1. Harmless Error Rule: Section 6, Rule 51.

Does not have to rule on

every error if this would not go into the very substance of the case,
or would not affect the merits of the case.

2. Silent Escape Theory

3. Harmless Remedy

4. Ladder Like Theory or Hierarchy of Court

As a matter of policy, direct resort to the Supreme Court will no longer

be entertained unless the redress cannot be obtained in the appropriate
lower courts, and exceptional and compelling circumstances, such as in
the case of involving national interest and those of serious implications,
justify the availment of the extraordinary remedy of the writ of
certiorari, calling for the exercise of its primary jurisdiction. (Yee vs.
Bernabe, 487 SCRA 385 [2006]).5. 2 Stages of Litigation Process

6. Slip Rule (when judgment becomes final and executory)

7. Dual function of Appellate Court

An appellate court serves a dual function. The first is the review for
correctness function, whereby the case is reviewed on appeal to assure
that substantial justice has been done. The second is the institutional
function, which refers to the progressive development of the law for
general application in the judicial system.
Differently stated, the review for correctness function is concerned with
the justice of the particular case while the institutional function is
concerned with the articulation and application of constitutional
principles, the authoritative interpretation of statutes, and the
formulation of policy within the proper sphere of the judicial function.

8. Role of Judge in Pre-trial

9. Error of judgment v Error of jurisdiction

We have set a clear demarcation line between an error of judgment and

an error of jurisdiction. An error of judgment is one in which the court
may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and which error is
reviewable only by an appeal, while an error of jurisdiction is one where
the act complained of was issued by the court, officer or a quasi-judicial
body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction, and
which error is correctable only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari.
Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled in dismissing the petition for
certiorari of petitioner. The ruling is in accord with the settled principle
that certiorari will not be issued to cure errors in proceedings or
erroneous conclusions of law or fact, x x x.

10. Reverse Order of Trial

In this situation, the defendant presents evidence ahead of the plaintiff.

When proper: If the defendant alleges only affirmative defenses, e.g.,

fraud, prescription, estoppel, payment in his answer, a reverse order of
trial is proper.

Reason: By alleging affirmative defenses, the defendant hypothetically

admits the material allegations in the complaint (ROC, RULE 6, Sec. 5);
thus, the plaintiff need not presebt evidence to prove or establish his
claims. The burden of evidence shifts to the defendant who must prove
his affirmative defenses in order to prevent or bar the recovery from
him by the plaintiff.

11. Summary Judgment v Judgment on the Pleadings

As to basis of Judgment:

Based on the pleadings, depositions, admissions and Based solely on the pleadings.
affidavits

To whom available:

Available to both plaintiff and defendant. Generally available only to the plaintiff, unless the
defendant presents a counterclaim.

As to the issue tendered:

There is no genuine issue between the parties, i.e. there The answer fails to tender an issue or otherwise admits
may be the issues but these are irrelevant. the material allegations of the adverse party's pleadings.

As to being judgment on the merits:

May be interlocutory (as in the case of partial summary On the merits.

judgment) or on the merits.

As to the filing of an answer:

If filed by the plaintiff, it must be filed at any time after There is already an answer.
an answer is served; If filed by defendant, may be filed
at any time even before there is an answer.

12. Neypes rule applicable only to rules 40 & 41 but not in 42, 43 and
45 (Rodriguez v People)

Neypes elucidates that the "fresh period rule" applies to appeals under
Rule 40 (appeals from the Municipal Trial Courts to the RTC) and Rule
41 (appeals from the RTCs to the CA or this Court); Rule 42 (appeals
from the RTCs to the CA); Rule 43 (appeals from quasi-judicial agencies
to the CA); and Rule 45 (appeals by certiorari to this Court). A scrutiny
of the said rules, however, reveals that the "fresh period rule"
enunciated in Neypes need NOT apply to Rules 42, 43 and 45 as there
is no interruption in the 15-day reglementary period to appeal. It is
explicit in Rules 42, 43 and 45 that the appellant or petitioner is
accorded a fresh period of 15 days from the notice of the decision,
award, judgment, final order or resolution or of the denial of petitioner’s
motion for new trial or reconsideration filed.