to file and serve a request for to any matter involved in the action and which
admission on the adverse party of material and are in his (the party ordered) possession,
relevant facts at issue which are, or ought to be, custody, or control (Sec. 1, Rule 27, ROC, as
within the personal knowledge of the latter, shall amended); and
not be permitted to present evidence on such facts.
(Sec. 5, Rule 26, ROC, as amended) 3. In the petition, the papers and documents to be
produced must be sufficiently described.

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
case the judgment in one trial is conclusive as to A: There is no effect. The ejectment case involves
the others. possession de facto only. The action to enforce the
option to purchase will not suspend the action of
2. Actual consolidation – Several actions are ejectment for non-payment of rentals. (Wilmon Auto
combined into one. The cases lose their identity Supply Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 97637, 10 Apr. 1992)
and become a single action in which a single
judgment is rendered. What and When to Hold Separate Trials
3. Consolidation for trial – Several actions are The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid
ordered to be tried together, but each retains its prejudice, may order a separate trial of any claim,
separate character and requires the entry of a crossclaim, counterclaim, or third-party complaint,
separate judgment. or of any separate issue or of any number of claims,
cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party complaints
Rule on Consolidation of Cases or issues. (Sec 2, Rule 31, ROC, as amended)
GR: Consolidation is discretionary upon the court to

avoid multiplicity of suits, guard against oppression
or abuse, prevent delay, clear congested dockets,
and simplify the work of the trial court and save
unnecessary costs and expenses.
XPN: Consolidation becomes a matter of duty when:
1. Two or more cases are pending before the same

judge; or
2. If cases are filed with the different branches of
the same RTC and one of such case has not been
partially tried. (Raymundo v. Felipe, G.R. No. L-
30887, 24 Dec. 1971)
Suspension of Civil Actions
1. If willingness to discuss a possible compromise

is expressed by one or both parties; or
2. If it appears that one of the parties, before the
commencement of the action or proceeding,
offered to discuss a possible compromise but
the other party refused the offer. (Sec. 8, Rule 30,
ROC, as amended; Art. 2030, NCC)
Q: Doris filed a complaint for ejectment in the

MTC on the ground of non-payment of rentals
against Minda. After 2 days, Minda filed in the
RTC a complaint against Doris for specific
performance to enforce the option to purchase
the parcel of land subject of the ejectment case.
What is the effect of Minda's action on Doris'
complaint? Explain. (2000 BAR)

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2

passengers, common carriers are presumed to have
R. DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless
(RULE 33) they prove that they observed extraordinary
diligence. Proof that the defendant was negligent
and that such negligence was the proximate cause of
When to File Demurrer to Evidence the collision is not required. Thus, without proof
that ABS Co. has exercised extraordinary diligence,
After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of the presumption of negligence stands.
his or her evidence, the defendant may move for
dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the 1. GROUNDS
law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. (Sec 1,
Rule 33, ROC, as amended) The only ground for demurrer to evidence is upon
showing that upon the facts and the law, the plaintiff
Nature of Demurrer to Evidence has shown no right to relief. (Sec. 1, Rule 33, ROC, as
amended)
A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the
ground of insufficiency of evidence and is presented Q: Philippine National Oil Company would
after the plaintiff rests his case. It is an objection by regularly enter into charter agreements with
one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the vessels and vessel owners would pay “address
evidence which his or her adversary produced is commissions” to PNOC as charterer. Allegedly,
insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to during the tenure of Velasco, no address
make out a case or sustain the issue. The evidence commissions were remitted to PNOC. Velasco
contemplated by the rule on demurrer is that which was likewise alleged to have diverted
pertains to the merits of the case. (Gonzales v. government funds by entering into several
Bugaay, G.R. No. 173008, 22 Feb. 2012) transactions and by reason of which he receives
bribes, kickbacks or commissions. A Complaint
Q: ABS Co. is the operator of several buses. One was filed by petitioner Republic before the
of the buses owned by ABS Co. rammed upon a Sandiganbayan (SB) for the recovery of ill-
dump truck causing the instantaneous death of gotten assets allegedly amassed by the
Nilo, one of the passengers of the ill-fated bus. individual respondents during the
Consequently, Nestor, son of Nilo, filed a administration of the late President Marcos.
complaint against ABS Co. for damages. After
Nestor had rested his case, ABS Co. filed a After the filing of the parties’ responsive
demurrer to evidence, contending that Nestor's pleadings, trial on the merits ensued.
evidence is insufficient because it did not show Subsequently, upon the conclusion of its
(1) that ABS Co. was negligent and (2) that such presentation of evidence, petitioner Republic
negligence was the proximate cause of the submitted its Formal Offer of Evidence.
collision. Should the court grant or deny Respondent Borja filed his Demurrer to
defendant's demurrer to evidence? (2004 BAR) Evidence of even date. The SB found that the
evidence presented was insufficient to support a
A: NO. The court should not grant defendant’s claim for damages against Borja, thereby
demurrer to evidence. Under the Rules of Court, granting Borja’s Demurrer to Evidence. Did the
after the plaintiff has completed the presentation of SB correctly grant the Demurrer to Evidence?
his evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal
on the ground that upon the facts and the law the A: YES. A demurrer to evidence is a motion to
plaintiff has shown no right to relief. Here, Nestor dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.
has shown that he is entitled to the relief he is asking It is a remedy available to the defendant, to the
for. ABS Co. is a common carrier. Under Art.1756 of effect that the evidence produced by the plaintiff is
the Civil Code, in case of death of or injuries to insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to

C2
C2
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
Action of Courts upon Facts and Issues not 1. JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
pleaded by the Parties (RULE 34)
It is vital to keep in mind that in the process of a) GROUNDS

rendering judgment or in resolving controversies,
courts can only consider facts and issued pleaded by Grounds for Judgment on the Pleadings (1999
the parties. Courts, as well as magistrates presiding BAR)
over them are not omniscient. They can only act on
the facts and issues presented before their own 1. The answer fails to tender an issue because of:
personal knowledge for evidence. Nor may they a. General denial of the material allegations of
take notice of matters except those expressly the complaint;
provided as subjects of mandatory judicial notice. b. Insufficient denial of the material
(Social Justice Society v. Atienza, G.R. No. 156052, 13 allegations of the complaint;
Feb. 2008)
2. The answer admits material allegations of the
Requisites of a Valid Judgment adverse party’s pleadings. (Sec. 1, Rule 34, ROC,
as amended)
1. The court or tribunal must be clothed with
authority to hear and determine the matter Instances when Judgment on the Pleadings is
before it; not applicable
2. The court must have jurisdiction over the
parties and the subject matter; 1. Actions for declaration of nullity of marriage,
3. The parties must have been given an annulment of marriage or for legal separation;
opportunity to adduce evidence in their behalf; 2. Unliquidated damages;
4. The evidence must have been considered by the 3. Insufficiency of fact – amendment is the
tribunal in deciding the case; remedy.
5. The judgment must be in writing, personally
and directly prepared by the judge; and b) ACTION ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
ON THE PLEADINGS
NOTE: A verbal judgment is, in contemplation
of law, not in esse, therefore, ineffective. (Corpuz Action on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162214, 11 Nov.
2004) The court may motu proprio or on motion render
judgment on the pleadings if it is apparent that the
6. The judgment must clearly state the facts and answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits
the law on which it is based, signed by the judge the material allegations of the adverse party’s
and filed with the clerk of court. (Sec. 1, Rule 36) pleadings. Otherwise, the motion shall be subject to
the provisions of Rule 15 of these Rules.
NOTE: This requirement refers to decisions and
final orders on the merits not to those resolving Any action of the court on a motion for judgment on
incidental matters. (Pablo-Gualberto v. the pleadings shall not be subject of an appeal or
Gualberto, G.R. No. 154994, 28 June 2005) petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus.
(Sec. 2, Rule 34, ROC, as amended)

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
v. Union Bank of the Phil., G.R. No. 133801, 27 June motion. (Sec. 3, Rule 35, 2019 Amendments to the
2000) Rules on Civil Procedure)
Summary judgments are sanctioned by the Rules of Any action of the court on a motion for
Court as a device to simplify and expedite the summary judgment shall not be subject of an
resolution of cases when, as shown by pleadings, appeal or petition for certiorari, prohibition or
affidavits, depositions or admissions on the records, mandamus. (Ibid.)
there are no genuine issues which would entail an 2. The pleadings, supporting affidavits,
expensive, lengthy and protracted trial. (Jose depositions, and admissions show no genuine
Feliciano Loy, Jr., et al. v. San Miguel Corporation issue as to any material fact, except for the
Employees Union-Philippine Transport and General amount of damages; and
Workers Organization, et al., G.R. No. 164886, 24 Nov.
2009) NOTE: The court may still order the conduct of
a hearing.
NOTE: A claimant may at any time after the pleading
in answer thereto has been served, and the 3. The party presenting the motion for summary
defendant may, at any time, move with supporting judgment must be entitled to a judgment as a
affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary matter of law.
judgment in his favor upon all or any part thereof.
(Secs. 1 and 2, Rule 35) Q: The Republic filed a complaint for recovery of
possession against Calubaquib, et al., who
Genuine Issue on any Material Facts allegedly entered a military reservation site
and, through strategy and stealth, took
An issue of material fact exists if the answer or possession of a five-hectare portion thereof.
responsive pleading filed specifically denies the Calubaquib, et al. then countered that their
material allegations of fact set forth in the complaint predecessor-in-interest had been in open and
or pleading. If the issue of fact requires the continuous possession of the property since the
presentation of evidence, it is a genuine issue of fact. early 1900s. While they acknowledge the
(Ibid.) issuance of the Proclamation, they insist that the
subject property is excluded from its operation,
Fictitious or Sham Issue citing that the Proclamation itself said it was
“subject to private rights”. On the basis of the
Trial may be dispensed with and a summary foregoing admitted facts, the RTC rendered a
judgment rendered if the case can be resolved summary judgment, even without the motion of
judiciously by plain resort to the pleadings, either party. The RTC dismissed Calubaquib, et
affidavits, depositions, and other papers filed by the al’s claim of possession of the property in the
parties. (Olivarez Realty v. Castillo, G.R. No. 196251, concept of an owner. Was the summary
09 July 2014) judgment proper?
Requisites of Summary Judgment (2015 BAR) A. NO. The remedy of summary judgment without a
motion being filed is in derogation of a party's right
1. The motion shall cite the supporting affidavits, to a plenary trial of his case; the trial court cannot
depositions or admissions, and the specific law railroad the parties’ rights over their objections. A
relied upon; summary judgment is permitted only if there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving
NOTE: The adverse party may file a comment party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
and serve opposing affidavits, depositions, or The filing of a motion and the conduct of a hearing
admissions within a non-extendible period of on the motion are important because these enable
five (5) calendar days from receipt of the the court to determine if the parties’ pleadings,

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2

affidavits and exhibits in support of, or against, the annulled its former ruling based on a claim of
motion are sufficient to overcome the opposing possession and ownership of the same land for
papers and adequately justify the finding that, as a more than 30 years without the benefit of a full-
matter of law, the claim is clearly meritorious or blown trial. The fact that Garcia, et al. seek to nullify
there is no defense to the action. The non- the original certificate of title issued to Eland on the
observance of the procedural requirements of filing claim that the former was in possession of the same
a motion and conducting a hearing on the said land for a number of years, is already a clear
motion warrants the setting aside of the summary indicium that a genuine issue of a material fact
judgment. Here, the trial court proceeded to render exists. (Eland Philippines, Inc. v. Azucena Garcia et
summary judgment with neither of the parties filing al., G.R. No. 173289, 17 Feb. 2010)
a motion therefor. (Calubaquib, et al. v. Republic, et
al., G.R. No. 170658, 22 June 2011) FOR THE CLAIMANT
Important Features of Rule 35 A party seeking to recover upon a claim,

counterclaim, or crossclaim or to obtain a
1. There is no limitation as to the type of action in declaratory relief may, at any time after the pleading
which the remedy is available (claim, in answer thereto has been served, move with
counterclaim, cross claim, declaratory relief); supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions for
2. The remedy is available to both parties alike; a summary judgment in his or her favor upon all or
and any part thereof. (Sec. 1, Rule 35, ROC, as amended)
3. The summary judgment procedure has been
coupled with deposition-discovery procedure FOR THE DEFENDANT
(Feria & Noche, 2013).
A party against whom a claim, counterclaim or
Q: Garcia, et al. filed a complaint for quieting of crossclaim is asserted or a declaratory relief is
title with writ of preliminary injunction with the sought may, at any time, move with supporting
RTC against Eland Philippines, Inc. The latter affidavits, depositions or admissions for a summary
found out that the lot was the subject of a land judgment in his or her favor as to all or any part
registration proceeding that had already been thereof. (Sec. 2, Rule 35, ROC, as amended)
decided by the same court. Eland thus filed a
motion to dismiss. The motion was denied and Bases of Summary Judgment
the trial court enjoined Eland to file its answer.
Thereafter, Garcia, et.al. moved to declare Eland 1. Affidavits made on personal knowledge;
in default which was granted and the former 2. Depositions of the adverse party or a third
were allowed to present evidence ex parte. After party under Rule 23;
the many motions initiated by Eland were 3. Admissions of the adverse party under Rule 26;
denied, Garcia, et al. moved for summary and
judgment. The motion was granted and the trial 4. Answers to interrogatories under Rule 25. All
court decided in Garcia’s, et al. favor. Is intended to show that:
summary judgment proper?
a. There is no genuine issue as to any material
A: NO. Trial courts have limited authority to render fact, except damages which must always be
summary judgments and may do so only when there proved; and
is clearly no genuine issue as to any material fact. b. The movant is entitled to a judgment as a
Eland is already the registered owner of the parcel matter of law.
of land in question, pursuant to a decree of
registration based on the ruling of the same court Burden of Demonstrating the Absence of
that granted the summary judgment. By granting Genuine Issue of Fact
the summary judgment, the trial court has in effect

C2
REMEDIAL LAW
The party who moves for summary judgment has A: NO. The plaintiff may not properly take an appeal
the burden of demonstrating clearly that the issue from said order because it is an interlocutory order,
posed in the complaint is patently unsubstantial so not a final and appealable order. It does not dispose
as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial. (Riano, of the action or proceeding. Partial summary
2019) judgments are interlocutory. There is still
something to be done, which is the trial for the
WHEN THE CASE NOT FULLY ADJUDICATED adjudication of damages, but the defendant may
properly challenge said order thru a special civil
Consequences when a Case is not fully action for certiorari under Rule 65 on the ground of
adjudicated; Partial Summary Judgment (2004, abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
2009 BAR) jurisdiction.
If on motion, judgment is not rendered upon the AFFIDAVITS AND ATTACHMENTS

whole case or for all the reliefs sought and a trial is
necessary, the court may, by examining the Form
pleadings and the evidence before it and by
interrogating counsel, ascertain what material facts 1. Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be
exist without substantial controversy, including the made on personal knowledge,
extent to which the amount of damages or other 2. It shall set forth such facts as would be
relief is not in controversy, and direct such further admissible in evidence,
proceedings in the action as are just. The facts so 3. It shall show affirmatively that the affiant is
ascertained shall be deemed established, and the competent to testify to the matters stated
trial shall be conducted on the controverted facts therein.
accordingly. (Sec. 4, Rule 35, ROC, as amended) 4. Certified true copies of all papers or parts
thereof referred to in the affidavit shall be
NOTE: A partial summary judgment is not a final or attached thereto or served therewith. (Sec. 5,
appealable judgment. (Province of Pangasinan v. CA, Rule 35, ROC, as amended)
G.R. No. 104266, 31 Mar. 1993)
Affidavit in Bad Faith
Q: After Geoff has served and filed his answer to
John's complaint for damages, John served and Should it appear to its satisfaction at any time that
filed a motion for a summary judgment in his any of the affidavits presented pursuant to the Rules
favor upon all of his claims. Geoff served and are presented in bad faith, or solely for the purpose
filed his opposition to the motion. After due of delay.
hearing, the court issued an order (1) stating
that the court has found no genuine issue as to Effect of Affidavits in Bad Faith
any material fact and thus concluded that John is
entitled to judgment in his favor as a matter of The court:
law except as to the amount of damages
recoverable, and (2) accordingly ordering that 1. Shall forthwith order the offending party or
John shall have judgment summarily against counsel to pay to the other party the amount of
Geoff for such amount as may be found due John reasonable expenses which the filing of the
for damages, to be ascertained by trial on affidavits caused him or her to incur, including
October 7, 2004, at 8:30 in the morning. May attorney’s fees;
Geoff properly take an appeal from said order? 2. May, after hearing, further adjudge the
Or may Geoff properly challenge said order thru offending party or counsel guilty of contempt.
a special civil action for certiorari? (2004 BAR) (Sec. 6, Rule 35, ROC, as amended)

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
Q: Plaintiff sued defendant for collection of P1 an issue as his defenses are sham for being
million based on the latter's promissory note. inconsistent is without merit.
The complaint alleges, among others: 1)
Defendant borrowed P1 million from plaintiff as b. Should the court grant defendant's motion
evidenced by a duly executed promissory note. for summary judgment? (2015 BAR)
The promissory note reads:
A: YES. The court should grant Defendant’s motion
"Makati, Philippines (Dec. 30, 2014) for summary judgment. Under Section 2 of Rule 35,
For value received from plaintiff, defendant a defendant may at any time, move with supporting
promises to pay plaintiff P1 million, twelve (12) admissions for a summary judgment in his favor.
months from the above indicated date without Here, the Plaintiff had impliedly admitted the
necessity of demand. genuineness and due execution of the
Signed acknowledgment receipt, which was the basis of
Defendant" Defendant’s defense, by failing to specifically deny it
under oath. Hence the Defendant may move for a
A copy of the promissory note is attached as summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiff had
Annex "A." Defendant, in his verified answer, admitted that Defendant had already paid the P1
alleged among others: 1) Defendant specifically million obligation.
denies the allegation in paragraphs 1 and 2 of
the complaint, the truth being defendant did not 3. RENDITION AND ENTRY OF JUDGMENTS
execute any promissory note in favor of plaintiff, AND FINAL ORDERS
or 2) Defendant has paid the P1 million claimed (RULE 36)
in the promissory note (Annex "A" of the
Complaint) as evidenced by an" Rendition of Judgment (2004 BAR)
Acknowledgment Receipt" duly executed by
plaintiff on January 30, 2015 in Manila with his Rendition of judgment is the filing of the same with
spouse signing as witness. A copy of the the clerk of court. Even if the judgment has already
"Acknowledgment Receipt" is attached as Annex been put in writing and signed, it is still subject to
"1" hereof. Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment amendment if it has not yet been filed with the clerk
on the pleadings on the ground that defendant's of court; and before its filing, it does not yet
answer failed to tender an issue as the constitute the real judgment of the court. (Ago v. CA,
allegations therein on his defenses are sham for G.R. No. L-17898, 31 Oct. 1962)
being inconsistent; hence, no defense at all.
Defendant filed an opposition claiming his Promulgation
answer tendered an issue.
It is the process by which a decision is published,
a. Is judgment on the pleadings proper? officially announced, made known to the public or
Defendant filed a motion for summary delivered to the clerk of court for filing, coupled
judgment on the ground that there are no with notice to the parties or their counsel.
longer any triable genuine issues of facts.
NOTE: In civil cases, a judgment is rendered, while
A: NO. Under Section 2 of Rule 8, a party may set in criminal cases and election cases, a judgment is
forth two or more statements of a defense rendered and promulgated.
alternatively or hypothetically. The Supreme Court
has held that inconsistent defenses may be pleaded Q: In an election contest between Mr. Palma and
alternatively or hypothetically provided that each Mr. Monsod, the COMELEC en banc unanimously
defense is consistent with itself. (Baclayon v. Court resolved the dispute in favor of Monsod.
of Appeals, 26 Feb. 1990) Hence Plaintiff’s COMELEC Commissioner Garci participated at
contention that defendant’s answer failed to tender the deliberation of the said resolution. However,

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2

when the resolution on the said dispute was party, who is unable to pinpoint the possible errors
promulgated by COMELEC en banc, of the court for review by a higher. (Miguel v. JCT
Commissioner Garci was no longer a member of Group, Inc., G.R. No. 157752, 16 Mar. 2005)
the COMELEC en banc. Mr. Palma contends that
the decision of the COMELEC en banc was null Rendition of a Judgment based on Issues not
and void because Commissioner Garci, who took Raised
part in the resolution of the case, was no longer
connected with COMELEC. Is Mr. Palma correct? GR: A judgment must conform to the pleading and
the theory of the action under which the case was
A: NO. A decision becomes binding only after it is tried. A judgment going outside the issues and
validly promulgated. Consequently, if at the time of purporting to adjudicate something on which the
the promulgation of a decision or resolution, a parties were not heard is invalid. Therefore, where
member of the collegiate court who had earlier a court enters a judgment or awards relief beyond
signed or registered his vote has vacated his office, the prayer of the complaint or the scope of its
his vote is automatically withdrawn or cancelled. allegations the excessive relief is not merely
The Resolution, in this case, remains valid because irregular but is void for want of jurisdiction and is
it is still supported by a majority of the COMELEC en open to collateral attack.
banc. (Benwaren v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 169393, 07
Apr. 2006) XPN: Such issues were tried with the express or
implied consent of the parties.
Preparation of a Judgment (2004 BAR)
Person to Decide a Case
A judgment or final order determining the merits of
the case shall be in writing personally and directly GR: A case once raffled to a branch belongs to that
prepared by the judge, stating clearly and distinctly branch unless re-raffled or otherwise transferred to
the facts and the law on which it is based, signed by another branch in accordance with the established
him, and filed with the clerk of the court. (Sec. 1, Rule procedure. When the Presiding Judge of that branch
36) to which a case has been raffled or assigned is
transferred to another station, he leaves behind all
No Requirement to State in its Decision all the the cases he tried with the branch to which they
Facts Found in the Records belong. He does not take these cases with him even
if he tried them and the same were submitted to him
While it is required that decisions, no matter how for decision. The judge who takes over this branch
concisely written, must distinctly and clearly set inherits all these cases and assumes full
forth the facts and the law upon which they are responsibility for them. He may decide them as they
based (Naguiat v. NLRC, G.R. No. 116123, 13 Mar. are his cases.
1997), the rule however, does not require that the
court shall state in its decision all the facts found in XPN: Any of the parties moves that his case be
the records. (People v. Derpo, G.R. No. L-41040 & decided by the judge who substantially heard the
43908-10, 14 Dec. 1988) A decision need not be a evidence and before whom the case was submitted
complete recital of the evidence presented. So long for decision. (Valentin v. Sta. Maria, G.R. No. L-30158,
as the factual and legal basis is distinctly and clearly 17 Jan. 1974)
set forth, the judgment is valid. (Chan v. CA, G.R. No.
159922, 28 Apr. 2005) NOTE: A decision penned by a judge after his
retirement cannot be validly promulgated and
NOTE: A decision that does not clearly and cannot acquire a binding effect. In like manner, a
distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is decision penned by a judge during his incumbency
based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was cannot be validly promulgated after his retirement.
reached and is especially prejudicial to the losing (Nazareno v. CA, G.R. No. 111610, 27 Feb. 2002)

C2
REMEDIAL LAW
Judgment may be penned by a Judge who did not is confined in its operation to subsequent
hear the Evidence proceedings in the same case. (Ibid.)
It is not necessary that the judge who heard the NOTE: This rule does not apply to resolutions
evidence be the same judge who shall pen the rendered in connection with the case wherein no
decision. The judge who originally tried the case rationale has been expounded on the merits of that
may die, resign, be disabled or transferred to action.
another. In such an eventuality, another judge has to
continue and finish the trial. Principle of Stare decisis et non quieta movere
When Decision is Binding on the Parties It holds that a point of law, once established by the
SC, will generally be followed by the same court and
A judgment or order whether final or interlocutory by all courts of lower rank in subsequent cases
does not bind the parties until and unless notice involving a similar legal issue. This proceeds from
thereof is duly served on them by any of the modes the legal principle that, in the absence of powerful
prescribed by law. This is so even if the order or countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be
judgment has in fact been orally pronounced in the decided alike.
presence of the parties or a draft thereof drawn up
and signed and/or copy thereof somehow read or NOTE: It is founded on the necessity for securing
acquired by any party. certainty and stability in the law and does not
require identity of or privity of parties.
The Doctrine of Law of the Case
Interlocutory Order (2006 BAR)
The Doctrine of Law of the Case simply means that
when an appellate court has once declared the law It is an order which decides some point or matter
in a case, its declaration continues to be the law of between the commencement and end of the suit but
that case even on a subsequent appeal, is not the final decision on the whole controversy. It
notwithstanding that the rule thus laid down may leaves something to be done by the court before the
have been reversed in other cases. (DBP v. Guariña case is finally decided on the merits.
Agricultural and Realty Development Corporation,
G.R. No. 160758, 15 Jan. 2014) Remedy to Question an Improvident
Interlocutory Order
Law of the case has been defined as the opinion
delivered on a former appeal. More specifically, it File a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 not under
means that whatever is once irrevocably Rule 45. A petition for review under Rule 45 is the
established as the controlling legal rule or decision proper mode of redress to question only final
between the same parties in the same case continues judgments.
to be the law of the case, whether correct on general
principles or not, so long as the facts on which such NOTE: One cannot appeal an interlocutory order.
decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the
case before the court. (Mercury Group of Companies, ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER
Inc. v. Home Development Mutual Fund, G.R. No.
171438, 19 Dec. 2007) Entry of Judgment (2000 BAR)
It is merely a rule of procedure and does not go to It refers to the physical act performed by the clerk
the power of the court and will not be adhered to of court in entering the dispositive portion of the
where its application will result in an unjust judgment in the book of entries of judgment and
decision. It relates entirely to questions of law and after the same has become final and executory. The
record shall contain the dispositive portion of the

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
Collateral Attack on a Judgment Effect of a Judgment or Final Order of a Tribunal
of a Foreign Country having Jurisdiction to
GR: The validity of a judgment or order of a court render the Judgment or Final Order (2007 BAR)
cannot be collaterally attacked.
1. If the judgment is on a specific thing, the
XPNs: It may be attacked collaterally on the judgment is conclusive upon the title to the
following grounds: thing; and
2. If the judgment is against a person, the
1. Lack of jurisdiction; or judgment is presumptive evidence of a right as
2. The irregularity of its entry is apparent between the parties and their successor in
from the face of the record. interest by a subsequent title. (Sec. 48, Rule 39,
ROC, as amended)
Effect of Void Judgments (Doctrine of Total
Nullity) Grounds in assailing the Judgment or Final
Order of a Foreign Country (2007 BAR)
A void judgment is in legal effect no judgment. By it
no rights are divested, no rights can be obtained. 1. Evidence of want of jurisdiction;
Being worthless in itself, all proceeding founded 2. Want of notice to the party;
upon it are equally worthless. It neither binds nor 3. Collusion;
bars anyone. All acts performed under it and all 4. Fraud; or
claims flowing out of it are void. 5. Clear mistake of fact or law.
Q: Jayson, a career service officer, was illegally

dismissed from his position. Thus, Jayson filed a T. POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES
complaint for illegal dismissal with the Career
Executive Service Board (CESB). While the said
complaint was pending before the CESB, Jayson
filed a petition for quo warranto with the CA 1. Before a judgment becomes final and executory,
praying that he be reinstated to his former post. the aggrieved party or losing party may avail of
The CESB rendered a decision finding that the following remedies:
Jayson was illegally dismissed. The CA found
that Jayson resigned and was not illegally a. Motion for Reconsideration;
dismissed. Both decisions became final for b. Motion for New Trial; and
failure to appeal the same. Are the two decisions c. Appeal.
immutable and unalterable in view of their
finality? 2. After the judgment becomes executory, the
aggrieved party or losing party may avail of the
A: NO. As a rule, a decision that has acquired finality following:
becomes immutable and unalterable. A final
judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, a. Petition for relief from judgment;
even if the modification is meant to correct b. Action to annul judgment;
erroneous conclusions of fact and law; and whether c. Certiorari; and
it be made by the court that rendered it or by the d. Collateral attack of a judgment.
highest court in the land. In this case, however, to
hold that both decisions are immutable and
unalterable would cause confusion and uncertainty.
(Collantes v. CA, G.R. No. 169604, 06 Mar. 2007)

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2
C2
C2
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
Purpose of an MR earlier passed upon and rejected by the appellate
court. A movant may raise the same arguments
The purpose of an MR is precisely to request the precisely to convince the court that the ruling was
court or the quasi- judicial body to take a second erroneous. The Court upholds the CA’s finding that
look at its earlier judgment and correct any errors it respondents Heirs of Cabotaje’s Motion for
may have committed therein. (Reyes v. Pearl Bank Reconsideration on the RTC’s Decision is not a pro
Securities, G.R. No. 171435, 30 July 2008) forma motion that prevented the tolling of the
reglementary period to file an appeal. (Valencia
When Partial Reconsideration Allowed (Bukidnon) Farmers’ Cooperative Marketing
Association, Inc. v. Heirs of Cabotaje, G.R. No. 219984,
If the court finds that a motion affects the issues of 03 April 2019)
the case as to only a part, or less than all of the
matters in controversy, or only one, or less than all, a) REMEDY AGAINST DENIAL
of the parties to it, the order may grant a
reconsideration as to such issues if severable If a party wishes to challenge the denial of his or her
without interfering with the judgment or final order MNT or MR, he or she may include such denial in the
upon the rest. (Sec. 7, Rule 37, ROC, as amended) assignment of errors of the appeal from the
judgment or final order. The order denying an MNT
Pro forma Motion or MR is not appealable, the remedy being an appeal
from the judgment or final order. (Sec. 9, Rule 37,
A pro forma motion is one which does not satisfy the ROC, as amended) The movant has a fresh period of
requirements of the rules and one which will be fifteen days from receipt or notice of the order
treated as a motion intended to delay the denying or dismissing the motion for
proceedings. (Marikina Development Corporation v. reconsideration within which to file a notice of
Flojo, G.R. No. 110801, 08 Dec. 1995) appeal. It is no longer assailable by certiorari. (Sec.
9, Rule 37, as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC)
A pro forma motion for new trial shall not toll the
reglementary period of appeal. (Sec. 2, Rule 37, ROC, GRANT OF THE MOTION; EFFECT
as amended)
Effect if the MR is granted
Q: FACOMA, represented by its Directors Belara
and Pagonzaga instituted an action for quieting The court may amend such judgment or final order
a title and recovery of ownership and accordingly. (Sec. 3, Rule 37, ROC, as amended) The
possession of a parcel of land, and damages amended judgment is in the nature of a new
against respondents Heirs of Cabotaje and judgment which supersedes the original judgment
Francisco Estrada. The RTC ruled in favor of the and is not a mere supplemental decision. (Esquivel
plaintiffs. Thereafter, the respondent Heirs of v. Alegre, G.R. No. 79425, 17 Apr. 1989)
Cabotaje filed notice of appeal and the RTC
deemed their motion for reconsideration as a Effect if the MNT is granted
pro forma motion, failing to toll the
reglementary period to file an appeal. However, If the motion for new trial is granted in accordance
the CA found that the Motion for with the provisions of the rules, the original
Reconsideration filed by respondent Heirs of judgment shall be vacated or set aside, and the
Cabotaje is not a pro forma motion. Hence, the action shall stand for trial de novo; but the recorded
Notice of Appeal filed by the latter was not filed evidence taken upon the former trial so far as the
out of time. Is the CA correct? same is material and competent to establish the
issues, shall be used at the new trial without
A: YES. A Motion for Reconsideration is not a pro retaking the same. (Sec. 6, Rule 37, ROC, as amended)
forma motion just because it reiterated arguments

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2

Effect of an Order Reversing the Grant of a New Fresh-Period Rule does NOT apply to
Trial Administrative Cases
Legally speaking, the effect of the order It is settled that the fresh period rule in Neypes
withdrawing the grant of new trial is that the applies only to judicial appeals and proceedings, not
original judgment shall be deemed as having been to administrative appeals and proceedings.
repromulgated. In other words, since the original (Panolino v. Tajala, G.R. No. 183616, 29 June 2010;
judgment had already been vacated, the San Lorenzo Ruiz Builders & Dev. Corp., Inc. v.
reconsideration of the grant of new trial does not in Bayang, G.R. No. 194702, 20 Apr. 2015)
turn vacate the said grant, although the original In the case wherein the court did not apply the
judgment is given a new life. (Pineda v. CA, G.R. No. Neypes Rule to administrative decisions, the
L-38196, 22 July 1975) specific administrative rules of procedure
applicable in such cases precluded the application of
b) FRESH-PERIOD RULE the Fresh Period Rule. (Puerto del Sol Palawan, Inc.
v. Gabaen, G.R. No. 212607, 27 Mar. 2019)
Fresh-Period Rule or Neypes Rule
Retroactive Application of the Fresh-Period
To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rule
Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to
appeal their cases, the Court deems it practical to The fresh period rule may be applied retroactively
allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file to cases where the period for appeal had lapsed
the notice of appeal, counted from the receipt of the prior to 14 September 2005 when Neypes was
order dismissing a motion for new trial or motion promulgated. Procedural laws may be given
for reconsideration. (Neypes v. CA, G.R. No. 141524, retroactive effect to actions pending and
14 Sept. 2005) undetermined at the time of their passage, there
being no vested rights in the rules of procedure. (Fil-
Application of Fresh-Period Rule Estate Properties, Inc. v. Homena-Valencia, G.R. No.
173942, 25 June 2008)
It applies to:
MR as a Requirement for Filing a Petition for
1. Rule 40 – MTC to RTC Certiorari under Rule 65
2. Rule 41 – Appeals from RTC
3. Rule 42 – Petition for Review from RTC to CA GR: MR is a condition sine qua non for filing a
4. Rule 43 – Appeals from quasi-judicial agencies petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
to CA
5. Rule 45 – Appeals by certiorari to the SC NOTE: Its purpose is to grant an opportunity for the
court to correct any actual or perceived error
Fresh-Period Rule applies to Criminal Cases attributed to it by re-examination of the legal and
factual circumstances of the case.
Although Neypes involved the period to appeal in
civil cases, the Court’s pronouncement of a “fresh XPNs:
period” to appeal should equally apply to the period
for appeal in criminal cases under Section 6 of Rule 1. Where the order is a patent nullity, as where the
122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. court a quo has no jurisdiction;
(Judith Yu v. Samson- Tatad, G.R. No. 170979, 09 Feb.
2011) 2. Where the questions raised in the certiorari
proceedings have been duly raised and passed
upon by the lower court, or are the same as

C2
REMEDIAL LAW
those raised and passed upon in the lower provisions of law. (Stolt-Nielsen v. NLRC, G.R. No.
court; 147623, 13 Dec. 2005)
3. Where there is an urgent necessity for the Basic Guidelines regarding Appeal
resolution of the question and any further delay
would prejudice the interests of the 1. GR: No trial de novo (starting from the
Government or of the petitioner or the subject beginning) shall be made. The appellate courts
matter of the action is perishable; must decide the case on the basis of the record.
4. Where, under the circumstances, a motion for XPNs:

reconsideration would be useless; a. When the proceedings were not duly
5. Where petitioner was deprived of due process recorded as when there was absence of a
and there is extreme urgency for relief; qualified stenographer (Sec. 22(d), BP 129;
Rule 21(d), Interim Rule);
6. Where, in a criminal case, relief from an order b. Instances when the CA may act as a trial
of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief court.
by the trial court is improbable; 2. No new parties;
3. No change of theory (Naval v. CA, G.R. No.
7. Where the proceedings in the lower court are a 167412, 22 Feb. 2006);
nullity for lack of due process; 4. No new matters (Ondap v. Aubga, G.R. No. L-
24392, 28 Feb. 1979);
8. Where the proceeding was ex parte or in which 5. The amendment of pleadings allowed to
the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and conform to the evidence submitted before the
trial court (Dayao v. Shel, G.R. No. L-32475, 30
9. Where the issue raised is one purely of law or Apr. 1980);
where public interest is involved. (Rep. of the 6. The liability of solidarity defendant who did not
Phils. v. Bayao, G.R. No. 179492, 05 June 2013) appeal is not affected by appeal of solidarity
debtor (Mun. of Orion v. Concha, G.R. No. 26671,
2. APPEALS 17 Sept. 1927);
7. Appeal by guarantor does not inure to the
a) NATURE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL principal (Luzon Metal v. Manila Underwriter,
G.R. No. L-27863, 29 Aug. 1969);
Appeal is the elevation by an aggrieved party of any 8. In ejectment cases, the RTC cannot award to the
decision, order or award of a lower body to a higher appellant on his counterclaim more than the
body, by means of a document which includes the amount of damages beyond the jurisdiction of
assignment of errors, memorandum of arguments in the MTC (Agustin v. Bataclan, 135 SCRA 342); or
support thereof, and the reliefs prayed for. 9. The appellate court cannot dismiss the
(Technogas Philippines Manufacturing Corporation appealed case for failure to prosecute because
v. Clave, 08635-SP, 31 May 1979) the case must be decided on the basis of the
record. (Rule 21, Interim Rules)
Constitutional Right to Appeal
NOTE: Appeal is a speedy remedy, as an adverse
It is not a constitutional or a natural right. (Canton v. party can file its appeal from a final decision or
City of Cebu, G.R. No. 152898 12 Feb. 2007) order immediately after receiving it. A party, who is
alleging that an appeal will not promptly relieve it
The right to appeal is not part of due process but a of the injurious effects of the judgment, should
mere statutory privilege that has to be exercised establish facts to show how the appeal is not speedy
only in the manner and in accordance with the or adequate. (V.C Ponce Company Inc. v. Municipality
of Paranaque, G.R. No. 178431, 12 Nov. 2012)

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2

b) JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDERS SUBJECT TO 7. Order dismissing an action without prejudice
APPEAL (Sec. 1, Rule 41, ROC, as amended); and
8. A judgment based on compromise.
An appeal may be taken only from judgments or
final orders that completely dispose of the case, or NOTE: An order denying a motion for new trial or a
of a particular matter therein when declared by the motion for reconsideration is no longer appealable
Rules of Court to be appealable. (Sec. 1, Rule 41, ROC, as it is no longer part of the enumeration as of 27
as amended) December 2007, per A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC. (Riano,
2019)
Judgment
Remedy against Judgment and Orders which are
The conclusion of the law upon the matters not Appealable
contained in the record, or the application of the law
to the pleadings and to the facts, as found by the In those instances where the judgment or final
court or admitted by the parties or deemed to exist order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file
upon default in a course of judicial proceedings. the appropriate special civil action under Rule 65.
(Gotamco v. Chan Seng, G.R. No. 22737, 28 Nov. 1924) (Sec. 1, Rule 41, ROC, as amended)
Final Order The most potent remedy against those judgments

and orders from which appeal cannot be taken is to
One that puts an end to the particular matter allege and prove that the same were issued without
resolved, leaving thereafter no substantial jurisdiction, with grave abuse of discretion or in
proceedings to be had in connection therewith, excess of jurisdiction, all amounting to lack of
except its execution. (Bairan v. Tan Siu Lay, G.R. No. jurisdiction.
L-19460, 28 Dec. 1966)
d) DOCTRINE OF FINALITY/IMMUTABILITY
Interlocutory Order OF JUDGMENT
It is an order which does not dispose the case but GR: The doctrine of finality of judgment or
leave something to be done by the trial court on the immutability of judgment provides that a decision
merits of the case. that has acquired finality becomes immutable and
unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any
c) MATTERS NOT APPEALABLE; respect, even if the modification is meant to correct
AVAILABLE REMEDIES erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether
it be made by the court that rendered it or by the
1. Order denying a petition for relief or any similar Highest Court of the land. Any act which violates this
motion seeking relief from judgment; principle must immediately be struck down. (Sps.
2. Interlocutory order; Valarao v. MSC and Company, G.R. No. 185331, 08
3. Order disallowing or dismissing an appeal; June 2016)
4. Order denying a motion to set aside a judgment
by consent, confession or compromise on the XPNs: This doctrine admits certain exceptions,
ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or any other these are:
ground vitiating consent;
5. Order of execution; 1. Correction of clerical errors;
6. Judgment or final order for or against one or 2. The so-called nunc protunc entries which cause
more of several parties or in separate claims, no prejudice to any party;
counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party 3. Void judgments; and
complaints, while the main case is pending, 4. Whenever circumstances transpire after the
unless the court allows an appeal therefrom; finality of the decision rendering its execution

C2
REMEDIAL LAW
unjust and inequitable. (Gadrinab v. Salamanca, e) MODES OF APPEAL (PERIOD, PERFECTION,
G.R. No. 194560, 11 June 2014) ISSUES TO BE RAISED)
Q: In a Complaint for Compulsory Recognition (1) APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL TRIAL

COURTS TO REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
and Enforcement of Successional Rights" filed by
(RULE 40)
Antonia Aruego, the Regional Trial Court
declared Antonia as an illegitimate daughter of Procedure of Appeal from Decisions of the MTC
the deceased Aruego Sr. hence entitled to a to the RTC (Rule 40)
share in the latter’s estate. Among others, the
RTC rendered a Decision on June 15, 1992,
declaring what constitutes the estate of Appeal the decision of the MTC by filing
deceased and affirmed the status of Antonia notice of appeal within 15 days, or 30 days
where a record on appeal is required from
Aruego as an illegitimate daughter of the receipt of the judgment or final order.
deceased hence the latter is entitled to one-half
of the share of the deceased’s legitimate
children. A Writ of Execution was issued by the
RTC. Petitioners filed a Motion for Partial Copies of the notice of appeal, and the
record on appeal where required, shall be
Reconsideration but they did not raise therein served on the adverse party.
the supposed error of the court in declaring the
properties enumerated in the dispositive
portion of the Decision as comprising the estate
The MTC clerk shall transmit the original
of Aruego. Antonia filed a Motion for Partition record or the record on appeal, together
alleging the RTC Decision became final and with the transcripts and exhibits to the RTC
executory in view of the denial of the notice of within 15 days from perfection of appeal.
appeal filed by petitioners and the dismissal of
their Petition for Prohibition and Certiorari by Upon receipt of the complete record or the
the CA and the subsequent denial of their appeal record on appeal, the RTC clerk shall notify
to the Supreme Court. Can the Court review and the parties of such fact.
modify the RTC Decision?
1. Within 15 days from notice of appeal –
A: NO. There is no ground to justify the modification appellant shall submit a memorandum to
of the RTC Decision. When a final judgment is the RTC. Failure of appellant to file a
memorandum shall be a ground for
executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable. dismissal of the appeal.
The only recognized exceptions to the general rule
on immutability of final judgments are the 2. Within 15 days from receipt of
correction of clerical errors, the so called nunc pro appellant’s memorandum – appellee may
file his memorandum.
tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party,
void judgments, and whenever circumstances
transpire after the finality of the decision rendering Dismissal of Case Without Trial or Without
its execution unjust and inequitable. These Jurisdiction
exceptions, however, are not present. What
petitioners seek is an order from the court to allow 1. If the lower court dismissed the case without
them to present evidence with regard to the trial on the merits, RTC may:
properties comprising the estate of Aruego and the
heirs who are to share in the inheritance. The Court a. Affirm – In such case, it is a declaration of
cannot issue a writ of certiorari so as to allow the the merits of the dismissal;
petitioners to present evidence as the same should b. Affirm and the ground of dismissal is lack
have been raised by them during trial. (Torres, et al. of jurisdiction over the subject matter –
v. Aruego, G.R. No. 201271, 20 Sept. 2017) The action of the RTC is a mere affirmation
of the dismissal. The RTC shall try the case

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2

on the merits as if the case was originally (2) APPEAL FROM THE REGIONAL
filed with it, if it has jurisdiction; or TRIAL COURTS
c. Reverse – it shall remand the case for (RULE 41)
further proceedings.
Three Modes of Appeal from the Decisions of the
RTC (2009, 2006, 2005, 2002 BAR)
2. If the case was tried on the merits by the lower
court without jurisdiction over the subject
1. Rule 41: Ordinary appeal or appeal by writ of
matter, the RTC shall not dismiss the case if it
error – This presupposes that the RTC
has original jurisdiction, but shall decide the
rendered the judgment or final order in the civil
case, and shall admit amended pleadings and
action or special proceeding in the exercise of
additional evidence. (Sec. 8, Rule 40, ROC, as
its original jurisdiction and appeal is taken to
amended)
the CA on questions of fact or mixed questions
of fact and law. The appeal is taken by notice of
Duty of the Clerk of Court of RTC upon Receipt of
appeal or by record on appeal.
the Complete Record
NOTE: An appeal on pure questions of law

The clerk of court of the RTC shall notify the parties
cannot be taken to the CA and such improper
of such fact. (Sec. 7(a), Rule 40, ROC, as amended)
appeal will be dismissed pursuant to Sec. 2, Rule
50. (Regalado, 2012)
Duties of the Parties to whom Notice was given
by the Clerk of Court
2. Rule 42: Petition for review – The questioned
judgment or final order was rendered by RTC in
1. Within 15 days from such notice, it shall be the
the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over a
duty of the appellant to submit a memorandum
judgment or final order in a civil action or
which shall briefly discuss the errors imputed
special proceeding originally commenced in
to the lower court, a copy of which shall be
and decided by a lower court. The appeal is
furnished by him to the adverse party;
taken by a petition for review filed with CA on
questions of facts, of law or on mixed questions
NOTE: Failure of the appellant to file a
of fact and law. (2009, 1998, 1990 BAR)
memorandum shall be a ground for dismissal of
the appeal
3. Rule 45: Petition for review on certiorari –
Taken to the SC only on questions of law from a
2. Within 15 days from receipt of the appellant’s
judgment or final order rendered in a civil
memorandum, the appellee may file his
action or special proceeding by RTC in the
memorandum. (Sec. 7(a), Rule 40, ROC, as
exercise of its original jurisdiction. The appeal
amended)
is taken by filing a petition for review on
certiorari with the SC. (Regalado, 2010)
When Case is Considered Submitted for Decision
Subject of an Appeal under Rule 41

Upon the filing of the memorandum of the appellee,
or the expiration of the period to do so, the case shall
GR: An appeal may be taken from:
be considered submitted for decision. The Regional
Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of the
1. A judgment or final order that completely
entire records of the proceedings had in the court of
disposes of the case; or
origin and such memoranda as are filed. (Sec. 7(c),
2. A particular matter therein when declared by
Rule 40, ROC, as amended)
the Rules to be appealable. (Sec. 1, Rule 41, ROC,
as amended)
XPNs: No appeal may be taken from:

C2
C2
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for Doctrine of Residual Jurisdiction applicable to
costs, proof of service of the petition, and the Appeals under Rule 42
contents of and the documents which should
accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground However, such residual jurisdiction or power must
for the dismissal thereof. (Sec. 3, Rule 42, ROC, as be exercised before the CA gives due course to the
amended) petition. (Sec. 8, Rule 42, ROC, as amended)
Petition for Review NOT a Matter of Right Effect of an Appeal of the Judgment or Final
Order under Rule 42
It is not a matter of right but discretionary on the CA.
It may only be given due course if it shows on its face Except in civil cases decided under the Rule on
that the lower court has committed an error of fact Summary Procedure, the appeal, as a rule, shall stay
and/or law that will warrant a reversal or the judgment or final order; unless the CA, the law
modification of the decision or judgment sought to or the rules shall provide otherwise.
be reviewed or dismiss the petition if it finds that it
is: Grounds for Dismissal of an Appeal by the CA
1. Patently without merit; 1. Failure of the record on appeal to show on its

2. Prosecuted manifestly for delay; or face that the appeal was taken within the period
3. The questions raised therein are too fixed by the Rules;
unsubstantial to require consideration. (Sec. 4,
Rule 42, ROC, as amended) 2. Failure to file the notice of appeal or the record
on appeal within the period prescribed by the
Actions the CA may take in acting upon the Rules;
Petition
3. Failure of the appellant to pay the docket and
1. The respondent may be required to file a other lawful fees as provided in Section 5 Rule
comment on the petition, not a motion to 40 and Sec. 4 of Rule 41;
dismiss, within 10 days from notice; or
2. The petition may be dismissed if the CA finds 4. Unauthorized alterations, omissions or
the same to be patently without merit, additions in the approved record on appeal as
prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the provided in Sec. 4 of Rule 44;
questions raised therein are too unsubstantial
to require consideration. (Sec. 4, Rule 42, ROC, as 5. Failure of the appellant to serve and file the
amended) required number of copies of his brief or
memorandum within the time provided by the
Contents of Comment on the Petition Rules;
1. State whether or not he accepts the statement 6. Absence of specific assignment of errors in the
of matters involved in the petition; appellant’s brief, or of page references to the
2. Point out the insufficiencies or inaccuracies in record as required in Sec.13, paragraphs (a),
petitioner’s statement of facts and issues; and (c), (d) and (f) of Rule 44;
3. State the reasons why the petition should be
denied or dismissed. (Sec. 5, Rule 42, ROC, as 7. Failure of the appellant to take the necessary
amended) steps for the correction or completion of the
record within the time limited by the court in its
order;

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2

8. Failure of the appellant to appear at the Under the present Rule 45, appeals may be brought
preliminary conference under Rule 48 or to through a petition for review on certiorari but only
comply with orders, circulars, or directives of from judgments and final orders of the court
the court without justifiable cause; and enumerated in Sec. 1 thereof. Appeals from
9. The fact that the order or judgment appealed judgments and final orders of quasi-judicial
from is not appealable. (Sec. 1, Rule 50, ROC, as agencies are now required to be brought to the CA
amended) on a verified petition for review, under the
requirements and conditions in Rule 43 which was
NOTE: The grounds are discretionary upon the precisely formulated and adopted to provide for a
appellate court. The very wording of the rule uses uniform rule of appellate procedure for quasi-
the word “may” instead of “shall.” This indicates that judicial agencies. (Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No.
it is only directory and not mandatory. (Mercury 129742, 16 Sept. 1998)
Drug Corporation v. De Leon, G.R. No. 165622, 17 Oct.
2008) NOTE: The mode of appeal under Rule 45 shall be
applicable to both civil and criminal cases, except in
When Case Deemed Submitted for Decision criminal cases where the penalty imposed is death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. (Sec. 9, Rule
If the petition is given due course, the CA may set the 45, ROC, as amended)
case for oral argument or require the parties to
submit memoranda within a period of 15 days from (4) APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF TAX
notice. The case shall be deemed submitted for APPEALS, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
decision upon the filing of the last pleading or AND QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCIES
(RULE 43)
memorandum required by these Rules or by the
court itself. (Sec. 9, Rule 42, ROC, as amended)
Agencies Enumerated under Rule 43 (2006,
2009 BAR) (C4LOSIN2G-VEB2-SPADE)
Except in civil cases decided under the Rule on
Summary Procedure, the appeal shall stay the
1. Civil Service Commission;
judgment or final order unless the Court of Appeals,
2. Central Board of Assessment Appeals;
the law, or these Rules shall provide otherwise. (Sec.
3. Civil Aeronautics Board;
8(b), Rule 42, ROC, as amended)
4. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission;
5. Land Registration Authority;
Q: Can a case decided by the RTC in the exercise
6. Office of the President;
of its appellate jurisdiction be appealed by way
7. Securities and Exchange Commission;
of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule
8. Insurance Commission;
45?
9. National Electrification Administration;
10. National Telecommunications Commission;
A: NO. Where a case is decided by the RTC in the
11. Government Service Insurance System;
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, regardless of
12. Voluntary Arbitrators authorized by law;
whether the appellant raises questions of fact, of
13. Energy Regulatory Board;
law or mixed questions of fact and law, the appeal
14. Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology
shall be brought to the CA by filing a petition for
Transfer;
review under Rule 42. (Quezon City v. ABS-CBN
15. Board of Investments;
Broadcasting Corporation, G.R. No. 166408, 06 Oct.
16. Social Security Commission;
2008)
17. Philippine Atomic Energy Commission;
18. Agricultural Inventions Board;
Appeals from Quasi-judicial Bodies NOT
19. Department of Agrarian Reform under RA
Included under Rule 45
6657; and
20. Employee Compensation Commission. (Sec. 1,
Rule 43, ROC, as amended)

C2
REMEDIAL LAW
NOTE: The list of quasi-judicial agencies The CA may conduct a factual review only
enumerated under Rule 43 is NOT exclusive. The upon sufficient and demonstrable showing
following are quasi-judicial agencies the judgments that the integrity of the CIAC arbitral
and final orders of which are also covered by Rule tribunal had indeed been compromised, or
43: that it committed unconstitutional or illegal
a. Professional Regulation Commission acts in the conduct of the arbitration.
(Cayao-Lasam v. Sps. Ramolete, G.R. No.
159132, 18 Dec. 2008); 3. Under no other circumstances other than the
b. Bureau of Immigration (Tze Sun Wong v. limited grounds provided may parties appeal to
Wong, G.R. No. 180364, 03 Dec. 2014); and the CA a CIAC arbitral award.
c. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (Monetary
Board v. Philippine Veterans Bank, G.R. No. Where to Appeal from Judgments and Final
18957, 21 Jan. 2015) Orders of Quasi- judicial Bodies
NOTE: In the case of Global Medical Center of Appeals from judgment and final orders of quasi-
Laguna v. Ross Systems International Inc., (G.R. No. judicial bodies or agencies enumerated in Rule 43
230112 & 230119, 11 May 2021) the Supreme Court are now required to be brought to the CA under the
set the following guidelines on modes of judicial requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43.
review vis-à-vis CIAC arbitral awards: (Carpio v. Sulu Resource Dev. Corp., G.R. No. 148267,
08 Aug. 2002)
1. For appeals from CIAC arbitral awards that
have already been filed and are currently Issues raised on Appeal
pending before the CA under Rule 43, the prior
availability of the appeal on matters of fact and The appeal under Rule 43 may raise issues involving
law thereon applies. questions of fact, of law or mixed questions of fact
and law. (Sec. 3, Rule 43, ROC, as amended)
2. For future appeals from CIAC arbitral awards
that will be filed after the promulgation of the NOTE: Rule 43 is not applicable where the petition
Decision: alleges that the challenged resolution is patently
illegal and was issued with grave abuse of discretion
a. If the issue to be raised by the parties is a and beyond respondent’s jurisdiction. The
pure question of law, the appeal should be appropriate remedy is Rule 65 on certiorari.
filed directly and exclusively with the Court
through a petition for review under Rule Filing an Appeal from a Decision of the CTA
45. (2009 BAR)
b. If the parties will appeal factual issues, the An appeal from a decision or resolution of the CTA
appeal may be filed with the CA, but only on in Division on an MNT or MR shall be taken to the
the limited grounds that pertain to either a CTA En Banc by petition for review as provided in
challenge on the integrity of the CIAC Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. (Sec. 4, Rule 8, A.M. No.
arbitral tribunal or an allegation that the 05-11-07-CTA)
arbitral tribunal violated the Constitution
or positive law in the conduct of the arbitral NOTE: The petition for review of a decision or
process, through the special civil action of a resolution of the Court in Division must be preceded
petition for certiorari under Rule 65, on by the filing of a timely MR or new trial with the
grounds of grave abuse of discretion Division before appealing to CTA En Banc in its
amounting to lack or excess in jurisdiction. exercise of appellate jurisdiction. (Sec. 1, Rule 8, A.M.
No. 05-11-07-CTA)

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2

Appeal to the SC by Petition for Review on Jurisdiction of CA to Review the Decisions in
Certiorari (2006 BAR) Criminal and Administrative Cases of the
Ombudsman
A party adversely affected by a decision or ruling of
the CTA en banc may appeal therefrom by filing with 1. In administrative disciplinary cases, the rulings
the SC a verified petition for review on certiorari of the Office of the Ombudsman are appealable
within 15 days from receipt of a copy of the decision to the CA under Rule 43.
or resolution, as provided in Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court. If such party has filed a MR or for new trial, 2. Where the findings of the Ombudsman on the
the period herein fixed shall run from the party’s existence of probable cause in criminal cases is
receipt of a copy of the resolution denying the tainted with grave abuse of discretion
motion for reconsideration or for new trial. (Sec. 1, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the
Rule 16, A.M. No. 05-11-07-CTA) aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari
with the SC under Rule 65. (Enemecio v. Office of
Effect of Appeal the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 146731, 13 Jan. 2004)
The MNT or MR filed before the Court shall be 3. In criminal cases, the ruling of the Ombudsman
deemed abandoned if, during its pendency, the shall be elevated to the SC by way of Rule 65.
movant shall appeal to the SC. (Sec. 1, Rule 8, A.M. No.
05-11-07-CTA) Review of Final Judgments or Final Orders of the
NLRC
Q: Melissa filed with the BIR a complaint for
refund of taxes paid, but it was not acted upon. The remedy is to promptly move for the
So, she filed a similar complaint with the CTA reconsideration of the decision and if denied, to
and was raffled to one of its divisions. Melissa's timely file a special civil action of certiorari under
complaint was dismissed. Thus, she filed with Rule 65 within 60 days from notice of the decision.
the CA a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. In observance of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts,
Does the CA have jurisdiction over Melissa's the petition for certiorari should be filed in the CA.
petition? (2006 BAR) (St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866,
16 Sept. 1998)
A: NO. A decision of a division of the CTA is
appealable within 15 days to the CTA en banc. On NOTE: Those judgments and final orders or
the other hand, a party adversely affected by a resolutions of the Employees Compensation
decision or ruling of the CTA en banc may file with Commission should be brought to the CA through a
the SC a verified petition for review on certiorari petition for review under Rule 43.
pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules. (Aichi Forging Co.
of Asia, Inc. v. Court of Tax Appeals (En Banc), G.R. No. Review of Judgments or Final Orders of Quasi-
193625, 30 Aug. 2017) Judicial Agencies
NOTE: R.A. No. 9282 expanded the jurisdiction of It is an organ of the government other than a court
the CTA and elevated the same to the level of a and other than a legislature, which affects the rights
collegiate court equivalent to the rank of the CA. of private parties either through adjudication or
Hence, the CA no longer has jurisdiction to review rulemaking.
the decisions of the CTA en banc.
Q: Eliza voluntarily offered for sale to the
government, under Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program, a parcel of land. Pursuant to
E.O. No. 405, Landbank made a valuation of the
land. Eliza, thereafter, rejected Landbank’s

C2
REMEDIAL LAW
valuation. Thus, the matter was endorsed to the (Heirs of Eliza Q. Zoleta v. Landbank of the
Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Philippines, G.R. No. 205128, 09 Aug. 2017)
Adjudicator (PARAD) and then was transferred
to the Office of Regional Agrarian Reform Effect of Appeal on the Award, Judgment, Final
Adjudicator (RARAD). The Regional Adjudicator Order or Resolution
(RA) fixed the compensation. Not satisfied,
Landbank filed a petition for just compensation The appeal shall not stay the award, judgment, final
before the RTC, acting as Special Agrarian Court order or resolution sought to be reviewed unless the
(SAC). Eliza filed a Motion for Execution of CA shall direct otherwise upon such terms as it may
Judgment before the Office of the RA. The RA deem just. (Sec. 12, Rule 43, ROC, as amended)
granted the motion for execution and issued an
order directing the issuance of a writ of Remedy of a Party Aggrieved by the Decision of
execution and an alias writ of execution since a Quasi-judicial Agency
the former was returned unsatisfied. Landbank
sought from the SAC the quashal of the writ The aggrieved party must file a verified petition for
which the SAC denied. Hence, it filed before the review under Rule 43 in 7 legible copies within 15
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication days from:
Board (DARAB) a petition for certiorari. DARAB
granted. Does DARAB has jurisdiction in 1. Notice of the award, judgment, final order or
granting the petition for certiorari? resolution;
2. Date of publication, if publication is required by
A: NO. Jurisprudence has settled that DARAB law for its effectivity; or
possesses no power to issue writs of certiorari. 3. Denial of petitioner’s MNT or MR. (Sec. 4, Rule
Jurisdiction, or the legal power to hear and 43, ROC, as amended)
determine a cause or causes of action, must exist as
a matter of law. It is settled that the authority to Contents of Comment to the Petition
issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus
involves the exercise of original jurisdiction which The comment shall:
must be expressly conferred by the Constitution or
by law. 1. Point out the insufficiencies or inaccuracies in
petitioner’s statement of facts and issues; and
As an administrative agency exercising quasi- 2. State the reasons why the petition should be
judicial but not consummate judicial power, DARAB denied or dismissed. (Sec. 9, Rule 43, ROC, as
is inherently incapable of issuing writs of certiorari. amended)
This is not merely a matter of statutorily stipulated
competence but a question that hearkens to the NOTE: It shall be filed within 10 days from notice in
separation of government's tripartite powers: 7 legible copies and accompanied by clearly legible
executive, legislative, and judicial. DARAB's exercise certified true copies of such material portions of the
of the innately judicial certiorari power is an record referred to therein together with other
executive encroachment into the judiciary. It supporting papers.
violates the separation of powers; it is
unconstitutional. With or without a law enabling it, Extension of Time to file Petition for Review
DARAB has no power to rule on jurisdictional
controversies via petitions for certiorari. DARAB's Upon proper motion and the payment of the full
self-serving grant to itself of the power to issue amount of the docket fee before the expiration of the
writs of certiorari in the 1994 DARAB New Rules of reglementary period, the CA may grant additional
Procedure is itself a grave abuse of discretion period of 15 days only within which to file a petition
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It must for review. No further extension shall be granted
be annulled for running afoul of the Constitution. except for the most compelling reason and in no

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2
C2
C2
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
Availment of Both Remedies under Rule 45 and Time to File Petition
65
The petition shall be filed within thirty (30) days
GR: The remedy of appeal under Rule 45 and an from notice of the judgment or final order or
original action for certiorari under Rule 65 are resolution sought to be reviewed. The filing of a
mutually exclusive and not alternative or motion for new trial or reconsideration of said
cumulative. Thus, a party should not join both judgment or final order or resolution, if allowed
petitions in one pleading. (NAMAPRI – SPFL v. CA, under the procedural rules of the Commission
G.R. Nos. 148839-49, 02 Nov. 2006) concerned, shall interrupt the period herein fixed. If
the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file
XPN: The SC may set aside technicality for the petition within the remaining period, but which
justifiable reasons as when the petition before the shall not be less than five (5) days in any event,
Court is clearly meritorious and filed on time both reckoned from notice of denial. (Sec. 3, Rule 64, ROC,
under Rules 45 and 65. In accordance with the as amended)
liberal spirit which pervades the Rules of Court and
in the interest of justice, the Court may treat the Form and Contents
petition as having been filed under Rule 45.
(International Corporate Bank, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 1. The petition shall be verified and filed in
129910, 05 Sept. 2006) eighteen (18) legible copies.
2. The petition shall name the aggrieved party
Appeal from Judgment or Final Order of the as petitioner and shall join as respondents
Sandiganbayan the Commission concerned and the person or
persons interested in sustaining the
1. The appeal to the SC in criminal cases decided judgment, final order or resolution a quo.
by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its 3. The petition shall state the facts with
original jurisdiction – by notice of appeal; and certainty, present clearly the issues involved,
2. The appeal to the SC in criminal cases decided set forth the grounds and brief arguments
by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its relied upon for review, and pray for
appellate jurisdiction – by petition for review judgment annulling or modifying the
on certiorari under rule 45. (Sec. 1(a), Rule XI, questioned judgment, final order or
A.M. No. 13-7-05-SB, effective 16 Nov. 2018) resolution.
4. Findings of fact of the Commission supported
(6) REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS OR FINAL by substantial evidence shall be final and
ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND non-reviewable. (Sec. 5, Rule 64, ROC, as
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS amended)
(RULE 64)
Effect of Filing
A judgment, resolution or final order of the
COMELEC and the COA may be brought by the The filing of a petition for certiorari shall not stay
aggrieved party to the SC on certiorari under Rule the execution of the judgment or final order or
65 by filing the petition within 30 days from notice resolution sought to be reviewed, unless the
of the judgment or final order. (Sec. 2, Rule 64, ROC, Supreme Court shall direct otherwise upon such
as amended) terms as it may deem just. (Sec. 8, Rule 64, ROC, as
amended)
On the other hand, judgments, final orders or
resolutions of the CSC may be taken to the CA under
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. (Secs. 1 & 3 Rule 43,
ROC, as amended)

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2

(7) DISMISSAL, REINSTATEMENT, instead of by petition for review from the appellate
AND WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL judgment of a RTC shall be dismissed.
Grounds for Dismissal of Appeal before the CA An appeal erroneously taken to the CA shall not be
transferred to the appropriate court but shall be
An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, dismissed outright. (Sec. 2, Rule 50, ROC, as
on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the amended)
following grounds:
Prior to the transmittal of the original record or the
a. Failure of the record on appeal to show on its record on appeal to the appellate court, the trial
face that the appeal was taken within the period court, may motu proprio or on motion, dismiss the
fixed by these Rules; appeal for having been taken out of time or for non-
b. Failure to file the notice of appeal or the record payment of the docket and other lawful fees within
on appeal within the period prescribed by these the reglementary period. (Sec. 13, Rule 41, ROC, as
Rules; amended)
c. Failure of the appellant to pay the docket and
other lawful fees as provided in Sec. 5, Rule 40 Grounds for Dismissal of Appeal Before the SC
and section 4 of Rule 41 (Bar Matter No. 803, 17
Feb. 1998); 1. The appeal may be dismissed motu proprio or
d. Unauthorized alterations, omissions or on motion of the respondent on the following
additions in the approved record on appeal as grounds:
provided in Sec. 4 of Rule 44; 2. Failure to take the appeal within the
e. Failure of the appellant to serve and file the reglementary period;
required number of copies of his brief or 3. Lack of merit in the petition;
memorandum within the time provided by 4. Failure to pay the requisite docket fee and other
these Rules; lawful fees or to make a deposit for costs;
f. Absence of specific assignment of errors in the 5. Failure to comply with the requirements
appellant's brief, or of page references to the regarding proof of service and contents of and
record as required in Sec. 13, paragraphs (a), the documents which should accompany the
(c), (d) and (f) of Rule 44; petition;
g. Failure of the appellant to take the necessary 6. Failure to comply with any circular, directive or
steps for the correction or completion of the order of the Supreme Court without justifiable
record within the time limited by the court in its cause;
order; 7. Error in the choice or mode of appeal; and
h. Failure of the appellant to appear at the 8. The fact that the case is not appealable to the
preliminary conference under Rule 48 or to Supreme Court. (Sec. 5, Rule 56, ROC, as
comply with orders, circulars, or directives of amended)
the court without justifiable cause; and
i. The fact that the order or judgment appealed Reinstatement of Appeal
from is not appealable. (Sec. 1, Rule 50, ROC, as
amended) The underlying consideration in this petition is that
the act of dismissing the notice of appeal, if done in
Dismissal of Improper Appeal to the Court of excess of the trial court's jurisdiction, amounts to an
Appeals undue denial of the petitioner's right to appeal. The
importance and real purpose of the remedy of
An appeal under Rule 41 taken from the RTC to the appeal has been emphasized in Castro v. Court of
CA raising only questions of law shall be dismissed, Appeals where this Court ruled that an appeal is an
issues purely of law not being reviewable by said essential part of our judicial system and trial courts
court. Similarly, an appeal by notice of appeal are advised to proceed with caution so as not to

C2
REMEDIAL LAW
deprive a party of the right to appeal and instructed Petition for Review from the RTC to the CA
that every party-litigant should be afforded the
amplest opportunity for the proper and just However, before the Court of Appeals gives due
disposition of his cause, freed from the constraints course to the petition, the Regional Trial Court may
of technicalities. (Lazaro vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. allow withdrawal of the appeal. (Sec. 8(a), Rule 42,
137761, 06 Apr. 2000) ROC, as amended)
Payment of Appellate Docket Fees DUAL FUNCTION OF APPELLATE COURT
It is an established rule is that the payment in full of Review for Correctness Function
the docket fees within the prescribed period is
mandatory. Nevertheless, this rule must be This is the function of the appellate court to review
qualified, to wit: a case on appeal to assure that substantial justice
has been done and is concerned with the justice of
1. The failure to pay appellate court docket fee the particular case and with the doctrine of res
within the reglementary period allows only judicata.
discretionary dismissal, not automatic
dismissal, of the appeal; and Institutional Function
2. Such power should be used in the exercise of
the Courts' sound discretion ‘in accordance This is the function of the appellate court to
with the tenets of justice and fair "play and with contribute to the progressive development of the
great deal of circumspection considering all law for general application to the judicial system
attendant circumstances. and is concerned with the doctrine of stare decisis,
which refers to the precedential value which assists
Admittedly, the SC has allowed the filing of an in deciding future similar cases. (Bersamin, Appeal
appeal in some cases where a stringent application and Review in the Philippines, 01 Jan. 2000)
of the rules would have denied it, only when to do
so would serve the demands of justice and in the The “Harmless Error Rule” in Appelate
exercise of the SC’s equity jurisdiction. (Sps. Decisions
Buenaflor vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142021, 29
Nov. 2000) No error in either the admission or the exclusion of
evidence and no error or defect in any ruling or
Withdrawal of Appeal order or in anything done or omitted by the trial
court or by any of the parties is ground for granting
An appeal may be withdrawn as of right at any time a new trial or for setting aside, modifying, or
before the filing of the appellee's brief. Thereafter, otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless
the withdrawal may be allowed in the discretion of refusal to take such action appears to the court
the court. (Sec. 3, Rule 50, ROC, as amended) inconsistent with substantial justice. The court at
every stage of the proceeding must disregard any
Ordinary Appeal from the RTC to the CA error or defect which does not affect the substantial
rights of the parties. (Sec. 6, Rule 51, ROC, as
In either case, prior to the transmittal of the original amended)
record or the record on appeal, the court may x x x
allow withdrawal of the appeal. (Sec. 9, Rule 41, ROC, In dealing with evidence improperly admitted in
as amended) trial, we examine its damaging quality and its
impact to the substantive rights of the litigant. If the
impact is slight and insignificant, we disregard the
error as it will not overcome the weight of the
properly admitted evidence against the prejudiced

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2

party. (People v. Teehankee, Jr., G.R. No. 111206-08, reconsideration had been granted by it. (Sec. 6,
06 Oct. 1995) Rule 38, ROC, as amended)
3. PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT NOTE: Failure to file an answer to the petition for
(RULE 38) relief does not constitute default, even without such
answer, the court will still have to hear the petition
Relief from Judgment or Final Orders and and determine its merits. (Regalado, 2010)
Resolutions
Preliminary Injunction Available Pending the
It is a legal remedy whereby a party seeks to set Resolution of the Petition for Relief
aside a judgment rendered against him by a court
whenever he was unjustly deprived of a hearing or The court may grant such preliminary injunction as
was prevented from taking an appeal because of may be necessary for the preservation of the rights
fraud, accident, mistake or excusable neglect. (Sec. of the parties upon the filing of a bond in favor of the
1, Rule 38, ROC, as amended; Quelnan v. VHF adverse party. (Sec. 5, Rule 38, ROC, as amended)
Philippines, G.R. No. 138500, 16 Sept. 2005)
NOTE: The bond is conditioned that if the petition is
It is an equitable remedy that is allowed only in dismissed or the petitioner fails on the trial of the
exceptional cases when there is no other available case upon its merits, he will pay the adverse party
or adequate remedy. (Trust International Paper all damages and costs that may be awarded to him
Corp. v. Pelaez, G.R. No. 164871, 22 Aug. 2006) by reason of issuance of such injunction or the other
proceedings following the petition. (Ibid.)
Who may Avail
Lien Acquired over the Property is NOT
A petition for relief from judgment together with a Discharged by a Subsequent Issuance of a Writ
MNT and MR are remedies available only to parties of Preliminary Injunction
in the proceedings where the assailed judgment is
rendered. A person who was never a party to the Where a writ of execution was already issued and
case, or even summoned to appear therein, cannot levy was made before the petition for relief was
avail of a petition for relief from judgment. (Alaban, filed, the lien that may have been acquired over the
et. al. v. CA, G.R. No. 156201, 23 Sept. 2005) property is not discharged by the subsequent
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.
Proceedings after an Answer is filed Therefore, if the petition is denied, the court has the
power to reinstate the writ of execution. (Ayson v.
1. After the filing of the answer or the expiration Ayson, G.R. No. L-10687, 24 May 1957)
of the period therefor, the court shall hear the
petition and if after such hearing, it finds that Execution of the Judgment may Proceed even if
the allegations thereof are not true, the petition the Order Denying the Petition for Relief is
shall be dismissed. Pending Appeal
2. If the allegations are true, the court shall set Unless a writ of preliminary injunction has been
aside the judgment, final order or proceeding issued, execution of the judgment shall proceed
complained of upon such terms as may be just. even if the order denying the petition for relief is
Thereafter, the case shall stand as if such pending appeal. Said writ may be sought either in
judgment, final order or proceedings had never the trial or appellate courts. (Service Specialists, Inc.
been rendered, issued or taken. The court shall v. Sheriff of Manila, et. al., G.R. No. 74586, 17 Oct.
then proceed to hear and determine the case as 1986)
if a timely motion for new trial or

C2
REMEDIAL LAW
Order Granting Petition for Relief is have committed in the trial since such error may be
Interlocutory and Non-Appealable corrected by means of an appeal.”
An order granting petition for relief is interlocutory Mistake can be of such nature as to cause substantial
and non-appealable. (Regalado, 2012) injustice to one of the parties. It may be so palpable
that it borders on extrinsic fraud. (Ibid.)
Grounds for Availing of the Remedy
Excusable Negligence
1. A judgment or final order is entered, or any
other proceeding is thereafter taken against a Excusable negligence as a ground for a petition for
party in any court through fraud, accident, relief requires that the negligence be so gross that
mistake, or excusable negligence (Sec. 1, Rule ordinary diligence and prudence could not have
38, ROC, as amended); or guarded against it. This excusable negligence must
also be imputable to the party-litigant and not to his
2. The petitioner has been prevented from taking or her counsel whose negligence binds his or her
an appeal by fraud, accident, mistake, or client. The binding effect of counsel’s negligence
excusable negligence. (Sec. 2, Rule 38, ROC, as ensures against the resulting uncertainty and
amended) tentativeness of proceedings if clients were allowed
to merely disown their counsels’ conduct. (Ibid.)
Fraud
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has relaxed this
Fraud as a ground for a petition for relief from rule on several occasions such as:
judgment pertains to extrinsic or collateral fraud.
(City of Dagupan v. Maramba, G.R. No. 174411, 02 1. Where the reckless or gross negligence of
July 2014) counsel deprives the client of due process of
law;
NOTE: Where fraud is the ground, the fraud must be 2. When the rule’s application will result in
extrinsic or collateral. The extrinsic or collateral outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or
fraud that invalidates a final judgment must be such property; or
that it prevented the unsuccessful party from fully 3. Where the interests of justice so require."
and fairly presenting his case or defense and the Certainly, excusable negligence must be proven.
losing party from having an adversarial trial of the (Ibid.)
issue. There is extrinsic fraud when a party is
prevented from fully presenting his case to the court NOTE:
as when the lawyer connives to defeat or corruptly 1. If the petition is filed because of the first
sells out his client’s interest. Extrinsic fraud can be ground, the petition shall be filed in such court
committed by a counsel against his client when the and in the same case (not in another or higher
latter is prevented from presenting his case to the court). The petition shall pray that the
court. (Ibid.) judgment, order or proceeding be set aside.
(Sec. 1, Rule 38, ROC, as amended)
Mistake
2. If the petition is filed under the second ground,
Mistake as used in Rule 38 means mistake of fact the petition shall likewise be filed in such court
and not mistake of law. A wrong choice in legal and in the same case (not in another or higher
strategy or mode of procedure will not be court) but the prayer this time is that the appeal
considered a mistake for purposes of granting a be given due course. (Sec. 2, Rule 38, ROC, as
petition for relief from judgment. Mistake as a amended)
ground also “does not apply and was never intended
to apply to a judicial error which the court might

2023 GOLDEN NOTES

Ust Golden Notes Remedial Law 2 152 200

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ust Golden Notes Remedial Law 2 152 200

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ust Golden Notes Remedial Law 2 152 200

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

C2

Contempt of Court 4. In lieu of any of the foregoing orders or in

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 138

III. CIVIL PROCEDURE

139 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 140

GR: Consolidation is discretionary upon the court to

XPN: Consolidation becomes a matter of duty when:

1. Two or more cases are pending before the same

Suspension of Civil Actions

1. If willingness to discuss a possible compromise

Q: Doris filed a complaint for ejectment in the

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 146

III. CIVIL PROCEDURE

147 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

It is vital to keep in mind that in the process of a) GROUNDS

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 150

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 152

III. CIVIL PROCEDURE

Important Features of Rule 35 A party seeking to recover upon a claim,

153 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

If on motion, judgment is not rendered upon the AFFIDAVITS AND ATTACHMENTS

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 154

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 156

III. CIVIL PROCEDURE

157 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 158

Q: Jayson, a career service officer, was illegally

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 160

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 164

III. CIVIL PROCEDURE

165 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

4. Where, under the circumstances, a motion for XPNs:

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 166

III. CIVIL PROCEDURE

Final Order The most potent remedy against those judgments

167 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

Q: In a Complaint for Compulsory Recognition (1) APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL TRIAL

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 168

III. CIVIL PROCEDURE

NOTE: An appeal on pure questions of law

Subject of an Appeal under Rule 41

XPNs: No appeal may be taken from:

1. Patently without merit; 1. Failure of the record on appeal to show on its

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 172

III. CIVIL PROCEDURE

173 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 174

III. CIVIL PROCEDURE

175 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 176

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 180

III. CIVIL PROCEDURE

181 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

Payment of Appellate Docket Fees DUAL FUNCTION OF APPELLATE COURT

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 182

III. CIVIL PROCEDURE

183 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 184