You are on page 1of 10

Civ Pro Assignment

1. Judgment
-> A judgment is the final ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction
regarding the rights or other matters submitted to it in an action or
proceeding. (Macahilig v. Heirs of Magalit)
-> It shall be in writing personally and directly prepared by the judge, stating
clearly the and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based, signed by
him, and filed with the clerk of the court. (R36 Sec.1)
2. Final Order
-> An order or judgment is deemed final when it finally disposes of the
pending action so that nothing more can be done with it in the trial court. In
other words, a final order is that which gives an end to the litigation. (PLDT
Employees Union v. PLDT Free Telephone Workers Union; 97 Phil. 424)
3. Interlocutory Order
-> Interlocutory orders are those that determine incidental matters that do
not touch on the merits of the case or put an end to the proceedings.
(Silverio, Jr. v. Filipino Business Consultants; 466 SCRA 584)
4. Final and Executory Judgment
-> A "final judgment" [x x x] becomes final upon expiration of the period to
appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected or, an appeal
therefrom having been taken, the judgment of the appellate tribunal in turn
becomes final and the records of the case are returned to the Court of origin.
The "final" judgment is then correctly categorized as a "final and executory
judgment" in respect to which, as the law explicitly provides, "execution shall
issue as a matter of right."[x x x] [O]nly a final judgment or order [x x x] can
become final and executory. (Investments, Inc. v. CA; 147 SCRA 334)
5. Error in judgment
-> An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of
its jurisdiction, and which error is reviewable only by an appeal. As long as
the court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the
exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of
judgment, correctible by an appeal if the aggrieved party raised factual and
legal issues; or a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court if
only questions of law are involved. (San Fernando Rural Bank, Inc. v.
Pampanga Omnibus Development Corporation and Dominic G. Aquino)
6.
An error in jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the
court without or in excess of jurisdiction (Cabrera vs. Lapid). Errors of
jurisdiction occur when the court exercises a jurisdiction not conferred upon
it by law. It may also occur when the court or tribunal although with

jurisdiction, acts in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion


amounting to lack of jurisdiction (GSIS vs. Oliza).
7-8.
A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a
certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises
as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law,
the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the
evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution to the
issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of
circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence
presented, the question posed is one of fact (Republic vs. Malabann, as well
as other cases see p. 604 of Riano book)
The test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation
given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether
the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or
evaluating the evidence , in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it
is a question of fact (Jarantilla vs. Jarantilla)
9-10. G.R. No. 159746
G.R. No. 179492
-A pleading whereby the movant asks for the court to revisit its decision
which, in his view, is not supported by the facts, the law, or the evidence
with a view to having it modified or reversed. The movant usually has 15
days from notice of the decision to file his motion. Failing that, the decision
will become final and executory. (law dictionary)
Motion for reconsideration under Rule 37 is one that is directed against a
judgment or a final order. It is not the motion for reconsideration of an
interlocutory order which normally precedes a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 (Riano).
11. Grounds for a Motion for Reconsideration
Rule 37 Sec. 1
Within the same period, the aggrieved party may also move for
reconsideration upon the grounds that :
1 the damages are awarded are excessive,
2 that the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final order, or
3 that the decision or final order is contrary to law
12. Motion for New Trial
G.R. No. 192737. Castro v Guevarra
New trial is a remedy that seeks to temper the severity of a judgment or
prevent the failure of justice.

The effect of an order granting a new trial is to wipe out the previous
adjudication so that the case may be tried de novo for the purpose of
rendering a judgment in accordance with law, taking into consideration the
evidence to be presented during the second trial.
Consequently, a motion for new trial is proper only after the rendition or
promulgation of a judgment or issuance of a final order. A motion for new
trial is only available when relief is sought against a judgment and the
judgment is not yet final.
13. Grounds for a Motion for New Trial
Rule 37 Sec. 1
a) Fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence w/c ordinary prudence
could not have guarded against and by reason of w/c such aggrieved party
has probably been impaired in his rights
b) Newly discovered evidence, w/c he could not, with reasonable diligence,
have discovered and produced at the trial, and which, if presented, would
probably alter the result
14.
Trial de novo
G.R. No. 17260 Crisostomo v Dir. of Prisons
A trial de novo, it has been said, means a new trial in the same manner, with
the same effect, and upon the same issues as the case was tried in the lower
court, in accordance with the rule of practice in the appellate court.
G.R. No. 47833 Lizo v Carandang
by trial de novo is meant that the Court of First Instance shall try the case
without regard to the proof presented in the justice of the peace court or to
the conclusions reached by it.
The Court of First Instance should not affirm, reverse, or modify the ruling of
the justice of the peace court, but it should make its own findings, lay down
its own conclusions, and dispose of the case as if the same had never been
tried before and had been originally commenced therein.
15. Pro forma Motion for New Trial and Motion for Reconsideration
Coquilla v. Commission on Elections (examples lng, if you wanna
put them)
in the cases where a motion for reconsideration was held to be pro
forma, the motion was so held because (1) it was a second motion
for reconsideration, or (2) it did not comply with the rule that the
motion must specify the fi ndings and conclusions alleged to be
contrary to law or not supported by the evidence, or (3) it failed
to substantiate the alleged errors, or (4) it merely alleged that the

decision in question was contrary to law, or (5) the adverse party


was not given notice thereof.
G.R. No. 149236 PNB v Paneda
A pro forma MNT or MR shall not toll the reglementary period of
appeal
A motion for reconsideration based on the foregoing grounds (in
Rule 37) is deemed pro forma if the same does not specify the
fi ndings or conclusions in the judgment which are not supported
by the evidence or contrary to law, making express reference to
the pertinent evidence or legal provisions.
16 Petition for Relief from Judgment
Relief from judgment under Rule 38 is a remedy provided by law to any
person against whom a decision or order is entered into through fraud,
accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. (Rule 38)
The relief provided for is of equitable character, allowed only in
exceptional cases as where there is no other available or adequate.
[] The rule is that relief will not be granted to a party who seeks
avoidance from the effects of the judgment when the loss of the
remedy at law was due to his own negligence or a mistaken mode of
procedure, otherwise the petition for relief will be tantamount to
reviving the right of appeal which has already been lost either because
of inexcusable negligence or due to a mistake in the mode of
procedure by counsel {Samonte v. Naguiat, Oct 2 2009)
17 Fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence
That which must be shown in order to be granted:
o A relief from order of default (Rule 9, Sec 3 [b])
o A new trial to set aside the judgment or final order that
materially affected the substantial rights of an aggrieved party
(Rule 37, Sec 1)
o A relief from judgment, order, or other proceeding (Rule 38, Sec
1)
o A relief from denial of appeal (Rule 38, Sec 2)
18 Affidavit of Merits
This is an affidavit that must accompany a petition for relief from
judgment, order, or other proceeding showing the fraud, accident,
mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts
constituting the petitioners good and substantial cause of action or
defense, as the case may be. (Rule 38, Sec 3)

19 Appeal
The remedy to obtain reversal or modification of judgment on the
merits is appeal. This is true even if the error, or one of the errors,
ascribed to the court rendering the judgment is its lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter, or the exercise of power in excess thereof, or
grave abuse of discretion in the findings of facts or of law set out in the
decision. (Association of Integrated Security Force of Bislig v. CA)
An appeal may be taken from judgments or final orders that
completely dispose of the case. (Rule 41, Sec 1)
20 Ordinary Appeal
Applies to appeals from the judgment or final order of the Regional Trial
Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. (Rule 41, Sec 2 [a])
Also referred to as an appeal by writ of error on questions of fact or
mixed questioned of fact and law. (Republic v. Malabanan, Oct 6 2010)
25. Residual jurisdiction
RULE 42 Sec. 8
Upon the timely filing of a petition for review and the payment of the
corresponding docket and other lawful fees, the appeal is deemed perfected
as to the petitioner. The Regional Trial Court loses jurisdiction over the case
upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the
time to appeal of the other parties. However, before the Court of
Appeals gives due course to the petition, the Regional Trial Court
may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of
the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal,
approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order
execution pending appeal in accordance with section 2 of Rule 39,
and allow withdrawal of the appeal.
RULE 41 Sec. 9
A partys appeal by notice of appeal is deemed perfected as to him upon the
filing of the notice of appeal in due time. A partys appeal by record on
appeal is deemed perfected as to him with respect to the subject matter
thereof upon the approval of the record on appeal filed in due time. In
appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon
the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time
to appeal of the other parties. In appeals by record on appeal, the court loses
jurisdiction only over the subject matter thereof upon the approval of the
records on appeal filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal
of the other parties. In either case, prior to the transmittal of the

original record or the record on appeal, the court may issue orders
for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties
which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve
compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution
pending appeal in accordance with section 2 of Rule 39, and allow
withdrawal of the appeal.
26.

RECORD

ON APPEAL

RULE 41 Sec. 2(a)


Ordinary appeal.- The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the
Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by
filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final
order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No
record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings
and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or
these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be
filed and served in like manner.
In case where multiple appeals are allowed, a party may appeal only a
particular incident in the case and not all matters involved in the same case.
The others which are not made the subject of the appeal remain to be
resolved by the trial court. The record on appeal is required so the appellate
court may have a record of the proceedings to resolve a separate and
distinct issue raised in the appeal and since the original records remain with
the trial court it still can resolve the other issues of the case not made
subject of the appeal. (Riano vol. 1, 2011)
27.

MULTIPLE

APPEALS

Multiple appeals are allowed in special proceedings, in actions for


recovery of property with accounting, in actions for partition of property with
accounting, in the special civil actions of eminent domain and foreclosure of
mortgage. The rationale behind allowing more than one appeal in the same
case is to enable the rest of the case to proceed in the event that a separate
or distinct issue is resolved by the court and held to be final. (Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals, 258 SCRA 186, 194)
28.

PETITION

FOR

CERTIORARI

RULE 65 Sec. 1
When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with

grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and


there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified
petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that
judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such
tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and
justice may require.
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment,
order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents
relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum
shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.
29.

PETITION

FOR

PROHIBITION

RULE 65 Sec. 2
When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person,
whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without
or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any
other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a
person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court,
alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action
or matter specified therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as
law and justice may require.
The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a certified true copy of the
judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and
documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of nonforum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.
30.

PETITION

FOR

MANDAMUS

RULE 65 Sec. 3
When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects
the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from
the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and
there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper
court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be
rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to
be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the
rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner
by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent.

The petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as


provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.
31. Annulment of judgment of Regional Trial Court
-> An action for annulment of judgment is a remedy in law independent of
the case where the judgment sought to be annulled was rendered. Its
purpose is to have the final and executory judgment set aside so that there
will be a renewal of litigation. It is resorted to in cases where the ordinary
remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment, or other
appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the
petitioner, and is based on only two grounds: extrinsic fraud, and lack of
jurisdiction or denial of due process. (Alaban v. CA; 470 SCRA 697)
32.
The grounds for annulment of a judgment are (a) extrinsic fraud; and (b) lack
of jurisdiction (Rule 47, Sec. 2).
Extrinsic fraud
Fraud is regarded as extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a trial or
from presenting his entire case to the court, or where it operates upon
matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it
was procured. The overriding consideration when extrinsic fraud is alleged is
that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from
having his day is court (Alaban vs. CA).
Extrinsic fraud exists when there is a fraudulent act committed by the
prevailing party outside the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party was
prevented from presenting fully his side of the case by deception practiced
on him by the prevailing party (Alba vs. CA).
Lack of jurisdiction
Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment refers to either
the lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the
subject matter of the claim. Where the court has jurisdiction over the
defendant and over the subject matter of the case, its decision will not be
voided on the ground of absence of jurisdiction (Republic vs. G Holdings).
Petitioner must show an absolute lack of authority to hear and decide the
case (Heirs of Maura So vs. Obliosca).
1 33. Fresh Period Rule
G.R. No. 141524 Neypes v CA
To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford litigants
fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the Court deems it practical to allow a
fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal in the
Regional Trial Court, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion
for a new trial or motion for reconsideration.

Applies now to R40, R42, R43, R45


34 Periods for the following modes of review:
a. Motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final order
15 days from notice thereof, with proof of service on adverse party.
(Rule 52, Sec 1)
b. Motion for new trial
At any time after the appeal from the lower court has been
perfected and before the Court of Appeals loses jurisdiction over the
case. (Rule 53, Sec 1)
c. Petition for relief from judgment
Within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final
order, or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than 6
months after such judgment or final order was entered, or such
proceeding was taken. (Rule 38, Sec 3)
d. Appeal from MTC to RTC
Within 15 days after notice to the appellant of the judgment or final
order appealed from.
When a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall file a notice
of appeal and a record on appeal within 30 days after notice of the
judgment or final order. (Rule 40, Sec 2)
e. Appeal from RTC to CA
Within 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed
from.
When a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall file a notice
of appeal and a record on appeal within 30 days from notice of the
judgment or final order. (Rule 41, Sec 3)
f. Appeals from decisions or final orders of quasi-judicial
agencies
Within fifteen (15) days from notice of the award, judgment, final
order or resolution, or from the date of its last publication, if
publication is required by law for its effectivity, or of the denial of
petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration duly filed in
accordance with the governing law of the court or agency a quo.
(Rule 43, Sec 4)
g. Appeal from CA to SC

Within 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order or


resolution appealed from, or of the denial of the petitioner's motion
for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the
judgment.
On motion duly filed and served, with full payment of the docket
and other lawful fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration
of the reglementary period, the Supreme Court may for justifiable
reasons grant an extension of thirty (30) days only within which to
file the petition. (Rule 45, Sec 2)

h. Petitions for certiorari


The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice
of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for
reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is
required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from
notice of the denial of said motion. (Rule 65, Sec 4)
i. Petitions for mandamus
The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice
of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for
reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is
required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from
notice of the denial of said motion. (Rule 65, Sec 4)
j. Petitions for prohibition
The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice
of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for
reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is
required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from
notice of the denial of said motion. (Rule 65, Sec 4)