Digested Cases for

Testament of the Late Soledad Provido Elevencionado, the decedent, that he as the heir of the decedent and the e!ec"tor of her ill# The RT$ rendered a decision allo ing the probate of the ill of the decedent and directed the iss"ance of letters testamentar% to respondent# &onths later, petitioners filed a motion for reopening of the probate proceedings and an opposition of the ill of the decedent, as ell as the iss"ance of letters testamentar% to respondent, claiming that the% are the intestate heirs, as nephe s and nieces, of the decedent# The% alleged that the% ere denied their da% in co"rt d"ring the probate proceedings before the RT$ beca"se the% ere not notified of the probate of the ill hich constit"tes e!trinsic fra"d# 'ence, the% pra%ed for the ann"lment of the decision of the RT$ on the probate proceedings and a ne trial sho"ld be allo ed# %ss&e$ Whether or not the decision rendered b% the RT$ sho"ld be ann"lled on the gro"nd of e!trinsic fra"d for lac( of notice d"ring probate proceedings#

Civil Procedure
RULE 37 (New Trial and Reconsideration) ALABAN vs. C URT ! A""EAL# September 23, 2005 !acts$ Respondent Providio alleged in his petition for probate of the Last Will and

R&ling$ The S"preme $o"rt r"led in the negative# The non)incl"sion of petitioners* names in the petition and the alleged fail"re to personall% notif% them of the proceedings do not constit"te e!trinsic fra"d# +ccording to the S"preme $o"rt, an action to ann"l a final ,"dgment on the gro"nd of fra"d lies onl% if the fra"d is e!trinsic or collateral in character# When it prevents a part% from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the co"rt, or here it operates "pon matters pertaining not to the ,"dgment itself b"t to the manner in hich it is proc"red, fra"d is e!trinsic# The overriding consideration hen e!trinsic fra"d is alleged is that the fra"d"lent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a part% from having his da% in co"rt# &oreover, the re-"irement of notice shall be personall% given to (no n heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator# The ill, s"b,ect of controvers%, sho s that respondent as instit"ted as the sole heir of the decedent# Petitioners ere not instit"ted b% the decedent as her heirs that ill ma(e them her comp"lsor% or testate heirs ho are entitled to be notified of the probate proceedings "nder the R"les# .n this case, respondent had no legal obligation to mention petitioners in the petition for probate, or to personall% notif% them of the same# +ss"ming that petitioners are entitled to be so notified, the alleged infirmit% is c"red b% the p"blication of the notice hich is re-"ired in proceedings in rem# The proceedings for the probate of the ill is one in rem, s"ch that ith the corresponding p"blication of the petition, the co"rt/s ,"risdiction e!tends to all persons interested in said ill or in the settlement of the estate the decedent# Therefore, even if petitioners ere not mentioned in the petition for probate of the ill, the% event"all% became parties thereto as a conse-"ence of the p"blication of

the notice of hearing# Th"s, contrar% to their claim, petitioners ere not denied their da% in co"rt beca"se the% ere not prevented from participating in the proceedings and presenting their case before the probate co"rt#

RULE 37 (New Trial and Reconsideration) DE L # #ANT # vs. EL%'ALDE 0ebr"ar% 2, 2001 !acts$ The herein petitioner and and respondents ere declared rightf"l o ners of a disp"ted lot in a previo"s case decided on +pril 22, 3224# 5oth parties, thereafter , filed their separate 6otices of +ppeal dated 7"ne 4, 3224 and &a% 34, 3224, respectivel%# S"bse-"entl%, the $+ iss"ed the 7"ne 2, 3228 6otice to 0ile 5rief, re-"iring petitioners and respondent Eli9alde to file their briefs ithin fort%)five :;5< da%s from receipt of said notice# The herein petitioners filed this present petition, alleging that the $+/s decision dismissing their appeal for fail"re to file their respective appellants/ briefs and considered them ithdra n# Petitioners filed a Pra%er for Reinstatement of +ppeal on 7"ne 31, 3222 hich as verified solel% b% petitioner =icente delos Santos# .n their &otion for Reconsideration, petitioners alleged that> :3< the% did not have an% (no ledge of the prom"lgation of the assailed ?ecision of the $+ "ntil 7"ne 2, 3222 @ :2< the% never entered into an% amicable settlement ith respondents delos Santos@ :3< their alleged signat"res in the &a% 21, 3221 +greement ere forged@ and :;< the% never a"thori9ed their former co"nsel, +tt%# =ictoriano, to ithdra their appeal# Th"s, petitioners pra%ed that> :3< their &otion for Reconsideration be considered as filed on time@ :2< the said +greement allegedl% entered into b% petitioners and respondents delos Santos be considered as invalid@ :3< the portion of the assailed ?ecision dismissing their appeal be reconsidered@ :;< their appeal be reinstated@ and :5< the% be granted a period of ninet% :20< da%s ithin hich to file their appellants/ brief# $+ denied the said motion sa%ing that appellants had onl% "ntil 7"ne 8, 3222 to file their &otion for Reconsideration# %ss&e$ Whether or not $+ erred in den%ing the motion for reconsideration filed b% the petitioner#

R&ling$ 6o# The petition m"st be denied# Petitioners arg"e that their &otion for Reconsideration as filed on time as the reglementar% period for the filing of it sho"ld be co"nted from the time hen petitioners themselves obtained a cop% of the assailed ?ecision of the $+ on 7"ne 2, 3222, and not from the time that their former co"nsel, +tt%# =ictoriano, received a cop% of said ?ecision on &a% 2;, 3222# Reglementar% period for filing a &otion for Reconsideration))Section 3 of R"le 31, in con,"nction ith Section 3 of R"le ;3 of the R"les of $o"rt, provides for the period ithin hich a &otion for Reconsideration ma% be filed, to it> Section 3# Aro"nds of and period for filing motion for ne trial or reconsideration#BWithin the period for ta(ing an appeal, the aggrieved part% ma% move the trial co"rt to set aside the ,"dgment or final order and grant a ne trial for one or more of the follo ing ca"ses materiall% affecting the s"bstantial rights of said part%> The period of appeal shall be interr"pted b% a timel% motion for ne trial or reconsideration# 6o motion for e!tension of time to file a motion for ne trial or reconsideration shall be allo ed# :Emphasis s"pplied#< Th"s, the fifteen :35<)da% period sho"ld r"n from &a% 2;, 3222, hen +tt%# =ictoriano received a cop% of the assailed ?ecision of the $+, and not from 7"ne 2, 3222, hen petitioners claimed to have been informed of the $+ decision#

37 (New Trial and Reconsideration) #U(%RAN vs. #" U#E# DA(A# A#R# 6o# 342538, +"g"st 32, 2002 !acts$ ?"e to favorable ,"dgment on defendant/s part rendered b% the RT$ of +ntipolo, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration dated &arch ;, 2003, stating that he received a d"plicate original cop% of the decision on 0ebr"ar% 23, 2003 b"t the RT$ denied petitioner/s motion for reconsideration# Petitioner then filed a 6otice of +ppeal dated &a% 28, 2003, stating instead that he received a cop% of the decision dated 7an"ar% 34, 2003 onl% on &arch 8, 2003 and of the Crder dated &a% 2, 2003 den%ing his motion for reconsideration on &a% 32, 2003 b"t the RT$ denied in giving d"e co"rse to the notice of appeal for having been filed o"t of time, emphasi9ing that the decision as prom"lgated on 0ebr"ar% 23, 2003 in the presence of both parties and their co"nsels and that he had belatedl%

filed the notice of appeal hen he filed it ten :30< da%s after allegedl% receiving the Crder of &a% 2, 2003 on &a% 32, 2003# + motion for reconsideration as filed b% petitioner on 7"ne 20, 2003, b"t the same as denied b% the RT$ on Cctober 3, 2003# Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari ith the $+# 'o ever, the $+ fo"nd the petition "nmeritorio"s and dismissed the same in its ?ecision dated ?ecember 22, 2003# R"ling that petitioner as bo"nd b% his ,"dicial admission that he received the ?ecision of the RT$ hen it as prom"lgated on 0ebr"ar% 23, 2003, the $+ held that petitioner/s period ithin hich to file an appeal had lapsed b% the time the 6otice of +ppeal as filed on &a% 22, 2003# Petitioner/s motion for reconsideration of the $+ ?ecision as denied per Resol"tion dated 0ebr"ar% 20, 200;# 'ence, this petition# %ss&e$ Whether or not the 6otice of +ppeal filed b% the petitioner as be%ond the period ithin hich to file s"ch an appeal# R&ling$ 6o# +s earl% as 2005, the S"preme $o"rt categoricall% declared in 6e%pes vs# $o"rt of +ppeals that b% virt"e of the po er of the S"preme $o"rt to amend, repeal and create ne proced"ral r"les in all co"rts, the $o"rt is allo ing a fresh period of 35 da%s ithin hich to file a notice of appeal in the RT$, co"nted from receipt of the order dismissing or den%ing a motion for ne trial or motion for reconsideration# This o"ld standardi9e the appeal periods provided in the R"les and do a a% ith the conf"sion as to hen the 35)da% appeal period sho"ld be co"nted# Th"s, the $o"rt stated> To recapitulate, a party-litigant may either file his notice of appeal within 15 days from receipt of the Regional Trial Courts decision or file it within 15 days from receipt of the order (the "final order") denying his motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration !"#iously, the new 15-day period may "e a#ailed of only if either motion is filed$ otherwise, the decision "ecomes final and e%ecutory after the lapse of the original appeal period pro#ided in Rule &1, 'ection (

RULE 37 (New Trial or Reconsideration) #"#. RA)UD vs. !ABELLA E#TATE TENANT# A## C%AT% N* %NC. A#R# 6o# 3;4823, +"g"st 2, 2005

!acts$ Tenants of the estate of ?on 0abella organi9ed themselves and formed the 0abella Estate Tenants +ssociation :0ET+< for ac-"iring the propert% and distrib"ting it to its members# Dnable to raise the amo"nt to b"% the propert% the% applied for a loan from the 6ational 'ome &ortgage 0inance $orporation :6'&0$<# +s a pre)condition for the loan, it re-"ired all the tenants to become the members of the 0ET+# +ccordingl% the tenants ,oin the 0ET+# 'o ever, the petitioners, ho ere occ"p%ing the lot s"b,ect of the controvers%, did not ,oin# $onse-"entl%, the lot as a arded to &rs# ?e A"9man a -"alified member of 0ET+# The latter filed a case of recover% of possession in the RT$ hich r"led in favor of 0ET+# Cn appeal, hile the case as pending the Rag"dos filed ith the appellate co"rt a &otion to +dmit $ertain ?oc"mentar% Evidence b% Wa% of Partial 6e Trial# The $+ denied the motion contending that it is not a gro"nd for ne trial# %ss&e$ Whether or not the $+ erred in not admitting the doc"mentar% evidenceE R&ling$ .t has been repeatedl% en"nciated that Fa client is bo"nd b% the action of his co"nsel in the cond"ct of a case and cannot be heard to complain that the res"lt might have been different had he proceeded differentl%# + client is bo"nd b% the mista(es of his la %er# +n e!ception to this here the co"nsel/s mista(e is so great and serio"s that the client is pre,"diced and denied his da% in co"rt or hen he is g"ilt% of gross negligence res"lting in the client/s deprivation of his propert% itho"t d"e process of la # $learl%, petitioner/s case does not fall "nder the e!ception# Petitioners, in fact, ere given a chance to present evidence in co"rt# 'ence, it/s not a gro"nd for ne trial# RULE 37 (New Trial and Reconsideration) NE+"E#* ET AL. vs. C URT ! A""EAL# A#R# 6o# 3;352;, September 3;, 2005 :E6 5+6$< !acts$ The petitioners filed an action for ann"lment of ,"dgment and titles of land andGor reconve%ance andGor reversion ith preliminar% in,"nction before the RT$

against the 5"rea" of 0orest ?evelopment, 5"rea" of Lands, Land 5an( of the Philippines and the heirs of 5ernardo del &"ndo# .n the co"rse of the proceedings both parties filed vario"s motions ith the RT$# +mong there ere $:3<motion filed b% petitioners to declare the respondent heirs, the 5"rea" of Lands and the 5"rea" of 0orest ?evelopment in defa"lt and :2<motions to dismiss filed b% the respondent heirs and the Land 5an( of the Philippines# The trial co"rt granted the petitioner/s motion to declare the respondents in defa"lt b"t denied as against the heirs of del &"ndo beca"se the s"bstit"ted service of s"mmons as improper@ the Land 5an(/s motion to dismiss for lac( of ca"se of action as denied@ and the motion to dismiss filed b% respondent heirs of del &"ndo, based on prescription, as also denied# Cn 0ebr"ar% 32, 3228 the trial co"rt dismissed the petitioners/ complaint on the gro"nd of prescription# Petitioners allegedl% received the order of dismissal on &arch 3, 3228 and, on the 35 th da% or on &arch 38, 3228, filed a motion for reconsideration# Cn 7"l% 3, 3228, the trial co"rt iss"ed another order dismissing the motion for reconsideration hich petitioners received on 7"l% 22, 3228# 0ive da%s later, on 7"l% 21, 3228, petitioners filed a notice of appeal and paid the appeal fees on +"g"st 3, 3228# Cn +"g"st ;, 3228, the $+ denied the notice of appeal, holding that it as filed eight da%s late# This as received b% petitioners on 7"l% 33, 3228# Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration b"t this too as denied in an order dated September 3, 3228# %ss&e$ ?id the $+ err in r"ling that the petitioners/ 6otice of +ppeal as filed o"t of timeE R&ling$ The S$ r"led in favor of the petitioners# To standardi9e the appeal periods provided in the R"les and to afford litigants fair opport"nit% to appeal their cases, the $o"rt deems it practical to allo a fresh period of 35 da%s ithin hich to file the notice of appeal in the Regional Trial $o"rt, co"nted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a ne trial or motion for reconsideration# 'enceforth, this Hfresh period r"leI shall also appl% to R"le ;0 governing appeals from the &"nicipal Trial $o"rts to the Regional Trial $o"rts@ R"le ;2 on petitions for revie from the Regional Trial $o"rts to the $o"rt of +ppeals@ R"le ;3 on appeals from -"asi),"dicial agencies to the $o"rt of +ppeals and R"le ;5 governing appeals b% certiorari to the S"preme $o"rt# The ne r"le aims to regiment or ma(e the appeal period "niform, to be co"nted from receipt of the order den%ing the motion for ne trial, motion for reconsideration : hether f"ll or partial< or an% final order or resol"tion#

The petitioners seasonabl% filed their notice of appeal ithin the fresh period of 35 da%s, co"nted from 7"l% 22, 3228, the date of receipt of notice den%ing their motion for reconsideration# To recapit"late, a part% litigant ma% either file his notice of appeal ithin 35 da%s from receipt of the Regional Trial $o"rt/s decision or file it ithin 35 da%s from receipt of the order :the Hfinal orderI< den%ing his motion for ne trial or motion for reconsideration# Cbvio"sl%, the ne 35)da% period ma% be availed of only if either motion is filed@ other ise, the decision becomes final and e!ec"tor% after the lapse of the original appeal period provided in R"le ;3, Section 3# Petitioners here filed their notice of appeal on 7"l% 21, 3228 or five da%s from receipt of the order den%ing their motion for reconsideration on 7"l% 22, 3228# 'ence, the notice of appeal as ell ithin the fresh appeal period of 35 da%s, as alread% disc"ssed#

RULE 37 (New Trial and Reconsideration) #" U#E# ,UE -# CA A#R# 6o# 350132, +"g"st 38, 2005 !acts$ Respondent +rrieta filed a complaint against the spo"ses J"e and +dela Drian for the ann"lment of a -"it claim over a lot she inherited from her grandfather# +fter petitioners received the complaint together ith the s"mmonses, the% hired the services of +tt%# Ranot# 'o ever, +tt%# Ranot failed to file petitioners/ +ns er# Therefore, respondent moved to declare petitioners in defa"lt# Cnl% Drian appeared d"ring the hearing of respondent/s motion and he also manifested that +tt%# Ranot as still preparing the +ns er# Respondent presented her evidence e! parte, and the case as s"bmitted for ,"dgment# The -"it claim as declared n"ll and void# The petitioners moved for reconsideration or a ne trial on the gro"nd that there as mista(e and fra"d as the% ere allegedl% "nder the impression that their la %er had prepared and filed the necessar% pleading# The trial co"rt dismissed their motion and so did the $o"rt of +ppeals hen the% appealed# %ss&e$ Whether or not the $o"rt of +ppeals erred in dismissing petitioners/

petition# R&ling$ The petition has no merit# Dnder Section 3, R"le 38 of the R"les of $o"rt, the co"rt ma% grant relief from ,"dgment onl% H hen a ,"dgment or final order is entered, or an% other proceeding is ta(en against a part% in an% co"rt thro"gh fra"d, accident, mista(e, or e!c"sable negligence#I 5eca"se the% ere allegedl% "nder the impression that +tt%# Ranot had prepared and filed the necessar% pleading, petitioners, in their petition for relief from ,"dgment in the trial co"rt, alleged that ,"dgment as entered against them thro"gh Hmista(e or fra"d#I 'o ever, that is not the fra"d or mista(e contemplated "nder Section 3, R"le 38 of the R"les of $o"rt# H&ista(e,I "nder Section 3 of R"le 38, refers to mista(e of fact, not of la , hich relates to the case# H0ra"d,I on the other hand, m"st be e!trinsic or collateral, the (ind hich prevented the aggrieved part% from having a trial or presenting his case to the co"rt# Cbvio"sl%, petitioners/ mista(en ass"mption that +tt%# Ranot had attended to his professional d"ties is neither mista(e nor fra"d# &oreover, "nder Section 3, HnegligenceI m"st be e!c"sable and generall% imp"table to the part% beca"se if it is imp"table to the co"nsel, it is binding on the client# To follo a contrar% r"le and allo a part% to diso n his co"nsel/s cond"ct o"ld render proceedings indefinite, tentative, and s"b,ect to reopening b% the mere s"bterf"ge of replacing co"nsel# What the aggrieved litigant sho"ld do is see( administrative sanctions against the erring co"nsel and not as( for the reversal of the co"rt/s r"ling# .n this case, the $o"rt has rela!ed the r"le on the binding effect of co"nsel/s negligence and allo ed a litigant another chance to present his case based on the follo ing instances> H:3< here the rec(less or gross negligence of co"nsel deprives the client of d"e process of la @ :2< hen the application of the r"le ill res"lt in o"tright deprivation of the client/s libert% or propert%@ or :3< here the interests of ,"stice so re-"ire#I 'o ever, none of these e!ceptions are present in the case at bar# Therefore, petition m"st be dismissed for lac( of merit# !acts$ The la firm appeared for P$.5 gave its address as (rd )loor, *TR +uilding# 'olding office in the same *TR +uilding, at the ground floor, Petitioner/s la %ers failed to appear at the appointed time# Trial $o"rt rendered ,"dgment for the plaintiff# P$.5*s la %ers filed a ,otion for Reconsideration arg"ing that the a ard of damages as e!orbitant, and proferred that their nonappearance is d"e to the fail"re of one of their associates la %er failed to s"bmit pending cases prior to the resignation of the latter# 'ence, service of the ,"dgment as inefficacio"s# Respondent s"bmitted that as no need to append an affidavit of merits to its motion for reconsideration, this being re-"ired onl% hen the motion for ne trial as based on gro"nds other than e!cessive a ard of damages# %ss&e$ WC6 motion for reconsideration sho"ld be granted# .eld> 6o# The motion for reconsideration as filed o"t of time and the petitioner failed to attach affidavit of merits# While it is tr"e that the address of record of P$.5*s co"nsel is entered as the K(rd )loor, *RT +uilding,K hich is different from that of $C&&EL, hich is on the K-round )loor, *RT +uilding,K it is e-"all% tr"e that notices served on the latter had been reaching the former and that, in an% event, the P$.5 la %ers had never protested s"ch service on them Kthr" $C&&EL#KService of the notice of ,"dgment at the Aro"nd 0loor, LRT 5"ilding, sho"ld be deemed as effective service on P$.5*s attorne%s# The fail"re of the receiving cler( to deliver the notice to them on the same da%, cannot in an% sense be deemed to constit"te that e!c"sable negligence as o"ld arrant reconsideration "nder Section 3 MaN, R"le 31 of the R"les of $o"rt# S"ccinctl% p"t, clients are bo"nd b% their co"nsel*s mista(es .t f"rthermore appears that no other defense has been asserted b% P$.5, hether in an affidavit of merit attached to its t o :2< motions for reconsideration or other ise# .t o"ld th"s reall% ma(e no sense to set aside the ,"dgment reopen the case and allo P$.5 to present evidence of defenses hich are inconse-"ential, and o"ld not at all negate or mitigate its liabilit%# .t is tr"e that hen fra"d, accident, mista(e or e!c"sable negligence is invo(ed as gro"nd of a motion for ne trial, it sho"ld Kbe proved in the manner provided for proof of motions,K i#e#, b% Kaffidavits or depositionsK "nless the co"rt sho"ld direct that Kthe matter be heard holl% or partl% on oral testimon% or depositions#K .t is also re-"ired that Kaffidavits of meritsK be attached to the motion# + motion for ne trial gro"nded on fra"d, accident, mista(e or e!c"sable negligence sho"ld th"s ordinaril% be accompanied b% t o :2< affidavits> one,

RULE 37 (New Trial and Reconsideration) ".%L%""%NE C ((ERC%AL AND %NDU#TR%AL BAN/ vs. A#R# 6o# L);2223, &a% 22, 3281 RT%'

setting forth the facts and circ"mstances alleged to constit"te s"ch fra"d, accident, mista(e, or e!c"sable negligence@ and the other, an affidavit of merits, setting forth the partic"lar facts claimed to constit"te the movant*s meritorio"s ca"se of action or defense# The reason for the first is -"ite obvio"s> it is to enable the co"rt to determine if the movant*s claim of fra"d, etc#, is not a mere concl"sion b"t is indeed borne o"t b% the relevant facts# The reason for the second is e-"all% evident> it o"ld be "seless, a aste of time, to set aside the ,"dgment and reopen the case to allo the movant to add"ce evidence hen he has no valid ca"se of action or meritorio"s defense# Where, therefore, a motion for ne trial on the gro"nd of fra"d, etc#, is "naccompanied b% either or both affidavits, the motion is pro forma a scrap of paper, as it ere, and ill not interr"pt the r"nning of the period of appeal# 5"t here, as here, the motion for ne trial is fo"nded not onl% on fra"d, accident, mista(e or e!c"sable negligence, b"t also on the gro"nd of Ka ard of e!cessive damages,K as to hich no affidavit of fra"d, etc#, or of merits is re-"ired, hat being re-"ired of the movant being to Kpoint o"t specificall% the findings or concl"sions of the ,"dgmentK demonstrating the invo(ed gro"nd, the motion cannot be denied as pro forma simpl% beca"se no affidavit of merits is appended thereto, provided there be a specification of the findings or concl"sions of the ,"dgment alleged to be erroneo"s beca"se a arding e!cessive damages# The tenabilit% of the gro"nds is dependent "pon different premises# The "ntenabilit% of one does not of itself, render the other "nmeritorio"s#

The trial co"rt r"led in favor of S%tangco# The trial co"rt directed petitioner &ari(ina =alle% to e!ec"te a ?eed of $onve%ance covering the propert% involved in favor of S%tangco# Petitioners moved for reconsideration# Re%es S%tangco opposed petitioners* motion for reconsideration "pon the gro"nd that it as a pro forma one# 'e contended that the allegations of ins"fficienc% of evidence ere co"ched in ver% general terms, contrar% to the re-"irements of Section 2, R"le 31 of the R"les of $o"rt# %ss&e> Whether or not the &otion for Reconsideration of Petitioners is pro forma# .eld$ 6o# The r"le in o"r ,"risdiction is that a part% aggrieved b% a decision of a trial co"rt ma% move to set aside the decision and reconsideration thereof ma% be granted hen :a< the ,"dgment had a arded Ke!cessive damages@K :b< there as Kins"fficienc% of the evidence to ,"stif% the decision@K or :c< Kthe decision as against the la #K + motion for reconsideration based on gro"nd :b< or :c< above m"st point o"t specificall% the findings and concl"sions of the ,"dgment hich are not s"pported b% the evidence or hich are contrar% to la , ma(ing e!press reference to the testimonial or doc"mentar% evidence or to the provisions of la alleged to be contrar% to s"ch findings and concl"sions# The movant is also re-"ired to point o"t s"ccinctl% why reconsideration is arranted# .n *u.on 'te#edoring Company # Court of /ndustrial Relations , the S"preme $o"rt declared that it is not eno"gh that a motion for reconsideration sho"ld state what part of the decision is contrary to law or the e#idence$ it should also point out why it is so # )ailure to e%plain why will render the motion for reconsideration pro forma# .n paragraph :a< of their motion, petitioners claimed that the evidence s"bmitted as ins"fficient to sho that the do npa%ment for the p"rchase of the EspaOa Street propert% had in fact come from private respondents* predecessor)in) interest 7ose Re%es S%tangco# The trial co"rt had not disc"ssed the pres"mption of reg"larit% of private transactions invo(ed b% petitioners# .n paragraph :b< of their motion, petitioners, b"ilding "pon their paragraph :a<, arg"ed that since the mone% "sed to pa% the propert% did not belong to the plaintiff, no constr"ctive tr"st arose bet een 7ose Re%es S%tangco and &ilagros Liam9on# +ccordingl%, the% arg"e that the Re%es S%tangco spo"ses o"ld be entitled onl% to reimb"rsement of the do npa%ment and not to reconve%ance of the propert% itself# The trial co"rt had not addressed this

RULE 37 (New Trial and Reconsideration) (AR%/%NA -ALLE+ DE-EL "(ENT C R" RAT% N vs# !L 0 A#R# 6o# 330803 ?ecember 8, 3225 !acts> 7ose Re%es S%tangco instit"ted a complaint for reconve%ance of a piece of land against petitioner &ari(ina =alle% ?evelopment $orporation :K&ari(ina =alle%K< and &ilagros Liam9on# 7ose Re%es S%tangco alleged that he entr"sted some f"nds to &ilagros Liam9on in order to p"rchase a propert% from its former o ners# &ilagros Liam9on, ho ever, in alleged violation of the tr"st reposed "pon her, p"rchased the propert% in her o n name and had title to the same registered in her name# Thereafter, she transferred title over that propert% to petitioner &ari(ina =alle%, a closed corporation o ned b% the Liam9on famil%#

arg"ment in its decision#

revie and the s"bse-"ent motion for reconsideration# R&ling$ 6o# Petitioner received a cop% of the decision of the Regional Trial $o"rt on 0ebr"ar% 3, 3225# 0rom that date, he had 35 da%s, or "ntil 0ebr"ar% 34, 3225, to file a motion for reconsideration# Cn 0ebr"ar% 8, 3225, petitioner did file a motion for reconsideration of the trial co"rt*s decision# The motion, ho ever, lac(ed a notice of hearing# Dnder the present r"les, the notice of hearing is e!pressl% made a re-"irement# .n the instant case, it is "ndisp"ted that the motion for reconsideration filed b% petitioner ith the Regional Trial $o"rt did not contain an% notice of hearing# .t as therefore pro forma@ hence, it did not s"spend the r"nning of the prescriptive period# This defect as not c"red b% the filing of a second motion for reconsideration, hich is prohibited "nder the r"les#

RULE 37 (New Trial and Reconsideration) LA(BERT CA#ALLA vs. "E "LE ! T.E ".%L%""%NE#* and (%LA)R # #. E#TE-ANE# A#R# 6o# 338855, Cctober 22, 2002

!ACT#$ Private respondent filed t o :2< criminal complaints against petitioner for violation of the 5o"ncing $hec(s La :5P 22<# The &T$ of Pasig $it% rendered a decision convicting the acc"sed :petitioner herein< of the crime charged on t o :2< co"nts#+ggrieved b% the decision of the trial co"rt, petitioner interposed an appeal to the Regional Trial $o"rt :RT$< of Pasig $it%# ?issatisfied ith the decision of the co"rt a -"o, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration# The lo er co"rt denied the motion for reconsideration on acco"nt of the absence of a notice of hearing and beca"se the iss"es raised therein have alread% been passed "pon in its decision# Petitioner filed a second motion for reconsideration# Cn the other hand, private respondent filed ith the RT$ a motion for the iss"ance of a rit of e!ec"tion hich as s"bse-"entl% opposed b% petitioner# Thereafter, the co"rt a -"o denied petitioner*s second motion for reconsideration and granted the motion for the iss"ance of a rit of e!ec"tion# The rit of e!ec"tion as iss"ed b% the co"rt directing p"blic respondent ?ep"t% Sheriff 7ose R# Santos to ca"se the e!ec"tion of the ,"dgment# Petitioner interposed an appeal via a petition for revie ith pra%er for preliminar% in,"nction andGor temporar% restraining order# The appellate co"rt nonetheless prom"lgated its decision den%ing the appeal for lac( of merit#.n its decision, the $o"rt of +ppeals noted that the petition before did not contain a statement of material dates sho ing the timeliness of the petition# .t also maintained that the petition as filed o"t of time, beca"se the motion to reconsider the decision of the trial co"rt did not contain a notice of hearing# 'ence, being a mere scrap of paper, it did not interr"pt the period for filing the petition before the appellate co"rt, and the period had lapsed before the petition as filed# .t also r"led that petitioner*s second motion as not onl% a prohibited pleading b"t it as also filed o"t of time# Petitioner*s motion for reconsideration before the $o"rt of +ppeals as denied# %ss&e$ Whether or not the $o"rt of +ppeals erred in den%ing the petition for

RULE 31 (Relief fro2 0&dg2ents*

rders or

t3er 4roceedings)

REDEA vs. C URT ! A""EAL# 0ebr"ar% 4, 2001 !acts$ The controvers% of this case started hen Tancredo filed an action for partition against his older half)brother, Leocadio Redea before the $o"rt of 0irst .nstance# The complaint for partition alleges that plaintiff Tancredo and defendant Leocadio are both sons of &a!imo ho left several pieces of realt% hen he died# 5ased on the evidence presented, the RT$ partitioned the &aate propert%, co) o ned b% them, onl%# Petitioner filed a notice of appeal# The RT$ gave d"e co"rse to the notice of appeal and directed the elevation of the records of the case to the $+# The $+ iss"ed a resol"tion directing petitioner, as appellant, to file his appellants brief# 'o ever, the $+ considered the appeal abandoned and dismissed the same hen no appellant/s brief as filed# Eight months after s"ch resol"tion, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration hich the $+ again denied# Therefore, petitioner filed a Petition for Relief citing Section 2, R"le 38 of the R"les of $o"rt pra%ing that the dismissal resol"tion sho"ld be set aside hen he failed to file his appellant/s brief and grant him a fresh period of fort%)five :;5< da%s from notice ithin hich to file his appellants brief# 'o ever, the same as denied#

%ss&e$

.s the remed% petition for relief available before the $o"rt of +ppealsE RULE 31 ((Relief fro2 0&dg2ents* 0UL% rders or t3er 4roceedings)

R&ling$ 6o# .t is not available# Dnder R"le 38 of the R"les of $o"rt, petition for relief is of e-"itable character# .t is allo ed onl% in e!ceptional cases as hen there is no other available or ade-"ate remed%# .t ma% not be availed of # here a part% has another ade-"ate remed% available to him, hich is either a motion for ne trial or appeal from the adverse decision of the lo er co"rt, and he is not prevented from filing s"ch motion or ta(ing the appeal# The r"le is that relief ill not be granted to a part% ho see(s to be relieved from the effect of the ,"dgment hen the loss of the remed% at la is d"e to his o n negligence, or a mista(en mode of proced"re@ other ise, the petition for relief ill be tantamo"nt to reviving the right of appeal hich has alread% been lost either beca"se of ine!c"sable negligence or d"e to a mista(e in the mode of proced"re ta(en b% co"nsel $iting Section 2 of R"le 38 of the R"les of $o"rt, the S"preme $o"rt held that, a part% ho is prevented from ta(ing an appeal from a ,"dgment or final order of a co"rt b% reason of fra"d, accident, mista(e or e!c"sable negligence, ma% file in the same co"rt and in the same case a petition for relief pra%ing that his appeal be given d"e co"rse# This pres"pposes that no appeal as ta(en precisel% beca"se of an% of the reasons mentioned hich prevented him from appealing his case# 'ence, a petition for relief "nder R"le 38 cannot be availed of in the $+, the latter being a co"rt of appellate ,"risdiction# &oreover, "nder the present r"les, petitions for relief from a ,"dgment, final order or other proceeding rendered or ta(en sho"ld be filed in and resolved b% the co"rt in the same case from hich the petition arose# Th"s, petition for relief from a ,"dgment, final order or proceeding involved in a case tried b% a m"nicipal trial co"rt shall be filed in and decided b% the same co"rt in the same case, ,"st li(e the proced"re follo ed in the present Regional Trial $o"rt The record sho s in this case that petitioner filed a 6otice of +ppeal ith the trial co"rt, hich the latter granted and thereafter ordered the elevation of the records to the $+# The $+ re-"ired him, thr" his former co"nsel, to file his appellants brief# 'o ever, he failed to do so# 'ence, the $+ considered his appeal abandoned and dismissed the same accordingl%# 0"rthermore, his motion for reconsideration as also denied for having been filed o"t of time#

B. "URC N* 0R. vs# (R( ".%L%""%NE#* %NC. A#R# 6o# 382138, September 24, 2008

!acts$ The case stemmed from a complaint filed b% petitioner before the 6LR$# Petitioner or(ed as a seaman for the respondent &R& Philippines, .nc# ?"ring his emplo%ment ith &R&, he s"ffered hernia for hich he as repatriated to the Philippines# When he reported bac(, he as told b% &R& that there as no vacanc% for him# 6LR$ dismissed the complaint for "tter of merit# Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari "nder R"le 45 of the Revised R"les of $o"rt ith the $+# $+ dismissed the case d"e to formal infirmities# The he filed petitioner ith this $o"rt a petition for revie on certiorari "nder R"le ;5 of the 3221 R"les of $ivil Proced"re assailing the Resol"tions of the $+, hich dismissed his petition for certiorari# When s"ch petition as denied b% S$, he then filed this instant 4etition for relief fro2 5&dg2ent &nder R&le 31. %ss&e$ $an petitioner avail of a petition for relief from ,"dgment "nder R"le 38 of the 3221 R"les of $ivil Proced"re from C"r resol"tion den%ing his petition for revie E R&ling$ 6o# + petition for relief from ,"dgment is not an available remed% in the S"preme $o"rt# .n ?ela $r"9 v# +ndres, 30 We reiterated C"r prono"ncement in &esina v# 33 &eer, that a petition for relief from ,"dgment is not an available remed% in the $o"rt of +ppeals and the S"preme $o"rt# The $o"rt e!plained that "nder the 3221 Revised R"les of $ivil Proced"re, the petition for relief m"st be filed ithin si!t% :40< da%s after petitioner learns of the ,"dgment, final order or other proceeding to be set aside and m"st be accompanied ith affidavits sho ing the fra"d, accident, mista(e, or e!c"sable negligence relied "pon, and the facts constit"ting petitioner/s good and s"bstantial ca"se of action or defense, as the case ma% be# &ost importantl%, it sho"ld be filed ith the same co"rt hich rendered the decision, #i. > Section 3# Petition for relief from ,"dgment, order, or other proceedings# P When a ,"dgment or final order is entered, or an% other proceeding is thereafter ta(en

against a part% in an% co"rt thro"gh fra"d, accident, mista(e, or e!c"sable negligence, he ma% file a petition in s"ch co"rt and in the same case pra%ing that the ,"dgment, order or proceeding be set aside# :Dnderscoring s"pplied< While R"le 38 "ses the phrase Kan% co"rt,K it refers onl% to &"nicipalG&etropolitan and Regional Trial $o"rts Proced"re in the $+ and the S"preme $o"rt are governed b% separate provisions of the R"les of $o"rt#35 .t ma%, from time to time, be s"pplemented b% additional r"les prom"lgated b% the S"preme $o"rt thro"gh resol"tions or circ"lars# +s it stands, neither the R"les of $o"rt nor the Revised .nternal R"les of the $+ allo s the remed% of petition for relief in the $+# There is no provision in the R"les of $o"rt ma(ing the petition for relief applicable in the $+ or this $o"rt# The proced"re in the $+ from R"les ;; to 55, ith the e!ception of R"le ;5 hich pertains to the S"preme $o"rt, identifies the remedies available before said $o"rt s"ch as ann"lment of ,"dgments or final orders or resol"tions :R"le ;1<, motion for reconsideration :R"le 52<, and ne trial :R"le 53<# 6o here is a petition for relief "nder R"le 38 mentioned#

chattels of the defendants)appellants in order to satisf% the ,"dgment# $o"nsel for defendants presented a Petition for Relief, based on the follo ing gro"nds> :3< the ans er)letter as a s"bstantial compliance ith the r"les, for it contained facts "pon hich defendants relied "pon as defenses, and if said letter)ans er did not conform ith the r"les, the non)conformit% co"ld be considered Kan e!c"sable mista(eK ta(ing into acco"nt that defendants are mere ordinar% la%)men not cogni9ant ith the intricacies of the R"les of $o"rt@ virt"al la librar% :2< the defendants have s"bstantial and valid defenses, hich ere contained in the letter)ans er@ virt"al la librar% :3< that defendants have been deprived of their da% in co"rt# %ss&e$ Whether or not the Petition for Relief co"ld be given d"e co"rse#

RULE 31 (Relief fro2 0&dg2ents*

rders or

t3er 4roceedings)

CA+ETAN vs. CE)UERRA 33 S$R+ 13 !acts$ Plaintiff, $atalina $a%etano, instit"ted a civil case for 0oreclos"re of Real Estate &ortgage, against defendants)spo"ses $eg"erra and Serrano# S"mmons and cop% of the complaint for foreclos"re ere served on the defendants on ?ecember 2, 3240, and on ?ecember 35, 3240, ithin the reglementar% period, the defendants filed an +ns er in the form of a letter# .n spite of the above letter)ans er, the defendants ere, "pon motion of plaintiff declared in defa"lt and plaintiff as allo ed to present her evidence e!)parte herein the co"rt a -"o rendered ,"dgment in favor of the plaintiff# .t appears that this decision never became (no n to appellants)spo"ses, the same having been ret"rned to the $o"rt, as "nclaimed# Dnder date of +pril 23, 3243, defendants ere served ith a cop% of a Writ of E!ec"tion, dated 0ebr"ar% 30, 3243, addressed to the Sheriff, commanding the latter to sei9e the goods and

R&ling$ Qes# Even if granting, for p"rposes of arg"ment, that defendants ere validl% declared in defa"lt, still the petition for relief is considered to have been filed on time# + petition for relief ma% li(e ise be ta(en from the order of e!ec"tion, inasm"ch as Sec# 2, R"le 38 R"les of $o"rt, does not onl% refer to ,"dgments, b"t also to orders, or an% other proceedings :P''$ v# Tiongco R Escasa, L)38823, 6ov# 28, 324;<# 0rom the time the% had act"al (no ledge of the order of e!ec"tion, on +pril 23, 3243, "ntil the filing of the petition for relief, on 7"ne 31, 3243, onl% 51 da%s had elapsed# ?efendants having received a first registr% notice on 7an"ar% 33, 3243, b"t the% did not claim the letter, gives rise to the pres"mption that five :5< da%s after receipt of the first notice, the defendants ere deemed to have receive the letter# 'o ever, it cannot ,"stl% attrib"te "pon defendants act"al (no ledge of the decision, beca"se there is no sho ing that the registr% notice itself contained an% indication that the registered letter as a cop% of the decision, or that the registr% notice referred to the case being ventilated#

RULE 31 (Relief fro2 0&dg2ents*

rders or

t3er 4roceedings)

L%NA vs. C URT ! A""EAL#S A#R# 6o# L)43321, 2 +pril 3285, 335 S$R+ 431 !acts$ Cn &arch 33, 3282, private respondent 6orthern &otors, .nc# filed ith

the $o"rt of 0irst .nstance of Ri9al a case for s"m of mone% ith damages# Cn +pril 22, 3282, petitioner +le! Lina as served ith s"mmons together ith a cop% of the complaint# Cn &a% 8, 3282, hen no ans er or motion to dismiss as filed b% petitioner, 6orthern &otors, .nc# filed a motion to declare him in defa"lt# The motion as set for hearing on &a% 23, 3282# &r# Lina filed his opposition to the aforesaid motion inviting attention to the fact that he had filed a motion for e!tension of time to file responsive pleading ithin the reglementar% period# The $0. as "na are that on &a% 5, 3282, the petitioner had sent to it, b% registered mail, a motion for e!tension of t ent% da%s from &a% 1, 3282, ithin hich to file an ans er, and hich motion as received b% the respondent co"rt onl% on &a% 32, 3282# 5"t, the $0. ,"dge iss"ed an order declaring &r# Lina in defa"lt and allo ing 6orthern &otors, .nc# to add"ce its evidence e! parte# Cn &a% 21, 3282, petitioner filed his ans er to the complaint# 5"t $0. rendered its decision in favor of 6orthern &otors, .nc#This prompted petitioner to file a motion to set aside this decision# Cn +"g"st 25, 3282, respondent ,"dge iss"ed an order den%ing petitioner*s motion to set aside decision, prompting the petitioner to file ith the $+ a petition for certiorariGprohibition, b"t this petition as denied# %ss&e$ Whether or not certiorari is proper in a case here ,"dgment b% defa"lt as rendered itho"t an order of defa"lt being f"rnished petitioner and here meritorio"s defenses e!ist, hich are for the trial co"rt to eval"ate and hich eval"ation as not done in this case#

file a motion, "nder oath, to set aside the order of defa"lt on the gro"nd that his fail"re to ans er as d"e to fra"d, accident, mista(e or e!c"sable neglect, and that he has a meritorio"s defense@ :Sec# 3, R"le 38< 6) .f the ,"dgment has alread% been rendered hen the defendant discovered the defa"lt, b"t before the same has become final and e!ec"tor%, he ma% file a motion for ne trial "nder Section 3 :a< of R"le 31@ c) .f the defendant discovered the defa"lt after the ,"dgment has become final and e!ec"tor%, he ma% file a petition for relief "nder Section 2 of R"le 38@ and d) 'e ma% also appeal from the ,"dgment rendered against him as contrar% to the evidence or to the la , even if no petition to set aside the order of defa"lt has been presented b% him# :Sec# 2, R"le ;3<# Petitioner in this case did not avail himself of an% of the above remedies# .nstead, he ent to the appellate co"rt on certiorariGprohibition# Where ,"dgment rendered b% the respondent co"rt is the one so"ght to be ann"lled, a petition for relief, "nder R"le 38 of the Revised R"les of $o"rt, hich is a remed% in the ordinar% co"rse of la , co"ld have been ,"st as plain, ade-"ate and speed% as certiorari# S"ch a remed% co"ld have been granted b% the respondent co"rt# .f the respondent co"rt still denies the petition, then petitioner can ta(e an appeal on the order den%ing the petition, and in the co"rse of s"ch appeal petitioner can also assail the ,"dgment on the merits "pon the gro"nd that it is s"pported b% the evidence, or it is contrar% to la #

RULE 31 (Relief fro2 0&dg2ents* R&ling$ 6o# The granting of additional time ithin hich to file an ans er to a complaint is a matter largel% addressed to the so"nd discretion of the trial co"rt# KWhile trial co"rts are pers"aded, as a matter of polic%, to adopt a basicall% fle!ible attit"de in favor of the defendant in this area of o"r ad,ective la , the defense sho"ld never be l"lled into the belief that henever trial co"rts ref"se a second re-"est for e!tension to file an ans er, the appellate co"rts ill grant relief :6aga ?evelopment $orporation vs# $o"rt of +ppeals, ;3 S$R+ 305<#K .n the case at bar, it as on &a% 5, 3282 or 2 da%s before the e!piration of the 35) da% reglementar% period given to defendant to file his responsive pleading hen petitioner moved for an e!tension of 20 da%s from &a% 1 ithin hich to file his ans er# Dpon motion of private respondent and over the ob,ection of petitioner, respondent ,"dge iss"ed an order declaring petitioner in defa"lt# Dnder the R"les of $o"rt, the remedies available to a defendant in the $0. :no RT$< are> a) The defendant in defa"lt ma%, at an% time after discover% thereof and before ,"dgment,

rders or

t3er "roceedings)

TANCRED REDE7A vs. CA and REDE7A A#R# 6o# 3;4433, 0ebr"ar% 4, 2001 !acts$ +n action for partition filed b% petitioner Tancredo against his older half) brother, herein private respondent Leocadio RedeOa before the then $o"rt of 0irst .nstance :no Regional Trial $o"rt MRT$N<#S"bse-"entl%, there being no appellant/s brief filed ithin the e!tended period, the $+ iss"ed a resol"tion considering the appeal abandoned and accordingl% dismissing the same# Eight :8< months after the $+ iss"ed the resol"tion, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration thereof# the $+ ho ever denied the motion# Then, petitioner filed a Petition for Relief anchored on Section 2, R"le 38 of the 3221 R"les of $ivil Proced"re# .n that pleading, petitioner pra%s the $+ to set aside its dismissal resol"tion, reinstate his appeal and grant him a fresh period of fort%)five :;5< da%s from notice ithin hich to file his appellant/s brief#

'o ever, the $+ denied the aforementioned Petition for Relief# 5"t even as the $+ stood firm on its stand that a petition for relief from denial of appeal is not among the remedies available before the $+ itself, the appellate co"rt, in the same Resol"tion of 6ovember 34, 2000, left the final determination of the -"estion to this $o"rt# %##UE$ Whether or not petitioner is entitled for the relief he pra%ed for# RUL%N)$ 6o# + petition for relief ma% not be availed of here a part% has another ade-"ate remed% available to him, hich is either a motion for ne trial or appeal from the adverse decision of the lo er co"rt, and he is not prevented from filing s"ch motion or ta(ing the appeal# The r"le is that relief ill not be granted to a part% ho see(s to be relieved from the effect of the ,"dgment hen the loss of the remed% at la is d"e to his o n negligence, or a mista(en mode of proced"re@ other ise, the petition for relief ill be tantamo"nt to reviving the right of appeal hich has alread% been lost either beca"se of ine!c"sable negligence or d"e to a mista(e in the mode of proced"re ta(en b% co"nsel# 'ere, the record sho s that petitioner in fact filed a 6otice of +ppeal ith the trial co"rt, hich the latter granted in its order of ?ecember 33, 3221 and ordered the elevation of the records to the $+# .n t"rn, the $+, in its resol"tion of September 28, 3228, re-"ired the petitioner, thr" his former co"nsel, +tt%# Aeminiano +lmeda, to file his appellant/s brief# 5"t petitioner failed to compl%# $onse-"entl%, in its resol"tion of &arch 2, 3222, the $+ considered the appellant/s appeal as +5+6?C6E? and ?.S&.SSE? the same# To recapit"late, petitioner is not entitled to relief "nder R"le 38, Section 2 of the R"les of $o"rt# 'e as not prevented from filing his notice of appeal b% fra"d, accident, mista(e or e!c"sable negligence, as in fact he filed one# The relief afforded b% R"le 38 ill not be granted to a part% ho see(s to be relieved from the effects of the ,"dgment hen the loss of the remed% of la as d"e to his o n negligence, or a mista(en mode of proced"re for that matter@ other ise, the petition for relief ill be tantamo"nt to reviving the right of appeal hich has alread% been lost, either beca"se of ine!c"sable negligence or d"e to a mista(e of proced"re b% co"nsel# The R"les allo a petition for relief onl% hen there is no other available remed%, and not hen litigants, li(e the petitioner, lose a remed% b% negligence#

+"g"st 22, 2004 !acts$ Respondent Pelae9/s last promotion too( place in 3223 hen she as appointed as $orporate $ashier b% petitioner)corporation# 5% reason of the corporation/s s"bstantial b"siness losses, it implemented cost)c"tting and streamlining programs to alleviate its financial predicament# Cne of the positions hich as abolished and declared to be red"ndant as the position of $orporate $ashier held b% respondent Pelae9# 'ence, she as terminated# 'o ever, she fo"nd o"t the creation of the position of Treas"r% $ler( in petitioner*s plantilla hich has the same ,ob description and responsibilities as that of $orporate $ashier# This prompted respondent to file a $omplaint against petitioner) corporation for illegal dismissal, non)pa%mentG"nderpa%ment of salaries, separation pa%, retirement benefits, service incentive leave and sic( leave benefits, and damages before the Labor +rbiter# The Labor +rbiter r"led that petitioner) corporation is g"ilt% of illegal dismissal and a arded to respondent bac( ages, separation pa% and damages# Cn appeal before the 6LR$ ho ever, it affirmed the validit% of petitioner*s red"ndanc% program# +fter the denial of her motion for reconsideration, she filed a special civil action for certiorari "nder R"le 45 of the R"les of $o"rt arg"ing that grave ab"se of discretion as committed b% the 6LR$ in setting aside the Labor +rbiter*s ?ecision despite having been d"l% s"pported b% the facts and the la hich as granted b% the $+# Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from 7"dgment ith the $+ anchoring its petition on the *e!c"sable negligence of its co"nsel Sig"ion Re%na la firm and the gross negligence of one of its co"nsel# %ss&e$ Whether or not petitioner)corporations/ motion for relief from ,"dgment sho"ld be granted# R&ling$ The S"preme $o"rt r"led in the negative# The denial of a petition for relief from ,"dgment can onl% be assailed before the S"preme $o"rt #ia a special civil action "nder R"le 45 and not thro"gh a petition for revie on certiorari "nder R"le ;5# .n availing of a petition for revie on certiorari "nder R"le ;5 to obtain the reversal of the $o"rt of +ppeals* Resol"tions den%ing its petition for relief from ,"dgment, petitioner certainl% has made "se of the rong remed%# .n ,ercury 0rug Corporation, the $o"rt r"led that a petition for relief from ,"dgment is an e-"itable remed% that is allo ed onl% in e!ceptional cases hen there is no other available or ade-"ate remed%# When a part% has another remed% available to him, hich ma% be either a motion for ne trial or appeal

RULE 31 (Relief fro2 0&dg2ents*

rders or

t3er "roceedings)

TRU#T %NTERNAT% NAL "A"ER C R" RAT% N vs. "ELAE'

from an adverse decision of the trial co"rt, and he as not prevented b% fra"d, accident, mista(e or e!c"sable negligence from filing s"ch motion or ta(ing s"ch appeal, he cannot avail himself of this petition# Relief ill not be granted to a part% ho see(s avoidance from the effects of the ,"dgment hen the loss of the remed% at la as d"e to his o n negligence@ other ise the petition for relief can be "sed to revive the right to appeal hich had been lost thr" ine!c"sable negligence .n 'arraga, the petition for relief from ,"dgment as granted d"e to the attending circ"mstance here the co"nsel of record as grossl% negligent in defending the ca"se of the client# Cn the other hand, in the present case, petitioner is placing the blame on the alleged gross negligence of an attorne% ho as not even been sho n to have participated in the proceedings of the case# .n 1eirs of 2ntonio 3ael, this $o"rt fo"nd that there as a sho ing of *badges of fra"d displa%ed b% the co"nsel of the "ns"ccessf"l part% hen he resorted to t o clearl% inconsistent remedies, namel% appeal and motion for ne trial# .n contrast, the instant case merel% ill"strates a scenario here a co"nsel committed a simple and ine!c"sable negligence to the pre,"dice of the client#

the 3221 R"les of $ivil Proced"re from C"r resol"tion den%ing his petition for revie E R&ling$ 6o# + petition for relief from ,"dgment is not an available remed% in the S"preme $o"rt# .n ?ela $r"9 v# +ndres, 30 We reiterated C"r prono"ncement in &esina v# 33 &eer, that a petition for relief from ,"dgment is not an available remed% in the $o"rt of +ppeals and the S"preme $o"rt# The $o"rt e!plained that "nder the 3221 Revised R"les of $ivil Proced"re, the petition for relief m"st be filed ithin si!t% :40< da%s after petitioner learns of the ,"dgment, final order or other proceeding to be set aside and m"st be accompanied ith affidavits sho ing the fra"d, accident, mista(e, or e!c"sable negligence relied "pon, and the facts constit"ting petitioner/s good and s"bstantial ca"se of action or defense, as the case ma% be# &ost importantl%, it sho"ld be filed ith the same co"rt hich rendered the decision, #i. > Section 3# Petition for relief from ,"dgment, order, or other proceedings# P When a ,"dgment or final order is entered, or an% other proceeding is thereafter ta(en against a part% in an% co"rt thro"gh fra"d, accident, mista(e, or e!c"sable negligence, he ma% file a petition in s"ch co"rt and in the same case pra%ing that the ,"dgment, order or proceeding be set aside# :Dnderscoring s"pplied< While R"le 38 "ses the phrase Kan% co"rt,K it refers onl% to &"nicipalG&etropolitan and Regional Trial $o"rts Proced"re in the $+ and the S"preme $o"rt are governed b% separate provisions of the R"les of $o"rt# .t ma%, from time to time, be s"pplemented b% additional r"les prom"lgated b% the S"preme $o"rt thro"gh resol"tions or circ"lars# +s it stands, neither the R"les of $o"rt nor the Revised .nternal R"les of the $+ allo s the remed% of petition for relief in the $+# There is no provision in the R"les of $o"rt ma(ing the petition for relief applicable in the $+ or this $o"rt# The proced"re in the $+ from R"les ;; to 55, ith the e!ception of R"le ;5 hich pertains to the S"preme $o"rt, identifies the remedies available before said $o"rt s"ch as ann"lment of ,"dgments or final orders or resol"tions :R"le ;1<, motion for reconsideration :R"le 52<, and ne trial :R"le 53<# 6o here is a petition for relief "nder R"le 38 mentioned#

RULE 31 (Relief fro2 0&dg2ents* 0UL%

rders or

t3er "roceedings)

B. "URC N* 0R. vs# (R( ".%L%""%NE#* %NC.

!acts$ The case stemmed from a complaint filed b% petitioner before the 6LR$# Petitioner or(ed as a seaman for the respondent &R& Philippines, .nc# ?"ring his emplo%ment ith &R&, he s"ffered hernia for hich he as repatriated to the Philippines# When he reported bac(, he as told b% &R& that there as no vacanc% for him# 6LR$ dismissed the complaint for "tter of merit# Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari "nder R"le 45 of the Revised R"les of $o"rt ith the $+# $+ dismissed the case d"e to formal infirmities# The he filed petitioner ith this $o"rt a petition for revie on certiorari "nder R"le ;5 of the 3221 R"les of $ivil Proced"re assailing the Resol"tions of the $+, hich dismissed his petition for certiorari# When s"ch petition as denied b% S$, he then filed this instant 4etition for relief fro2 5&dg2ent &nder R&le 31. %ss&e$ $an petitioner avail of a petition for relief from ,"dgment "nder R"le 38 of

RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents) RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents) E,UAT R%AL REALT+ DE-EL "(ENT* %NC. vs. (A+!A%R T.EATER 332 S$R+ 332 !acts$ The S"preme $o"rt prom"lgated its decision in E-"atorial Realt% ?evelopment, .nc# and $armelo and 5a"ermann, .nc# vs# &a%fair Theater, .nc#, hereb% the ?eed of +bsol"te Sale bet een petitioners E-"atorial Realt% ?evelopment, .nc# and $armelo R 5a"ermann, .nc# is hereb% deemed rescinded# $armelo and 5a"ermann is ordered to ret"rn to E-"atorial Realt% ?evelopment the p"rchase price# The latter is directed to e!ec"te the deeds and doc"ments necessar% to ret"rn o nership to $armelo R 5a"ermann of the disp"ted lots# $armelo R 5a"ermann is ordered to allo &a%fair Theater, .nc# to b"% the lots for P33,300,000#00# Respondent thereafter filed ith the RT$ a motion for rit of e!ec"tion of the ,"dgment hich the latter granted in an order# E-"atorial filed a motion for reconsideration of the order, the recall andGor -"ashal of the rit of e!ec"tion and the notice to compl%, on the gro"nd that the order of e!ec"tion did not conform to the dispositive portion of the S"preme $o"rt*s decision b"t as denied# %ss&e$ Whether or not the orders of e!ec"tion of the trial co"rt inconsistent and at variance ith the dispositive portion of the S$/s decision# R&ling$ Qes# + rit of e!ec"tion m"st conform to the ,"dgment to be e!ec"ted and adhere strictl% to the ver% essential partic"lars# +n order of e!ec"tion, hich varies the tenor of the ,"dgment or e!ceeds the terms thereof, is a n"llit%# The rit of e!ec"tion Kma% not var% the terms of the ,"dgment it see(s to enforce# 6or ma% it go be%ond the terms of the ,"dgment so"ght to be e!ec"ted# Where the e!ec"tion is not in harmon% ith the ,"dgment hich gives it life, and in fact e!ceeds it, has pro tanto no validit%# To maintain other ise o"ld be to ignore the constit"tional provision against depriving a person of his propert% itho"t d"e process of la #K .n iss"ing the -"estioned orders, the trial co"rt e!ceeded its a"thorit% b% altering the essential portions of the S"preme $o"rt decision# )REATER (ETR " L%TAN (AN%LA vs. 0ANC ( EN-%R N(ENTAL 7"ne 30, 2004 !acts$ 7+6$C& on a contract for the &&?+/s San &ateo aste management pro,ect# + b"ild)Cperate)Transfer :5CT< contract for the pro,ect as signed bet een 7ancom and the Philippine Aovernment# The contract as never signed b% President Ramos as it as too close to the end of his term# 'e endorsed it to President Estrada, b"t Estrada ref"sed to sign it, th"s the 5CT contract as not p"rs"ed and implemented# S"bse-"entl%, &etropolitan &anila Solid Waste &anagement $ommittee p"blished another call for proposals for solid aste management pro,ects for &etro &anila# 7ancom filed a petition ith the Pasig RT$ as(ing the co"rt to declare as void the resol"tion of the Areater &etropolitan &anila Solid Waste &anagement $ommittee disregarding the 5CT contract ith 7ancom and the call for bids for a ne aste management contract# RT$ r"led in favor of 7+6$C& hich prompted &&?+ to file ith $+ a petition for certiorari ith pra%er for a temporar% restraining order# $+ dismissed the petition, and S$ affirmed the $+/s decision and declared the contract valid and perfected b"t ineffective and "nimplementable pending approval b% the President# Cn 6ovember 3, 2002, &&?+ for arded the contract to the Cffice of the President for appropriate action# 'o ever, on 7"ne 23, 2003 the RT$ iss"ed an +lias Writ of E!ec"tion prohibiting and en,oining A&&SW& $ommittee from implementing its resol"tion and for calling o"t for bids for a ne contract# The petitioner challenged the RT$ via petition for certiorari ith pra%er for the iss"ance of a TRC andGor rit of preliminar% in,"nction before the $+# $+ denied the petition and r"led that the fact that 7ancom contract has been declared "nimplementable itho"t the President/s signat"re, o"ld not e!c"se petitioners/ fail"re to compl% ith their "nderta(ings to 7+6$C&# %ss&e$ .s the +lias Writ of E!ec"tion iss"ed b% the RT$ properE R&ling$ 6o# Section 3, R"le 32 of the R"les of $o"rt provides> SE$T.C6 3# 4%ecution upon 5udgments or final orders# P E!ec"tion shall iss"e as a matter of right, on motion, "pon a ,"dgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding "pon the e!piration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has

been d"l% perfected# There are instances, ho ever, hen an error ma% be committed in the co"rse of e!ec"tion proceedings pre,"dicial to the rights of a part%# These instances call for correction b% a s"perior co"rt, as here> 3< the rit of e!ec"tion varies the ,"dgment@ 2< there has been a change in the sit"ation of the parties ma(ing e!ec"tion ine-"itable or "n,"st@ 3< e!ec"tion is so"ght to be enforced against propert% e!empt from e!ec"tion@ ;< it appears that the controvers% has never been s"bmitted to the ,"dgment of the co"rt@ 5< the terms of the ,"dgment are not clear eno"gh and there remains room for interpretation thereof@ or 4< it appears that the rit of e!ec"tion has been improvidentl% iss"ed, or that it is defective in s"bstance, or is iss"ed against the rong part%, or that the ,"dgment debt has been paid or other ise satisfied, or the rit as iss"ed itho"t a"thorit%# + rit of e!ec"tion m"st conform to the ,"dgment hich is to be e!ec"ted, s"bstantiall% to ever% essential partic"lar thereof, it is settled# .t ma% not th"s var% the terms of the ,"dgment it see(s to enforce, nor go be%ond its terms# Where the e!ec"tion is not in harmon% ith the ,"dgment hich gives it life and e!ceeds it, it has no validit%# .n iss"ing the alias rit of e!ec"tion, the trial co"rt in effect ordered the enforcement of the contract despite this $o"rt/s "ne-"ivocal prono"ncement that albeit valid and perfected, the contract shall become effective onl% "pon approval b% the President# .nd"bitabl%, the alias rit of e!ec"tion varied the tenor of this $o"rt/s ,"dgment, ent against essential portions and e!ceeded the terms thereof# The e!ec"tion directed b% the trial co"rt being o"t of harmon% ith the ,"dgment, legal implications cannot save it from being fo"nd to be fatall% defective# RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents) -ALDE' vs. !%NANC%ERA (AN%LA A#R# 6o# 383381, September 22, 2002

as denied b% the co"rt# Respondent 0inanciera filed an Drgent &otion for E!ec"tion dated 6ovember 33, 2004 of the $ompromise +greement in $ivil $ase 6o# J)28)355;4# Petitioner =alde9, on the other hand, filed a motion for the e!ec"tion# The RT$ of J"e9on $it%, 5ranch 221 denied respondent 0inanciera*s "rgent motion and granted petitioner =alde9*s motion for e!ec"tion# Thereafter, respondent 0inanciera filed its &otion for Reconsideration, hich as event"all% denied, prompting it to file a petition for certiorari ith the $+ on the gro"nd that the RT$ had committed grave ab"se of discretion amo"nting to lac( of or e!cess of ,"risdiction# The $+ denied the motion for reconsideration of petitioner =alde9@ hence, the latter no resorts to the present petition and ascribes to the $+# %ss&e$ Whether or not the co"rt of appeals has no ,"risdiction over the petition for certiorari filed b% respondent# R&ling$ $onsidering that an appeal as still available as a remed% for the assailed Crders of the RT$, the filing of the petition for certiorari as an attempted s"bstit"te for an appeal# 6ecessaril%, it m"st be noted that the petition for certiorari as filed on +"g"st 28, 2001 hen the -"estioned RT$ Crders had alread% attained finalit%# The Crder became final hen respondent 0inanciera received the RT$ Crder of 7"ne 38, 2001 den%ing the former/s motion for reconsideration on 7"ne 22, 2001# .nstead of filing a notice of appeal ithin the reglementar% period lasting "ntil 7"l% 3;, 2001, respondent filed a petition for certiorari, a% be%ond the reglementar% period## 'ence, the $+ had no ,"risdiction to decide the said petition for certiorari#

RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents) !acts$ Petitioner and his ife, L%dia ?# =alde9, among others, filed a $omplaint for a s"m of mone% against respondent 0inanciera &anila, .nc# Thereafter, the RT$ rendered its ?ecision finding respondent 0inanciera liable to plaintiffs# +n appeal as then filed ith the $+, hich affirmed the a ard of act"al damages and remanded the case to the RT$ for the determination of the a ard for moral and e!emplar% damages, as ell as attorne%/s fees# S"bse-"entl%, $ompromise +greements ere entered into among the parties# The said $ompromise +greements ere approved# + rit of e!ec"tion as iss"ed# The plaintiffs ho ever filed a motion for the rescission of the $ompromise +greement on the gro"nd that no pa%ment as e!pected from respondent 0inanciera# The motion NAT% NAL . (E ( RT)A)E !%NANCE C R" RAT% N -# ABA+AR% !acts$ Petitioner, 6ational 'ome &ortgage 0inance $orporation is a AC$$ ith its o n charter has in its emplo% respondents, mostl% ran()in)file ho claim the% ere hired after 7"ne 30, 3282# The% claim additional benefits as provided b% R#+# 6o# 4158# To implement the la the ?5& iss"ed a circ"lar e!cl"ding those ho ere alread% inc"mbent as of 7"ne 30, 3282 and ho ere act"all% receiving the said benefits# Petitioners filed a petition for mandam"s ith the trial co"rt

hich s"bse-"entl% granted it# The conflict arose hen the ?5& sent a letter to petitioner disallo ing certain allo ances, incl"ding those granted b% the trial co"rt# Respondents then filed for the e!ec"tion of the trial co"rt/s decision, hich it s"bse-"entl% granted# The% so"ght for the garnishment of petitioners/ f"nds "nder the c"stod% of the Land 5an( of the Philippines# Petitioner appealed thro"gh certiorari, citing grave ab"se of discretion ith the $o"rt of +ppeals, the latter dismissed the same finding the case lac(ing in merit# %ss&e$ Whether or not the e!ec"tion of the ,"dgment is allo ed in this case# R&ling$ 6o, a favorable ,"dgment rendered in a special civil action for mandam"s is in the nat"re of a special ,"dgment# +s s"ch, it re-"ires the performance of an% other act than the pa%ment of mone% or the sale or deliver% of real or personal propert% the e!ec"tion of hich is governed b% Section 33, R"le 32 of the R"les of $o"rt32 hich states> HE!ec"tion of Special 7"dgment#BWhen the ,"dgment re-"ires the performance of an% act other than those mentioned in the t o preceding sections, a certified cop% of the ,"dgment shall be attached to the rit of e!ec"tion and shall be served b% the officer "pon the part% against hom the same is rendered, or "pon an% other person re-"ired thereb%, or b% la , to obe% the same, and s"ch part% or person ma% be p"nished for contempt if he disobe%s s"ch ,"dgment#I While the +pril 31, 2003 ?ecision of the trial co"rt ordered petitioner to pa% the benefits claimed b% respondents, it b% no means ordered the pa%ment of a specific s"m of mone% and instead merel% directed petitioner to e!tend to respondents the benefits "nder R#+# 6o# 4158 and its implementing r"les# 5eing a special ,"dgment, the decision ma% not be e!ec"ted in the same a% as a ,"dgment for mone% handed do n in an ordinar% civil case governed b% Section 2, R"le 32 of the R"les $o"rt hich sanctions garnishment of debts and credits to satisf% a monetar% a ard# Aarnishment is proper onl% hen the ,"dgment to be enforced is one for pa%ment of a s"m of mone%# .t cannot be emplo%ed to implement a special ,"dgment s"ch as that rendered in a special civil action for mandam"s#

A : C (%N%(ART C R" RAT% N* vs# -%LLAREAL* et.al ).R. No. ;7<<=1* cto6er ;>* <>>7 !acts$ RT$ iss"ed a Writ of E!ec"tion re-"iring petitioner to deposit an amo"nt of rental pl"s 32T %earl% interest, comp"ted from the date of petitioner/s receipt of the demand letter# Respondents filed a &otion for Recomp"tation claiming that the comp"tation sho"ld incl"de a monthl% interest of 3T on the total amo"nt of rental and other charges not paid on time, in accordance ith the $ontract of Lease# 'o ever, RT$ denied respondent/s motion prompting the latter to file a Petition for Certiorari "nder R"le 45, before the $o"rt of +ppeals, hich r"led in favor of the respondents# .n the assailed ?ecision, the appellate co"rt fo"nd that petitioner consigned the rental pa%ments after the% fell d"e and, th"s, it r"led that the 3T interest stip"lated in the $ontract of Lease sho"ld be imposed# Petitioner avers that the respondents sho"ld have filed ith the $o"rt of +ppeals an ordinar% appeal instead of a special civil action for certiorari, hen it -"estioned the comp"tation made b% the ParaOa-"e RT$, 5ranch 32;, of the rentals d"e the o ner of the s"b,ect propert%# %ss&e$ What is the proper remed% against the order of e!ec"tion# .eld$ The proper remed% is a special civil action for certiorari "nder R"le 45# Section 3, R"le ;3 of the R"les of $o"rt, hich provides> Section 3# S"b,ect of appeal# P +n appeal ma% be ta(en from a ,"dgment or final order that completel% disposes of the case, or of a partic"lar matter therein hen declared b% these R"les to be appealable# 6o appeal ma% be ta(en from> :f< an order of e!ec"tion@ .n all the above instances here the ,"dgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved part% ma% file an appropriate special civil action "nder R"le 45# .t is e!plicit from the afore)-"oted provision that no appeal ma% be ta(en from an order of e!ec"tion@ instead, s"ch order ma% be challenged b% the aggrieved part% #ia a special civil action for certiorari "nder R"le 45 of the R"les of $o"rt# Respondents filed the petition to -"estion the Writ of E!ec"tion iss"ed b% RT$, hich comp"ted the rentals to be paid b% the petitioner to hoever is declared the o ner of the s"b,ect propert%, itho"t incl"ding the 3T penalt% interest stip"lated in the Lease $ontract# $ontrar% to the position ta(en b% the petitioner, respondents/ reco"rse to an appeal o"ld have been "navailing "nder

RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents)

Section 3, R"le ;3, of the R"les of $o"rt# The filing of a special civil action for certiorari "nder R"le 45 of the R"les of $o"rt as the proper remed% -"estioning an order of e!ec"tion#

RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents) ".%L%""%NE -ETERAN# BAN/ vs# %NTER(ED%ATE A""ELLATE C URT A#R# 6o# 13342 Cctober 23, 3282 !acts$ Private respondent Emiliana $# ?oblon filed an action against petitioner Philippine =eterans 5an( for reformation of instr"ment and damages ith pra%er for a rit of preliminar% in,"nction ith the Regional Trial $o"rt# The co"rt rendered a s"mmar% ,"dgment in favor of the plaintiff# &ean hile, the &onetar% 5oard of the $entral 5an( iss"ed &#5# Resol"tion 6o# 34;, thereb% placing Philippine =eterans 5an( "nder receivership# Private respondent Emiliana ?oblon filed an e%-parte motion for alias rit of e!ec"tion hich as opposed b% the petitioner ban( on the gro"nd that the latter is "nder receivership and that all claims against it cannot be enforced "ntil after li-"idation# Cn the same date, the respondent ,"dge granted the said motion for the rit of e!ec"tion# %ss&e$ Whether or not the ,"dgment of the Regional Trial $o"rt hich a arded damages to private respondent Emiliana ?oblon, can be legall% enforced against petitioner b% e!ec"tion, after petitioner has been placed "nder li-"idation b% the &onetar% 5oard of the $entral 5an(# .eld$ 6o# Petitioner contends that the final ,"dgment in m"st be satisfied in the li-"idation proceedings considering that the assets of petitioner are alread% in custodia legis of the li-"idator, and that the sales at p"blic a"ction cond"cted b% the respondent sheriff to enforce the rit of e!ec"tion iss"ed b% respondent ,"dge are illegal and void# The r"le that once a decision has become final and e!ec"tor%, it is the ministerial d"t% of the co"rt to order its e!ec"tion, admits of certain e!ceptions as in cases of special and e!ceptional nat"re here it becomes imperative in the higher interest of ,"stice to direct the s"spension of its e!ec"tion@ or henever it is

necessar% to accomplish the aims of ,"stice@ or when certain facts and circumstances transpired after the 5udgment "ecame final which would render the e%ecution of the 5udgment un5ust :Lipana v# ?evelopment 5an( of Ri9al, 6o# L) 1388;, September 2;, 3281<# .n the instant case, there is no do"bt that the decision of the trial co"rt has become final and e!ec"tor%, hich fact as affirmed b% the .ntermediate +ppellate $o"rt, and b% this $o"rt# .t is significant to note, ho ever, that respondent ,"dge iss"ed a rit of e!ec"tion to enforce the ,"dgment against petitioner, after the petitioner Philippine =eterans 5an( has alread% been placed "nder receivership b% the &onetar% 5oard of the $entral 5an(# The fact that petitioner as placed "nder receivership is a s&4ervening event that renders a ,"dgment, not ithstanding its finalit%, "nenforceable b% attachment or e!ec"tion#

RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents) #A("A)U%TA )AR(ENT# C R" RAT% N vs# NAT% NAL LAB R RELAT% N# C ((%##% N (#EC ND D%-%#% N) and E(%L%A B. #ANT # A#R# 6o# 302;04 7"ne 31, 322; !acts$ Sampag"ita dismissed Santos# She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal b"t the labor arbiter s"stained the compan%# 'o ever, his decision as reversed b% the 6LR$, hich ordered her reinstatement ith bac( ages from the time of her illegal s"spension "ntil her act"al reinstatement# &eantime, the petitioner had also filed a criminal action against Santos for the same offense in the &"nicipal Trial $o"rt of $aloocan $it%# +fter trial, she as fo"nd g"ilt% and sentenced to an indeterminate penalt% of 3 month and 3 da% of arresto mayor as minim"m to ; months of arresto mayor as ma!im"m# This decision as affirmed b% the Regional Trial $o"rt of $aloocan $it%# .n A#R# 6o# 82323, this $o"rt dismissed the petition for certiorari against the decision of the 6LR$ for lac( of a sho ing that it as tainted ith grave ab"se of discretion# .n A#R# 6o# 300222, this $o"rt sa no reversible error in the decision of the $o"rt of +ppeals s"staining the petitioner/s conviction b% the &"nicipal Trial $o"rt as affirmed b% the Regional Trial $o"rt# The decisions in both cases became final and e!ec"tor% and the corresponding entries of ,"dgment ere event"all% made# S"bse-"entl%, Santos moved for the e!ec"tion of

the 6LR$ decision# The petitioner opposed, invo(ing her conviction in the criminal case# 'o ever, the 6LR$ s"stained her on the gro"nd that its decision had been affirmed b% this $o"rt and had long become final and e!ec"tor%# Sampag"ita then came to this $o"rt for relief# %ss&e$ Whether or not the decision of the 6LR$ calling for reinstatement and the pa%ment of bac( ages to petitioner sho"ld be enforced# R&ling$ .t is tr"e that once a ,"dgment has become final and e!ec"tor%, it can no longer be dist"rbed e!cept onl% for the correction of clerical errors or here s"pervening events render its e!ec"tion impossible or "n,"st# .n the latter event, the interested part% ma% as( the co"rt to modif% the ,"dgment to harmoni9e it ith ,"stice and the facts# There is no disp"te in the case at bar that the decision of the respondent 6LR$ ordering the private respondents reinstatement ith bac( ages had indeed become final and e!ec"tor%# Even so, e find, in light of the s"bse-"ent developments, that the 6LR$ as not correct in s"staining the implementation of that decision#

gro"nds that the rit of e!ec"tion varies the terms of the ,"dgment and that there has been a change in the sit"ation of the parties hich renders the e!ec"tion ine-"itable# %ss&e$ Whether or not private respondents* act of forcibl% ta(ing possession of the land in -"estion is a fact or circ"mstance that has changed the sit"ation of the parties thereb% ma(ing the e!ec"tion of the ,"dgment ine-"itable or "n,"st# R&ling$ While the r"le is that a sta% of e!ec"tion of a final ,"dgment ma% be a"thori9ed if necessar% to accomplish the ends of ,"stice, as for instance, here there has been a change in the sit"ation of the parties hich ma(es s"ch e!ec"tion ine-"itable, nevertheless the said r"le cannot be invo(ed hen the s"pposed change in the circ"mstances of the parties too( place hile the case as pending, for the reason that there as then no e!c"se for not bringing to the attention of the co"rt the fact or circ"mstance that affects the o"tcome of the case# .n this case, the s"pposed change in the sit"ation of the parties too( place hile $ivil $ase 6o# 5)118 :a complaint for recover% of inheritance, real propert% ith damages< as still pending in the co"rt belo # Th"s, as claimed b% petitioner, the private respondents too( possession of the propert% in -"estion on 35 &a% 3281# The co"rt a 6uo rendered its decision onl% on 30 7"ne 3288# 'o ever, petitioner did not bring "p the matter to the attention of the co"rt# &oreover, Section ;, R"le 32 of the R"les of $o"rt provides, among others, that KDnless other ise ordered b% the co"rt, a ,"dgment or order directing an acco"nting in an action, shall not be sta%ed after its rendition and before an appeal is ta(en or d"ring the pendenc% of an appeal#K .f a ,"dgment or order directing an acco"nting is not sta%ed after its rendition and before an appeal is ta(en or d"ring the pendenc% of the appeal, ith more reason the ,"dgment of the co"rt in the present case directing an acco"nting cannot be sta%ed since it has alread% become final and e!ec"tor%#

RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents) -ALEN' NA vs. CA 224 S$R+ 34 !acts$ + complaint as filed b% private respondents for recover% of inheritance, real propert% ith damages against petitioner before the RT$ hich r"led in favor of the former# Petitioner filed ith the co"rt a 6uo a K&otion for +pproval of ?efendants* +cco"nting +nd Proposal of Partition#K The private respondents ob,ected and filed a K&otion and Cpposition To +cco"nting#K 'ence, the co"rt appointed a $ommissioner on +cco"nting# Thereafter, an +lias Writ of E!ec"tion as implemented b% the Sheriff hich as ret"rned Kpartiall% satisfied#K Private respondents filed another motion for the iss"ance of a Second +lias Writ of E!ec"tion, hich the co"rt a 6uo granted# Petitioner moved to set aside the second alias rit of e!ec"tion# The trial co"rt denied the said motion and directed the iss"ance of a third alias rit of e!ec"tion hich as ret"rned "nsatisfied# +gain, the petitioner moved to -"ash the third alias rit of e!ec"tion ith a pra%er to sta% the order den%ing the motion to set aside third alias rit of e!ec"tion on the

RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents) )E L )%#T%C#* %NC. vs# )ATE?A+ ELECTR N%C# C R" RAT% N and !%R#T LE"ANT TA%#. %N#URANCE* C R" RAT% N !acts$ Petitioner Aeologistics, .nc#, formerl% (no n as LEP .nternational

Philippines, .nc#,a freight for arding and c"stoms bro(erage, instit"ted an action for the recover% of s"m of mone% against respondent Aate a% Electronic $orporation :respondent Aate a%< before the RT$#RT$ r"led in favor of the petitioner and s"bse-"entl% iss"ed a rit of preliminar% attachment on the properties of respondent Aate a%# Petitioner filed a motion for e!ec"tion pending appeal for the follo ing Kgood reasonsK> :3< respondent Aate a% as g"ilt% of fra"d in contracting its obligations to petitioner@ :2< the appeal as interposed to dela% the case@ :3< respondent Aate a% had ceased operations and as in imminent danger of insolvenc%@ and :;< the co"nter)bond posted b% respondent Aate a% co"ld be the s"b,ect of e!ec"tion#RT$ granted the motion and a rit of e!ec"tion as implemented# Respondents filed R"le 45 petitions before the $o"rt of +ppeals arg"ing that no good reason e!isted to ,"stif% e!ec"tion pending appeal especiall% considering the fact that the case had alread% been elevated on appeal#$+ r"led in favor of the respondents# 'ence, this present petition# %ss&e$ Whether a s"fficient gro"nd e!ists of the RT$ decision# arranting the discretionar% e!ec"tion

claimed b% petitioner, the evidence on record indicates that respondent Aate a%/s obligation is almost a certaint%# Precisel% the appeal process m"st be allo ed to ta(e its co"rse all the a% to the finalit% of ,"dgment to determine once and for all the incidents of the s"it# The fact alone that in the certiorari proceeding, the $o"rt of +ppeals also fo"nd respondent Aate a% to have admitted its liabilit% for a different amo"nt is not a"tomaticall% considered as a Kgood reasonK to order discretionar% e!ec"tion#

RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents) C%T+ ! BAC L D vs. ENR%,UE' 303 Phil# 4;; !acts$ The $0. of Cccidental 6egros favored private respondents herein in its ,"dgment in the case entitled K7es"s J"iatchon, 7ose T# Real, &an"el $abiles R +lfredo T# Sch ab vs# &an"el =illan"eva, in his capacit% as +cting &a%or of the $it% of 5acolod,K hich as an action for mandam"s to compel the defendant to reinstate the plaintiffs as policeman of said cit% and to pa% them their salaries d"ring the period of their o"ster in addition to moral and e!emplar% damages 5"t before the appeal as perfected, the co"rt, at the instance of the petitioners and over the ob,ection of the defendant, iss"ed an order for the immediate e!ec"tion of the ,"dgment# Reconsideration of the order having been denied, the $it% of 5acolod, in con,"nction ith the defendant, filed this present petition for certiorari to en,oin the respondent 7"dge from compelling the petitioner &an"el =illan"eva to reinstate the respondents policeman and to ann"l the said order of immediate e!ec"tion insofar as it o"ld a"thori9e a lev% on the properties of the cit% to satisf% the ,"dgment for the pa%ment of the policemen*s salaries d"ring the period of their o"ster# +ns ering the petition, the respondents set "p the defense that the iss"ance of the order complained of is a"thori9ed b% section 2 of R"le 32 and that, as provided in that same action, petitioner*s remed% is to file a bond to sta% e!ec"tion# %ss&e$ Whether or not the order of the $0. for the immediate e!ec"tion of its ,"dgment can be given d"e co"rse#

R&ling$ The r"le on e!ec"tion pending appeal, hich is no termed discretionar% e!ec"tion "nder R"le 32, Section 2 of the R"les of $o"rt, m"st be strictl% constr"ed being an e!ception to the general r"le# ?iscretionar% e!ec"tion of appealed ,"dgments ma% be allo ed "pon conc"rrence of the follo ing re-"isites> :a< there m"st be a motion b% the prevailing part% ith notice to the adverse part%@ :b< there m"st be a good reason for e!ec"tion pending appeal@ and :c< the good reason m"st be stated in a special order# The %ardstic( remains the presence or the absence of good reasons consisting of e!ceptional circ"mstances of s"ch "rgenc% as to o"t eigh the in,"r% or damage that the losing part% ma% s"ffer, sho"ld the appealed ,"dgment be reversed later# Since the e!ec"tion of a ,"dgment pending appeal is an e!ception to the general r"le, the e!istence of good reasons is essential# The R"les of $o"rt does not state, en"merate, or give e!amples of Kgood reasonsK to ,"stif% e!ec"tion# The determination of hat is a good reason m"st, necessaril%, be addressed to the so"nd discretion of the trial co"rt# The gro"nds cited b% the RT$ in allo ing the discretionar% e!ec"tion of its decision cannot be considered Kgood reasons#K The alleged admission b% respondent Aate a% of its liabilit% is more apparent than real beca"se the iss"e of liabilit% is precisel% the reason the case as elevated on appeal# The e!act amo"nt of respondent Aate a%/s liabilit% to petitioner remains "nder disp"te even if, as

R&ling$ 6o# Section 2 of R"le 32 allo s e!ec"tion to iss"e pending appeal# 5"t s"ch e!ec"tion can onl% be iss"ed against one ho is a part% to the action and not against one ho, not being a part% in the case, has not %et had his da% in co"rt :Ta%son and +ngeles vs# Qcasiano, et al# A#R# L)2283, &a% 33, 32;2@ &an9a vs# Santiago, etc#, A#R# L)1830, +pril 30, 3255l +ngara vs# Aorospe, et al#, A#R# L) 2230, +pril 22, 3251<# The record sho s that the cit% of 5acolod as not made a part% to the case of mandam"s filed against its acting ma%or# The order of e!ec"tion is speciall% directed to the acting ma%or and the cit% treas"rer, and not to the cit% itself b"t it is the cit% being made to satisf% that part of the ,"dgment in the case# .n a"thori9ing e!ec"tion before appeal, the said section 2 of R"le 32 re-"ires that s"ch e!ec"tion be allo ed onl% K"pon good reasons to be stated in the special order#K +ccordingl%, e!ec"tion sho"ld be granted onl% hen these considerations are clearl% o"t eighed b% s"perior circ"mstances demanding "rgenc%, and the above provision re-"ires a statement of those circ"mstances as a sec"rit% for their e!istence#K :3 &oran on the R"les of $o"rt, 3252 ed#, p# 12;, citing +g"ilos vs# 5arrios, et al#, 12 Phil# 285#< Respondent 7"dge/s ,"stification in his order for allo ing e!ec"tion pending appeal is "ntenable as resorted to onl% for p"rposes of dela%# While the iss"ance of immediate e!ec"tion "nder section 2 of R"le 32 is discretionar% ith the trial co"rt, that discretion has not been properl% e!ercised in the case at bar# RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents) %NTRA(UR # TENN%# CLUB* %NC. vs. C URT 8> ! A""EAL# 3@; #CRA

action as rendered moot and academic hich the RT$ granted# .T$ appealed to $+, hile the case as pending there ith PT+ filed a motion for e!ec"tion of ,"dgment pending appeal invo(ing that "nder Section ;, R"le 32 of the 3221 Revised R"les of $o"rt ,"dgments in actions for in,"nction are not sta%ed b% appeals# The motion alleged that there as an "rgent necessit% on the part of PT+ to immediatel% ta(e possession of the tennis co"rts on the gro"nd of .T$/s fail"re to (eep it in good condition# $+ granted the e!ec"tion of ,"dgment pending appeal# .n .T$/s motion for reconsideration, it arg"ed that $+ sho"ld have cond"cted hearings to ascertain if there ere Hgood reasonsI to iss"e the rit of e!ec"tion pending appeal# This motion as denied# .T$ filed a special civil action for certiorari alleging that $+ committed grave ab"se of discretion granting the e!ec"tion of ,"dgment pending appeal# +fter the filing of this petition PT+ filed a motion for iss"ance of a rit of e!ec"tion ith the RT$ of &anila b"t as denied# 5"t hen PT+ filed ith the RT$ a Second &otion for .ss"ance of Writ of E!ec"tion ith Leave of $o"rt it as granted# Th"s, a rit of e!ec"tion as iss"ed ordering petitioners to vacate the premises of the Tennis $o"rts and to have PT+ to possess it %ss&e$ .s the order of $+ granting the e!ec"tion of ,"dgment pending appeal properE R&ling$ Qes# + co"rt ma% order e!ec"tion pending appeal s"b,ect to the follo ing conditions> :3< there m"st be a ,"dgment or final order@ :2< the trial co"rt m"st have lost ,"risdiction over the case@ :3< there m"st be Hgood reasonsI to allo e!ec"tion@ and :;< s"ch good reasons m"st be stated in a special order after d"e hearing# Dndo"btedl%, the RT$ order dated +"g"st 5, 3221 hich granted private respondents/ motion to dismiss and lifted the rit of preliminar% in,"nction is a Hfinal orderI ithin the contemplation of Section 2, R"le 32 of the Revised R"les of $o"rt# Cn the matter of hearing, $+ did not gravel% ab"se its discretion in granting the motion for e!ec"tion pending appeal itho"t a f"ll)blo n or trial) t%pe hearing# We have declared that d"e process basicall% entails the opport"nit% to be heard, and e hold that the same principle "nderlies the provision on hearing in Section 2 of R"le 32# The records of the instant case clearl% disclose that petitioners have filed their comment to private respondents/ motion for e!ec"tion pending appeal, and their arg"ments as embodied in said comment did in fact form part of the disc"ssion of respondent co"rt in its assailed resol"tion# This $o"rt finds that the observation on the deteriorating and "nsanitar% conditions of the =ictoria Tennis $o"rts hich came from tennis pla%ers ho reg"larl% "se the said co"rts is ell ithin the discretion of the co"rt, and there is

!acts$ Philippine To"rism +"thorit% :PT+< o ns the =ictoria Tennis $o"rts located in .ntram"ros# .n a &emorand"m of +greement :&C+<, PT+ transferred the management of the =ictoria Tennis $o"rts to petitioner Philippine Tennis +ssociation :P'.LT+< for a period of 30 %ears commencing on 7"ne 35, 3281# Petitioner .ntram"ros Tennis $l"b :.T$< is an affiliate of P'.LT+# ?"ring the effectivit% of the &C+, PT+ ordered the s"rrender of the possession of the co"rts for P'.LT+/s alleged violations of the &C+# .T$ instit"ted a case for preliminar% in,"nction, damages, and pra%er for temporar% restraining order ith the RT$ of &anila alleging that PT+/s demand to vacate as a "nilateral pre)termination of the &C+ and .T$ stands to s"stain liabilities beca"se of it# The RT$ granted the TRC and the rit of preliminar% in,"nction filed b% .T$# 5"t, on 7"ne 34, 3221, PT+ filed a motion to dismiss beca"se the e!piration of the &C+ .T$/s ca"se of

no indication it as fabricated simpl% to proc"re for PT+ the restoration of possession of the =ictoria Tennis $o"rts# &oreover, P'.LT+ no longer had an% legal right to the possession and management of the =ictoria Tennis $o"rts beca"se the lease agreement bet een PT+ and P'.LT+ had alread% e!pired on 7"ne 35, 3221# +lso, ,"dgments in actions for in,"nction are not sta%ed b% the pendenc% of an appeal# This r"le has been held to e!tend to ,"dgments decreeing the dissol"tion of a rit of preliminar% in,"nction, hich are immediatel% e!ec"tor%#

petitioners filed ith the respondent $o"rt of +ppeals a motion for reconsideration,ho ever, their motion for reconsideration as denied b% the said co"rt#'ence, a petition for appeal b% certiorari as filed before the S"preme $o"rt# %ss&e$ &a% damages be e!ec"ted pending appealE .f so, What are the%E R&ling$ Qes# $onsidering the nat"re of the rongf"l acts fo"nd b% the trial co"rt and the amo"nt of damages ad,"dicated as recoverable, both of hich are stated in detail in the decisions and vario"s orders of the trial co"rt and the appellate co"rt, e are constrained to s"stain the respondent co"rts insofar as the a ard for act"al or compensator% damages are concerned b"t to postpone the e!ec"tion of the a ards for moral and e!emplar% damages "ntil s"ch time as the merits of the cases no on reg"lar appeal before the $o"rt of +ppeals are finall% determined# The e!ec"tion of an% a ard for moral and e!emplar% damages is dependent on the o"tcome of the main case# Dnli(e act"al damages for hich the petitioners ma% clearl% be held liable if the% breach a specific contract and the amo"nts of hich are fi!ed and certain, liabilities ith respect to moral and e!emplar% damages as en as the e!act amo"nts remain "ncertain and indefinite pending resol"tion b% the .ntermediate +ppellate $o"rt and event"all% the S"preme $o"rt# The e!istence of the fact"al bases of these t%pes of damages and their ca"sal relation to the petitioners* act ill have to be determined in the light of the assignments of errors on appeal# .t is possible that the petitioners, after all, hile liable for act"al damages ma% not be liable for moral and e!emplar% damages# Cr as in some cases elevated to the S"preme $o"rt, the a ards ma% be red"ced#

RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents) RAD% C ((UN%CAT% N# ! T.E ".%L%""%NE#* %NC. vs. LANT%N A#R# 6o# L)52333, 7an"ar% 33, 3285

!acts$ R"f"s 5# Rodrig"e9, as President of the World +ssociation of La St"dents :W+LS<, sent t o cablegrams overseas thro"gh R$P., one addressed to a &ohammed Elsir Taha in Uharto"m, S"dan Socialist Dnion, and the other to a ?iane &erger in +thens, Aeorgia, Dnited States# The cablegrams ere, in t"rn, rela%ed to ALC5E for transmission to their foreign destinations#'o ever,both cablegrams ent "ndelivered# Rodrig"e9 filed a complaint for compensator% damages, moral damages, and e!emplar% damages before the $0. of Ri9al against R$P. and ALC5E#The $0. rendered a decision in favor of petitioner#Thereafter, Rodrig"e9 filed a K&otion for E!ec"tion 5efore E!piration of Time to +ppealK rel%ing on R"le 32, Section 2 of the Revised R"les of $o"rt alleging that the appeal is clearl% dilator% and that the lapse of time o"ld ma(e the "ltimate ,"dgment ill"sor% and ineffective# +n opposition to the motion as filed b% R$P. and b% ALC5E#+ motion for reconsideration of the above order, ho ever, even before the iss"ance of this order den%ing petitioner*s motion for reconsideration, the respondent Sheriffinsisted on lev%ing on the f"nds and assets of petitioners R$P. and ALC5E, prompting them to file an KDrgent &otion to Recall Writ of E!ec"tion# This "rgent motion as li(e ise denied so R$P. and ALC5E filed ith the $o"rt of +ppeals a petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition ith a pra%er for the iss"ance of a rit of preliminar% in,"nction#Thereafter, the $o"rt of +ppeals iss"ed a restraining order en,oining the lo er co"rt from f"rther proceeding ith the civil case and from enforcing the rit of e!ec"tion "ntil f"rther orders# The

RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents) #" U#E# CURATA -# ".%L%""%NE " RT# AUT. R%T+ !acts$ This is a ver% long case abo"t e!propriation, petitioners are one of the o ners, one of the three gro"ps hose lots here being s"b,ected b% the

Philippine Ports +"thorit% to e!propriation# $onflict arose hen there is a disagreement bet een the appraised val"e per s-"are meter of the lots# +fter the Trial $o"rt determined the val"e of the lots, one of the gro"ps of o ners of the lots have moved for the e!ec"tion of the ,"dgment# +gain after a series of cases, petitioners moved for e!ec"tion pending appeal# %ss&e$ Whether or not e!ec"tion pending appeal is applicable to e!propriation proceedings# R&ling$ 6o, The $o"rt r"les that discretionar% e!ec"tion of ,"dgments pending appeal "nder Sec# 2:a< of R"le 32 does not appl% to eminent domain proceedings# +s earl% as 3232 in =isa%an Refining $o# v# $am"s and Paredes,300 the $o"rt held> 7hen the -o#ernment is plaintiff the 5udgment will naturally ta8e the form of an order merely re6uiring the payment of the award as a condition precedent to the transfer of the title, as a personal 5udgment against the -o#ernment could not "e reali.ed upon e%ecution .n $ommissioner of P"blic 'igh a%s v# San ?iego,303 no less than the eminent $hief 7"stice $la"dio Teehan(ee e!plained the rationale behind the doctrine that government f"nds and properties cannot be sei9ed "nder a rit of e!ec"tion, th"s> The uni#ersal rule that where the 'tate gi#es its consent to "e sued "y pri#ate parties either "y general or special law, it may limit claimants action "only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of e%ecution" and that the power of the Courts ends when the 5udgment is rendered, since go#ernment funds and properties may not "e sei.ed under writs of e%ecution or garnishment to satisfy such 5udgments, is "ased on o"#ious considerations of pu"lic policy 0is"ursements of pu"lic funds must "e co#ered "y the corresponding appropriation as re6uired "y law The functions and pu"lic ser#ices rendered "y the 'tate cannot "e allowed to "e paraly.ed or disrupted "y the di#ersion of pu"lic funds from their legitimate and specific o"5ects, as appropriated "y law PP+/s monies, facilities and assets are government properties# Ergo, the% are e!empt from e!ec"tion hether b% virt"e of a final ,"dgment or pending appeal#

RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents) 0" LATEA TEC.N L )+* %NC.* vs# BALL N# )RAN)ER BALL %NC. et al. N#*

!acts$ Respondent 5allons Aanger filed complaint for rescission and damages, accompanied b% an application for the iss"ance of a rit of replevin, against petitioner 7P Late! Technolog%, .nc## Dpon the petitioner/s defa"lt to file an ans er, the RT$ rendered its decision in favor of respondent Aranger# While the case as pending respondent Aranger moved for the e!ec"tion pending appeal of the RT$ decision# +fter it received a cop% of the RT$ decision, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration# RT$ granted the plea for e!ec"tion Kpending appeal#K The RT$ reconsidered its earlier position and conse-"entl% granted the e!ec"tion Kpending appealK after finding that the e-"ipment "nder litigation ere deteriorating and that petitioner might not have s"fficient f"nds to pa% for the damages, thereb% leaving respondents ith an empt% ,"dgment# %ss&e$ WC6 order of e!ec"tion pending appeal is proper despite the pending and "nresolved motion for reconsideration# .eld$ 6o# +side from being premat"re, there is no good reason to grant the e!ec"tion pending appeal# E!ec"tion pending appeal or immediate e!ec"tion, hich is no called discretionar% e!ec"tion "nder R"le 32, Section 2:a<, 3221 R"les of $ivil Proced"re, as amended, is allo ed pending appeal of a ,"dgment or final order of the trial co"rt, "pon good reasons to be stated in a special order after d"e hearing# ?iscretionar% e!ec"tion is allo ed onl% hen the period to appeal has commenced b"t before the trial co"rt loses ,"risdiction over the case# The period to appeal here a motion for reconsideration has been filed as in the instant case commences onl% "pon the receipt of a cop% of the order disposing of the motion for reconsideration# The pendenc% of a motion for reconsideration, therefore, prevents the r"nning of the period to appeal# .n the instant case, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the RT$ decision# The records of the case sho that the motion had not been acted "pon b% the RT$ before it r"led on the motion for e!ec"tion Kpending appeal#K That being the case, the pendenc% of the motion for reconsideration has prevented the period to appeal from even commencing# The period ithin hich a part% ma%

move for an e!ec"tion pending appeal of the trial co"rt/s decision has not %et also started# Where there is a pending motion for reconsideration of the RT$ decision, an order e!ec"tion pending appeal is improper and premat"re# The pendenc% of the motion for reconsideration legall% precl"des e!ec"tion of the RT$ decision beca"se the motion serves as the movant/s vehicle to point o"t the findings and concl"sions of the decision hich, in his vie , are not s"pported b% la or the evidence and, therefore, gives the trial ,"dge the occasion to reverse himself# .n the event that the trial ,"dge finds the motion for reconsideration meritorio"s, he can of co"rse reverse the decision# .n an% event, the $o"rt does not find an% good reason to ,"stif% the e!ec"tion of the RT$ decision pending finalit%# The RT$/s finding that the machiner% "nder litigation as deteriorating is not s"pported b% the evidence on record# 6or is the possibilit% that petitioner o"ld not be able to pa% the ,"dgment a ard a good reason to order discretionar% e!ec"tion# The good reasons allo ing e!ec"tion pending appeal m"st constit"te s"perior circ"mstances demanding "rgenc% that ill o"t eigh the in,"ries or damages to the adverse part% if the decision is reversed#

mone% and damages ith an application e%-parte for a rit of preliminar% attachmentGgarnishment# The trial co"rt fo"nd in favor of petitioners# &ean hile petitioners filed a &otion for ?iscretionar% E!ec"tion p"rs"ant to Section 2 :a<, R"le 32 of the R"les of $o"rt# %ss&e$ Whether or not good there is good reason to allo appeal# e!ec"tion pending

RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents) ARC.%NET %NTERNAT% NAL*%NC. and #E /?.AN .A.N* vs BECC ".%L%""%NE#* %NC. and BECC (AA "R "ERT+ AND DE-EL "(ENT C R".* A#R# 6o# 383153 7"ne 32, 2002 !acts$ Respondent 5eccoma! engaged the services of respondent 5ecco Philippines, .nc# :5ecco<, as general contractor for the constr"ction of a b"ilding# .n t"rn, 5ecco entered into contracts ith several s"b)contractors, one of hich as petitioner +rchinet .nternational, .nc# :+rchinet<# Petitioner Seo( han 'ahn is its $hairman and President# 5ecco and +rchinet entered into a contract for the s"ppl% and provision of materials to be "sed in the interior portions, and additional or(s on the lobb%, the 4th 0loor common areas, and the pentho"se# 'o ever, respondents allegedl% failed to ma(e timel% pa%ments despite demands# Th"s, petitioners filed a complaint for breach of contract, s"m of

.eld$ Qes# .n ,anacop # 46uita"le +an8ing Corporation, e held that discretionar% e!ec"tion of appealed ,"dgments ma% be allo ed "pon conc"rrence of the follo ing re-"isites> :a< there m"st be a motion b% the prevailing part% ith notice to the adverse part%@ :b< there m"st be a good reason for e!ec"tion pending appeal@ and :c< the good reason m"st be stated in a special order# Aood reasons consist of compelling circ"mstances ,"stif%ing immediate e!ec"tion lest ,"dgment becomes ill"sor%, or the prevailing part% after the lapse of time be "nable to en,o% it, considering the tactics of the adverse part% ho ma% have apparentl% no ca"se b"t to dela%# S"ch reasons m"st constit"te s"perior circ"mstances demanding "rgenc% hich ill o"t eigh the in,"r% or damages sho"ld the losing part% sec"re a reversal of the ,"dgment# E!ec"tion of a ,"dgment pending appeal is an e!ception to the general r"le that onl% a final ,"dgment ma% be e!ec"ted# Th"s, the e!istence of Hgood reasonsI is essential for it is hat confers discretionar% po er on a co"rt to iss"e a rit of e!ec"tion pending appeal# The records sho that petitioners s"bmitted doc"mentar% evidence in s"pport of its pra%er for discretionar% e!ec"tion# Petitioners s"bmitted a arrant of arrest against $han Shi( Uim, President of 5ecco and 5eccoma!, to prove that the latter has not ret"rned to the co"ntr%@ a ?irector/s $ertificate, sho ing that 5ecco/s 5oard of ?irectors a"thori9ed its dissol"tion@ and certified machine copies from the Sec"rities and E!change $ommission of Reports of 5ecco and 5eccoma! to demonstrate that the former is in a state of li-"idation hile the latter is in imminent danger of insolvenc%# .t bears stressing that imminent danger of insolvenc% of the defeated part% has been held to be a good reason to ,"stif% discretionar% e!ec"tion#

RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents) C ("A7%A )ENERAL DE TABAC # DE !%L%"%NA# vs. (ART%NE'* s3eriff of ccidental Negros* and R%CARD N LAN 0ebr"ar% 32, 3235, A#R# 6o# L)28;0 !acts$ &arcelo $orte9a commenced an action in the $o"rt of 0irst .nstance of Cccidental 6egros against Tomas de Leon to recover the s"m of P2,315, and interest# .n this action an attachment as levied in accordance ith the e!isting proced"re "pon the 300 hectares of land no in -"estion, and then belonging to ?e Leon# The $o"rt of 0irst .nstance of Cccidental 6egros, "pon motion of the interested part%, iss"ed a rit of e!ec"tion based "pon the ,"dgment of 3885 against ?e Leon, and there "nder the sheriff levied "pon the land here in -"estion and sold the same over the protest of the plaintiff compan%, at p"blic a"ction# +n action to ann"l this e!ec"tion sale as commenced forth ith b% the plaintiff compan%# 7"dgment as entered den%ing the relief so"ght, b"t "pon appeal, this co"rt reversed that ,"dgment and ann"lled the sale and all the proceedings ta(en b% virt"e of that e!ec"tion, "pon the gro"nd that the old ,"dgment co"ld not be enforced at that time in that manner Thereafter, 7ose 0# &artine9, ho had ac-"ired for val"able consideration that the ,"dgment of 3882 against ?e Leon, commenced an action in the $o"rt of 0irst .nstance "pon that "nsatisfied ,"dgment, pra%ing that the said ,"dgment be revived and that the attachment levied in the former action be e!ec"ted b% the sale of the 300 hectares# ?efendant ?e Leon, having defa"lted in the defense of this ne action, a ,"dgment as entered against him for the s"m of P5,443#38, and the costs of the ca"se# 0rom this ,"dgment no appeal as ta(en# &artine9, as ,"dgment creditor of ?e Leon, again ca"sed a lev%, b% virt"e of an e!ec"tion iss"ed "pon this ,"dgment, to be made "pon the 300 hectares and, in spite of the plaintiff*s rene ed claims and protests, ca"sed the land th"s levied "pon to be sold b% the sheriff to satisf% the ,"dgment of +"g"st 32, 3233# The present action as there"pon commenced to -"iet the plaintiff*s title b% ann"ling this second sale# R&ling$ The $o"rt of 0irst .nstance hich tried the action, see(ing to enforce the ,"dgment of 3882, held that the ,"dgment or attachment lien against the land in

-"estion co"ld no longer be enforced# We are not advised of the reasons of the co"rt for deciding# Whether it as beca"se the lien had been released, or the lapse of so man% %ears, or d"e to the fact that the land as at the time held b% a remote grantee of ?e Leon, e cannot sa%# 'o ever this ma% be, the -"estion of a creditor*s right to enforce the lien as, as ill be seen from the pra%er of the complaint and the dispositive part of the ,"dgment, s"pra, p"t directl% in iss"e and specificall% and definitel% decided against him in the ne ,"dgment# The onl% effect of his ne ,"dgment as simpl% to create a personal liabilit% against ?e Leon# .f this ere error, it as not ,"risdictional and cannot no be attac(ed# The onl% remed% open to the creditor as b% an appeal# 6o appeal as ta(en, conse-"entl%, hatever relief the ,"dgment# Dnder that ,"dgment the plaintiff co"ld have attached and sold an% propert% then belonging to ?e Leon@ b"t the land in -"estion no longer belonged to him# 'e had parted ith all his right, title and interest therein# The land as no more s"sceptible to e!ec"tion "nder the ne ,"dgment than an% other propert% belonging to the plaintiff compan%# 'ence, the sale of that partic"lar parcel of land b% virt"e of an e!ec"tion iss"ed to enforce the ne ,"dgment as "na"thori9ed b% that ,"dgment and as conse-"entl% void#

RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents) !L REND vs. R)AN 20 Phil# ;83 !acts$ The controvers% is an appeal from the $o"rt of 0irst .nstance KabsolvingK the plaintiff from a co"nterclaim# 0or fail"re of the plaintiff to prosec"te, the main action hich as for divorce, had been dismissed# Plaintiff and the defendant are man and ife ho have been living apart since 3202# .n an action for maintenance and s"pport bro"ght in civil case no# 2853, the $o"rt held that it as for the balance of the proceeds of that ,"dgment and the instalments hich fell d"e thereafter that the co"nterclaim as interposed# .t as alleged that the said ,"dgment had been onl% partiall% e!ec"ted on +"g"st 8, l232, leaving P100 "nsatisfied, and that none of the s"bse-"ent instalments had paid been paid# The total amo"nt demanded as P3,4;0, embracing all the "npaid allo ances do n to the date of the filling of the co"nterclaim, hich as Cctober 2, 32;3# The trial co"rt held that the co"nterclaim as res 5udicata and that the defendant*s remed% did not lie in this Ke!pedienteK# 5"t the co"rt as "ne!plicit as to here and the

defendant sho"ld go for relief, or hether, in its opinion, the plaintiff had been discharged from all liabilit% "nder the "ne!ec"ted ,"dgment b% prescription or laches, as the plaintiff contended# %ss&e$ What is the appropriate proced"re to enforce the ,"dgment in an action for maintenance and s"pportE R&ling$ The $o"rt r"led that a simple motion for e!ec"tion o"ld be the proper step to sec"re the pa%ment of s"pport and maintenance in arrears# + motion of the character mentioned o"ld afford the ,"dgment creditor a speed% and ade-"ate remed%, and has the advantage of being less c"mbersome and complicated than a co"nterclaim# &oreover, the $o"rt reiterated in vario"s cases that a ,"dgment for s"pport does not prescribe or become dormant# +lso instalments not recovered ithin ten %ears from the time the% became d"e, prescribe# 5e it noted that instalments into hich an alimon% is derived ma% lapse b% prescription b"t that the ,"dgment itself does not# The ,"dgment remains in effect indefinitel% b"t "npaid instalments that are more than ten %ears old are "ncollectible# This sit"ation is made possible b% the fact that instalment do not fall d"e at the same time, ith the res"lt that hile some instalment ma% prescribe, there al a%s remain others hich do not# +s instalments become pa%able one at a time, the% prescribe in the same progression, s"ccessivel% as the% are allo ed to reach the ten)%ear limitation period itho"t an% action being ta(en to collect them# The instalments incl"ded in the ,"dgment rendered b% the $o"rt in an appeal before the $+ of the action filed date as far bac( as 0ebr"ar% 3, 3232, so that some of them ere alread% of more than ten %ears standing hen the dismissed co"nterclaim as doc(eted in l2;3# 'o ever, the period of limitation ith reference to those instalments as interr"pted b% the instit"tion of the action for maintenance and s"pport, and that interr"ption did not cease "ntil the rendition of the S"preme $o"rt*s decision in &arch, 3235# 5% reason of the interr"ption the f"ll period of interr"ption commenced to r"n ane "pon the cessation of the s"spension@ and comp"ted from that date, the ten)%ear limitation had not r"n o"t hen the co"nterclaim as set "p in l2;3# KWhen prescription is interr"pted b% a ,"dicial demand, the f"ll time for the prescription m"st be rec(oned from the cessation of the interr"ption#K

RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents) CRE#ENC%AN T RRE!RANCA* ET AL. vs# !%L (EN ALB%#

!acts$ .n a case of forcible entr% and detainer, the co"rt r"led in favor of plaintiffs)appellants Torrefranca ordering herein defendant)appelle +lbiso to restore possession of a piece of land and pa% damages to the plaintiffs# The ,"dgment having remained "nsatisfied for more than five %ears, the plaintiffs, bro"ght the present action to have it revived in the same ,"stice of the peace co"rt# + rit of e!ec"tion as then as(ed b% the plaintiffs# With that motion still pending determination, the defendant on his part filed a motion for the dismissal of the case, contending that the $o"rt of 0irst .nstance, as an appellate co"rt, had no ,"risdiction to tr% it beca"se, according to him, the ,"stice of the peace co"rt itself did not have ,"risdiction to entertain an action for the revival of a ,"dgment# The $0. then dismissed the case beca"se of laches on the part of the plaintiffs for their fail"re to sec"re a rit of e!ec"tion ithin five %ears# 'ence, this present appeal# %ss&e$ Whether the action to revive the forcible entr% and detainer case for its e!ec"tion as rightf"ll% dismissed b% the $0. on the gro"nd of laches# R&ling$ 6o# R"le 32, and Section 4 of that r"le provides> SE$# 4# 4%ecution "y motion or "y independent action# B + ,"dgment ma% be e!ec"ted on motion ithin five %ears from the date of its entr%# +fter the lapse of s"ch time, and before it is barred b% the stat"te of limitations, a ,"dgment ma% be enforced b% action# This provision, and for that matter the hole of R"le 32, is applicable in inferior co"rts as R"le ;, hich governs the proced"re in those co"rts, e!pressl% declares in its section 32# We see nothing in section 4 of R"le 32 that is inconsistent ith R"le ;# The a"thorit% of a ,"stice of the peace of co"rt to revive its o n ,"dgment being clear, it as error to dismiss plaintiff*s action on the theor% that s"ch a"thorit% did not e!ist# 'olding the plaintiffs g"ilt% of laches for failing to sec"re a rit of e!ec"tion ithin five %ears from the entr% of ,"dgment, the lo er co"rt o"ld also, on that gro"nd, deprive them of their right to have the ,"dgment revived# To that e cannot agree# .t is clear that section 4 of R"le 32 gives the plaintiffs not onl% the right to enforce the ,"dgment thro"gh the mere motion for e!ec"tion

ithin five %ears, b"t also, after the e!piration of that period itho"t the ,"dgment having been satisfied, the right to bring an action for its enforcement ithin the time prescribed b% the stat"te of limitations# We o"ld be constr"ing the section arbitraril% ere e to hold that the right to bring that action is forfeited if the right to move for e!ec"tion has not been e!ercised#

s"b,ect of an action for revival of ,"dgment# R&ling$ 6o# .t is an "ndisp"ted fact that hen the records of the original case ere destro%ed in the fire there as a pending motion for reconsideration of the disapproval of the record on appeal filed b% petitioner# + motion for reconsideration has the effect of s"spending the stat"tor% period after hich an order, decision, or ,"dgment, in connection ith hich said motion as filed, becomes final# .n effect, s"ch motion for reconsideration has prevented the decision from attaining finalit%# The doctrine of laches cannot operate to lend finalit% to the decision since petitioner/s fail"re to p"rs"e the motion for reconsideration as not d"e to her negligence or abandonment, b"t as rather bro"ght "pon b% the dismissal of the reconstit"tion case thereb% preventing the decision in $ivil $ase 6o# 1283 to attain finalit% and become e!ec"tor% b% reason of laches#

RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents) 0UC vs. .E%R# ! T (A# #%+ C.UN) !U A#R# 6o# 350233, 0ebr"ar% 34, 2005

!acts$ The predecessors)in)interest of herein respondents filed an action for recover% of propert% ith damages before the then $0. of $amarines S"r against Esperan9a P# &artine9, mother of herein petitioner# The co"rt decided in favor of plaintiffs prompting &artine9 to file a &otion for Reconsideration ith motion for contempt assailing the denial of the record on appeal# 'o ever, said motion as left "nresolved as the records of the case ere b"rned in a fire that ra9ed the Provincial $apitol of $amarines S"r# 0or repeated fail"re to appear before the co"rt of respondent, 7"co, the sole s"rviving heir of the deceased defendant &artine9, filed a motion to dismiss the reconstit"tion case, hich as granted b% the lo er co"rt# ?espite the finalit% of the dismissal of the reconstit"tion case, respondent filed a complaint for revival of ,"dgment in $ivil $ase 6o# 1283# .n said petition, the% claimed that the decision as act"all% reconstit"ted in the dismissed petition for reconstit"tion and that the same had become final and e!ec"tor% b"t as denied# The $+ on appeal held that the records and the decision in that $ivil $ase ere not reconstit"ted b"t made a parallel finding that, not ithstanding the fail"re of reconstit"tion, there sho"ld be a determination of hether or not the s"b,ect decision had become final, th"s remanding the case to the lo er co"rt hich rendered a decision in favor of respondents, ordering the revival of said ,"dgment# Petitioner appealed b"t as denied r"ling that she as g"ilt% of laches and her fail"re to ta(e action implies lac( of interest to enforce her right over the case# %ss&e$ Whether or not the decision in $ivil $ase 6o#1283 can be the proper

RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents) ADELA%DA %N!ANTE vers"s ARAN BU%LDER#* %NC !acts$ 5efore the RT$ of &"ntinl"pa $it% an action for revival of ,"dgment as filed b% +ran 5"ilders, .nc against +delaida .nfante# The ,"dgment so"ght to be revived as rendered b% RT$ of &a(ati $it% in an action for specific performance and damages# .nfante filed a motion to dismiss the action for revival of ,"dgment on the gro"nds that the &"ntinl"pa RT$ has no ,"risdiction over the persons of the parties and that ven"e as improperl% laid# This motion as opposed b% +ran 5"ilders, .nc# RT$ of &"ntinl"pa dismissed the motion of .nfante# .t stated that at the time the decision as rendered b% RT$ of &a(ati there as still no RT$s in &"ntinl"pa b"t ith creation of RT$s in &"ntinl"pa matters involving properties located in this $it%, and cases involving its residents are all ordered to be litigated before these $o"rts# This ,"dgment so"ght to be revived involves the interest, possession, title, and o nership of the parcel of land located in &"ntinl"pa cit% and ad,"dged to Plaintiff# .nfante/s motion for reconsideration as denied hence, she filed before the $+ an instant special civil action for certiorari#$+ prom"lgated its decision in favor of +ran 5"ilder/s .nc# it held that since the ,"dgment so"ght to be revived affects title to or possession of real propert%, or interest therein, it sho"ld be filed

ith the RT$ of the place this petition#

here the real propert% is located# 'ence, .nfant filed

collected the t o s"cceeding pa%ments at complainant/s ho"se and immediatel% gave the amo"nts collected to 0rancisco# %ss&e$ Whether or not respondent is g"ilt% of cond"ct pre,"dicial to the best interest of the service# R&ling$ Qes# Sheriffs are officers of the co"rt ho serve and e!ec"te rits addressed to them b% the co"rt, and ho prepare and s"bmit ret"rns on their proceedings# +s officers of the co"rt, the% m"st discharge their d"ties ith great care and diligence# The% have to perform faithf"ll% and acc"ratel% hat is inc"mbent "pon them and sho at all times a high degree of professionalism in the performance of their d"ties# ?espite being e!posed to ha9ards that come ith the implementation of the ,"dgment, sheriffs m"st perform their d"ties b% the boo(# Section 2, R"le 32 of the R"les of $o"rt la%s do n the proced"re to be follo ed b% the sheriff in implementing mone% ,"dgments# When the ,"dgment obligee is not present at the time the ,"dgment obligor ma(es the pa%ment, the sheriff is a"thori9ed to receive it# 'o ever, the mone% received m"st be remitted to the cler( of co"rt ithin the same da% or, if not practicable, deposited in a fid"ciar% acco"nt ith the nearest government depositor% ban(# Evidentl%, sheriffs are not permitted to retain the mone% in their possession be%ond the da% hen the pa%ment as made or to deliver the mone% collected directl% to the ,"dgment obligee# Respondent/s e!c"se for not t"rning over the mone% to the cler( of co"rt does not pers"ade "s eno"gh to arrive at a contrar% finding# 'e e!plains that it as practical to directl% give the mone% he collected from complainant to 0rancisco, hose ho"se is ,"st ad,acent to that of the complainant# 0irstl%, complainant co"ld have directl% made the pa%ment to 0rancisco or her representative# Secondl%, considering that the first pa%ment as handed to him b% complainant in his office, respondent co"ld have easil% t"rned it over to the cler( of co"rt# .nstead, respondent ent to 0rancisco/s ho"se to give her the mone%, pres"mabl% as an act of good ill#

%ss&e$ Where is the proper ven"e of the present action for revival of ,"dgmentE R&ling$ Section 4, R"le 32 of the 3221 R"les of $ivil Proced"re provides that after the lapse of five :5< %ears from entr% of ,"dgment and before it is barred b% the stat"te of limitations, a final and e!ec"tor% ,"dgment or order ma% be enforced b% action# The R"le does not specif% in hich co"rt the action for revival of ,"dgment sho"ld be filed# Th"s, the proper ven"e depends on the determination of hether the present action for revival of ,"dgment is a real action or a personal action# The allegations in the complaint for revival of ,"dgment determine hether it is a real action or a personal action from the previo"s ,"dgment it is "ndeniable that private respondent has an established interest over the lot in -"estion@ and to protect s"ch right or interest, private respondent bro"ght s"it to revive the previo"s ,"dgment# The sole reason for the present action to revive is the enforcement of private respondent*s ad,"dged rights over a piece of realt%# =eril%, the action falls "nder the categor% of a real action, for it affects private respondent*s interest over real propert%# The present case for revival of ,"dgment being a real action, the complaint sho"ld indeed be filed ith the Regional Trial $o"rt of the place here the realt% is located#

RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents) "E7A* 0R. vs. RE)ALAD %%* #.ER%!! %-* RTC of NA)A +#&# 6o# P)30)2112, 0ebr"ar% 34, 2030 !acts$ Respondent Sheriff .= +chilles Regalado .. in implementing the rit of e!ec"tion iss"ed in relation to People v# ?omingo PeOa, 7r# and ?omingo 0rancisco :a $riminal $ase<# Respondent collected from the complainant his pa%ment of the first installment, itho"t iss"ing official receipts b"t merel% iss"ing hand ritten ac(no ledgment receipts# Cn the same da%, respondent ent to 0rancisco/s ho"se to give her the amo"nt, b"t the latter as not aro"nd# Respondent allegedl% ent bac( to 0rancisco/s ho"se the follo ing da% and gave her the mone%# Later on, he

RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents) "ERLA C ("AN%A DE #E)UR #* %NC.* -# RA( LETE

!acts$ Petitioner is the ins"rer of Private Respondent 6elia Enri-"e9, hose private ,eep collided ith the PD7 of respondent Primitava Palmes ca"sing the death of her h"sband# Primitiva filed a complaint against 6elia for moral, act"al and e!emplar% damages# The trial co"rt r"led in favo"r of Primitiva# The ,"dgment then became final and e!ec"tor, ho ever the rit of e!ec"tion as ret"rned "nsatisfied# 6elia as then s"mmoned for e!amination, here she declared that that the PD7 as covered b% Petitioner# Private respondent then moved for garnishment against Perla in favo"r of the ,"dgment debtor# Petitioner moved for reconsideration claiming the co"rt had the co"rt had ac-"ired no ,"risdiction over them, hich as s"bse-"entl% denied# T o %ears after :the S"preme $o"rt remar(ed this sho"ld have been dismissed< petitioners filed a $ertiorari claiming their ins"rance contract cannot be s"b,ected to garnishment, since petitioner as not a part% to the case# %ss&e$ ?id the co"rt ac-"ired ,"risdiction over Perla in this case# R&ling$ Qes, garnishment has been defined as a species of attachment for reaching an% propert% or credits pertaining or pa%able to a ,"dgment debtor# .n legal contemplation, it is a forced novation b% the s"bstit"tion of creditors> the ,"dgment debtor, ho is the original creditor of the garnishee is, thro"gh service of the rit of garnishment, s"bstit"ted b% the ,"dgment creditor ho thereb% becomes creditor of the garnishee# Aarnishment has also been described as a arning to a person having in his possession propert% or credits of the ,"dgment debtor, not to pa% the mone% or deliver the propert% to the latter, b"t rather to appear and ans er the plaintiff*s s"it# .n order that the trial co"rt ma% validl% ac-"ire ,"risdiction to bind the person of the garnishee, it is not necessar% that s"mmons be served "pon him# The garnishee need not be impleaded as a part% to the case# +ll that is necessar% for the trial co"rt la f"ll% to bind the person of the garnishee or an% person ho has in his possession credits belonging to the ,"dgment debtor is service "pon him of the rit of garnishment# Thro"gh service of the rit of garnishment, the garnishee becomes a Kvirt"al part%K to, or a Kforced intervenorK in, the case and the trial co"rt thereb% ac-"ires ,"risdiction to bind him to compliance ith all orders and processes of the trial co"rt ith a vie to the complete satisfaction of the ,"dgment of the co"rt# .n 5a"tista v# 5arredo, 34 the $o"rt, thro"gh &r# 7"stice 5a"tista +ngelo, held>

7hile it is true that defendant 9ose , +arredo was not a party in Ci#il Case :o 1;(; when it was instituted "y appellant against the 3hilippine Ready ,i% Concrete Company, /nc , howe#er, 5urisdiction was ac6uired o#er him "y the court and he "ecame a #irtual party to the case when, after final 5udgment was rendered in said case against the company, the sheriff ser#ed upon him a writ of garnishment in "ehalf of appellant +y means of the citation, the stranger "ecomes a forced inter#enor$ and the court, ha#ing ac6uired 5urisdiction o#er him "y means of the citation, re6uires him to pay his de"t, not to his former creditor, "ut to the new creditor, who is creditor in the main litigation

RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents) #" U#E# E(%L% AB%NU0AR and (%LA)R # (. LANA* vs. T.E C URT ! A""EAL# and #" U#E# #ANT%A) RA(%R and !L RENT%NA RA(%R * res4ondents. !acts$ Private respondents filed a complaint for e,ectment in the &T$ against petitioners# 'o ever, the parties, assisted b% their co"nsels, e!ec"ted a compromise agreement hich the &T$ approved# The order reprod"ced the agreement that fail"re on the part of the defendants to pa% three :3< consec"tive pa%ments, plaintiffs ill be entitled to a rit of e!ec"tion, "nless the parties agree to e!tend the period of entitlement to a rit of e!ec"tion in riting to be s"bmitted andGor approved b% this 'onorable $o"rt# Private respondents filed a motion for e!ec"tion on the gro"nd that petitioners failed to pa% the first three installments stip"lated in the compromise agreement# Thereafter, a KSheriffs* 6otice to =ol"ntaril% =acate the PremisesK as served on petitioner, hich the latter assailed the validit% of the iss"ance ratiocinating that their obligation is monetar% in nat"re and the applicable r"le sho"ld have been Section 2, R"le 32 and not Section 30, R"le 32 of the Revised R"les of $o"rt# %ss&e$ WC6 the applicable r"le is Section 2 or Section 30 .eld$ The applicable r"le is Section 2#

When the parties entered into a compromise agreement, the original action for e,ectment as set aside and the action as changed to a monetar% obligation# + per"sal of the compromise agreement signed b% the parties and approved b% the inferior co"rt merel% provided that in case the defendants :petitioners herein< failed to pa% three monthl% installments, the plaintiffs :private respondents herein< o"ld be entitled to a rit of e!ec"tion, itho"t specif%ing hat the s"b,ect of e!ec"tion o"ld be# Said agreement did not state that petitioners o"ld be evicted from the premises s"b,ect of the s"it in case of an% defa"lt in compl%ing ith their obligation there"nder# This as the res"lt of the careless drafting thereof for hich onl% private respondents ere to be blamed# +s petitioners* obligation "nder the compromise agreement as approved b% the co"rt as monetar% in nat"re, private respondents can avail onl% of the rit of e!ec"tion provided in Section 2, R"le 32 of the Revised R"les of $o"rt, and not that provided in Section 30# Section 2, R"le 32 provides that the officer m"st enforce an e!ec"tion of a mone% ,"dgment b% lev%ing on all the propert%, real and personal of ever% name and nat"re hatsoever, and hich ma% be disposed of for val"e, of the ,"dgment debtor not e!empt from e!ec"tion, or on a s"fficient amo"nt of s"ch propert%, if there be s"fficient, and selling the same, and pa%ing to the ,"dgment creditor, or his attorne%, so m"ch of the proceeds as ill satisf% the ,"dgment# Cn the other hand, Section 33, R"le 32 provides that the officer m"st enforce an e!ec"tion for the deliver% or restit"tion of propert% b% o"sting therefrom the person against hom the ,"dgment is rendered and placing the ,"dgment creditor in possession of s"ch propert%, and b% lev%ing as hereinafter provided "pon so m"ch of the propert% of the ,"dgment debtor as ill satisf% the amo"nt of the ,"dgment and costs incl"ded in the rit of e!ec"tion#

its emplo%ees, as comp"ted in a decision of the 6LR$# + notice of garnishment as iss"ed against petitioner, addressed to the P$)SDS.+ cGo $ol# 6orberto &# Lina, $amp $rame, E?S+, J#$# ?ep"t% Sheriff Silvino 5# Santos ho iss"ed a 6otice of Lev% and Sale on E!ec"tion of Personal Properties :firearms "sed b% the emplo%ees if petitioner< against herein petitioner, hich personal properties are the licensed firearms in -"estion# Petitioner filed an "rgent petition to -"ash 6otice of Lev% and Sale on E!ec"tion, claiming e!emption from e!ec"tion "nder Sec# 32, par# :b<, R"le 32 of the R"les of $o"rt# Labor +rbiter denied the petition# The &otion for Reconsideration as li(e ise denied# The 6LR$ iss"ed its resol"tion "pholding sale on e!ec"tion of petitioner/s properties# Private respondent*s comments s"bmit that firearms of a sec"rit% agenc% are not e!empt from e!ec"tion "nder R"le 32, Sec# 32, par# :b< of the R"les of $o"rt# The term Ktools and implementsK refered to in par# :b< Sec# 32, R"le 32 refers to instr"ments of h"sbandr% or man"al labor needed b% an artisan craftsman or laborer to obtain his living# 'ere petitioner is a b"siness enterprise# .t does not "se the firearms personall%, b"t the% are "sed b% its emplo%ees# 6ot being a nat"ral person, petitioner cannot claim that the firearms are necessar% for its livelihood# Private respondent invites the $o"rt to ta(e ,"dicial notice of the fact that there are sec"rit% g"ards rendering service itho"t firearms# Petitioner itho"t filing an% repl% moves for the resol"tion of the petition# %ss&e$ Whether or not the personal propert% sold b% the sheriff is e!empt from e!ec"tion# .eld$ 6o# .t o"ld appear that the e!emption contemplated b% the provision involved is personal, available onl% to a nat"ral person, s"ch as a dentist*s dental chair and electric fan :5elen v# de Leon, A#R# 6o# L)34;32, 30 6ov# 3242<# +s pointed o"t b% the Solicitor Aeneral, if properties "sed in b"siness are e!empt from e!ec"tion, there can hardl% be an instance hen a ,"dgment claim can be enforced against the b"siness entit%# RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents)

RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents) "ENTA) N #ECUR%T+ and %N-E#T%)AT% N A)ENC+ vs. -%CENTE T. 0%(ENE'* ET AL A#R# 6o# 8833; > ?ecember 20, 3220 !acts$ Petitioner, a single proprietorship engaged in sec"rit% services, as ordered to pa% the amo"nt of P351,332#0; representing ages and $CL+ differentials d"e

AL!RED

C.%N) and ENCARNAC% N C.%N) vs. T.E . N. C URT ! A""EAL# and ALL%ED BAN/%N) C R" RAT% N. A#R# 6o# 32;4;2# 0ebr"ar% 23, 200;

!acts$ The dep"t% sheriff of the trial co"rt levied on attachment the 300,000 common shares of $it%corp stoc(s in the name of +lfredo $hing# Emilio Q# TaOedo, thereafter, filed his o n Cmnib"s &otion pra%ing for the dismissal of the complaint, arg"ing that the +5$ had Habandoned and aivedI its right to proceed against the contin"ing g"arant% b% its act of resorting to preliminar% attachment# +cting on the aforementioned motion, the trial co"rt iss"ed on ?ecember 35, 3223 an Crder lifting the rit of preliminar% attachment on the shares of stoc(s and ordering the sheriff to ret"rn the said stoc(s to the petitioners# %ss&e$ Whether the petitioner) ife has the right to file the motion to -"ash the lev% on attachment on the 300,000 shares of stoc(s in the $it%corp .nvestment Philippines@ R&ling$ We agree ith the petitioners that the petitioner) ife had the right to file the said motion, altho"gh she as not a part% in $ivil $ase 6o# 3;2122# .n !ng # Tating, e held that the sheriff ma% attach onl% those properties of the defendant against hom a rit of attachment has been iss"ed b% the co"rt# When the sheriff erroneo"sl% levies on attachment and sei9es the propert% of a third person in hich the said defendant holds no right or interest, the s"perior a"thorit% of the co"rt hich has a"thori9ed the e!ec"tion ma% be invo(ed b% the aggrieved third person in the same case# Dpon application of the third person, the co"rt shall order a s"mmar% hearing for the p"rpose of determining hether the sheriff has acted rightl% or rongl% in the performance of his d"ties in the e!ec"tion of the rit of attachment, more specificall% if he has indeed levied on attachment and ta(en hold of propert% not belonging to the plaintiff# .f so, the co"rt ma% then order the sheriff to release the propert% from the erroneo"s lev% and to ret"rn the same to the third person# .n resolving the motion of the third part%, the co"rt does not and cannot pass "pon the -"estion of the title to the propert% ith an% character of finalit%# .t can treat the matter onl% insofar as ma% be necessar% to decide if the sheriff has acted correctl% or not# .f the claimant/s proof does not pers"ade the co"rt of the validit% of the title, or right of possession thereto, the claim ill be denied b% the co"rt# The aggrieved third part% ma% also avail himself of the remed% of HterceriaI b% e!ec"ting an affidavit of his title or right of possession over the propert% levied on attachment and serving the same to the office ma(ing the lev% and the adverse part%# S"ch part% ma% also file an action

to n"llif% the lev% ith damages res"lting from the "nla f"l lev% and sei9"re, hich sho"ld be a totall% separate and distinct action from the former case# The above)mentioned remedies are c"m"lative and an% one of them ma% be resorted to b% one third)part% claimant itho"t availing of the other remedies# .n this case, the petitioner) ife filed her motion to set aside the lev% on attachment of the 300,000 shares of stoc(s in the name of petitioner)h"sband claiming that the said shares of stoc(s ere con,"gal in nat"re@ hence, not liable for the acco"nt of her h"sband "nder his contin"ing g"arant% and s"ret%ship agreement ith the P5&$.# The petitioner) ife had the right to file the motion for said relief#

RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents) CA"A vs. C URT ! A""EAL# September 32, 2004 !acts$ + complaint for damages and attorne%/s fees as filed b% petitioners against private respondent and $aptain and &rs# Qhapon before the RT$ hen petitioners/ motor banca san( in the aters of ?"mag"ete $it% hen it collided ith the motori9ed vessel of private respondent, manned b% $aptain Qhapon# The core of the controvers% of this case as hen a &otion to ?en% Third)Part% $laim ith &otion to +dmit $laim for ?amages as filed b% petitioners before the $+ pra%ing that the third)part% claim be denied for being invalid since it as not signed b% Raca b"t b% her alleged attorne%)in)fact# Raca, after a rit of e!ec"tion pending appeal as iss"ed to lev% on private respondent Dnited =ismin/s properties, she filed a third)part% claim alleging o nership over the t o vessels hich ere levied# Cn the other hand, petitioners filed a &otion to ?en% Third)Part% $laim ith &otion to +dmit $laim for ?amages pra%ing that the third)part% claim be denied for being invalid as it as not signed b% Raco b"t b% her alleged attorne%)in)fact and that their claim for damages arising from the malicio"s filing of the third)part% claim be admitted b% the $+ in the same appealed case# %ss&e$ Whether or not the $+ committed grave ab"se of discretion hen it did not act on petitioners* &otion to ?en% Third)Part% $laim ith &otion to +dmit $laim for ?amages on the gro"nd that the same sho"ld have been filed ith the

RT$# R&ling$ The petition lac(s merit# The $+ did not commit grave ab"se of discretion in not acting on petitioner/s motion to ?en% Third)Part% $laim ith &otion to +dmit claim for ?amages since the invalidit% of the affidavit of third)part% claim sho"ld have been raised at the earliest opport"nit% hich is in the trial co"rt# .n this case, hile the records of the case ere still ith the trial co"rt, petitioners co"ld have then moved for the -"ashal of the same# Th"s, the% co"ld no longer invo(e the ,"risdiction of the $+ to r"le on the same hen the% in fact had alread% aived the alleged defect in the affidavit hen the% so"ght from the $+ the approval of the indemnit% bond the% posted in the trial co"rt# +lso, the $+ cannot be compelled to act on petitioners* &otion to +dmit $laim for damages as it had no ,"risdiction to do so# +s provided in Section 34, R"le 32 of the R"les of $o"rt, a third part% claimant or an% third person ma% vindicate his claim to his propert% rongf"ll% levied b% filing a proper action hich is distinct and separate from that in hich the ,"dgment is being enforced# S"ch action o"ld have for its ob,ect the recover% of the possession of the propert% sei9ed b% the sheriff, as ell as damages res"lting from the allegedl% rongf"l sei9"re and detention thereof despite the third)part% claim@ and it ma% be bro"ght against the sheriff, of co"rse, and s"ch other parties as ma% be alleged to have coll"ded ith the sheriff in the s"pposedl% rongf"l e!ec"tion proceedings, s"ch as the ,"dgment creditor himself## S"ch o"ld also be a remed% to a ,"dgment obligee hen a frivolo"s and plainl% sp"rio"s claim as filed b% a third)part% claimant, i e#, to file his claim for damages in the same co"rt here the third)part% claimant filed his third)part% claim or to file a separate action# Th"s, petitioners* claim for damages m"st be filed in the trial co"rt, hether in the same case here a third)part% claim has been filed or in a separate action for damages hich petitioners ma% instit"te#

plaintiff, hen the foregoing deed of sale as e!ec"ted, it had alread% an e!isting mortgage in favor of Rodrigo Enri-"e9 and that the latter had alread% filed an action for foreclos"re# Said propert% as foreclosed and later sold to &aria =illadolid# +fter the death of Socorro, the plaintiffs filed an action against Socorro/s estate# P"rs"ant to said decision, the E!)Cfficio Sheriff of J"e9on $it% levied "pon and sold at e!ec"tion 38 parcels of land hich ere sold at a l"mp s"m bid price to the Spo"ses Pablo, one of the defendants ho ere iss"ed a ne cert of title# S"ch facts having been bro"ght to the (no ledge of the heirs of the deceased Socorro +# Ramos, the% filed an action in the $0. to declare as n"ll and void the Transfer $ertificate of Title iss"ed in the name of spo"ses Pablo, alleging among other things that the aforementioned transactions or events ere in gross violation of plaintiffs* rights as the l"mp s"m sale of the 38 parcels of land as contrar% to the provision of Sec# 23, R"le 32 of the R"les of $o"rt hich re-"ires the separate bidding and individ"al sale of real estate properties levied "pon on e!ec"tion and of Sec# 21, R"le 32 hich re-"ires the statement of the price paid for each distinct lot or parcel# %ss&e$ hether the trial co"rt erred in holding that plaintiffs* Kremed% is not another action b"t a motion ith the co"rt of origin attac(ing the e!ec"tion sale#I R&ling$ There is no -"estion that the action of petitioners in the lo er co"rt for ann"lment does not see( to ann"l the final decision of the $o"rt of +ppeals b"t onl% to ann"l the e!ec"tion sale and acts done in p"rs"ance thereof# The acts complained of in the present case arose after the $o"rt of +ppeals iss"ed its decision and therefore, it is not possible that the matter of e!ec"tion sale no in -"estion co"ld have been covered or considered in or a part of the decision of the appellate co"rt# The S"preme $o"rt finds that a separate action for ann"lment of e!ec"tion sales is in order# The lo er co"rt r"led that plaintiffs* :petitioners*< remed% is not another action b"t a motion attac(ing the e!ec"tion sale ith the co"rt of origin# Petitioners do not agree beca"se 3< improper remed% as not raised b% spo"ses in their motion to dismiss 2< there is no provision of la limiting an attac( on an e!ec"tion sale onl% thro"gh a motion ith the co"rt of origin#

RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents) RA( # vs. "ABL !acts$ Plaintiffs bo"ght a parcel of land from Socorro +# Ramos# Dn(no n to the

%ss&e$ Whether or not respondent can redeem the s"b,ect propert%# R&ling$ Qes# Dnder Section 21, R"le 32 of the R"les of $o"rt, $a%tons are s"ccessors in interest of the &aOoscas# 'o ever, their s"pposed title or right over the propert% is "nregistered and, as s"ch, the same cannot affect third persons# The "nregistered sale of the ho"se and lot to the $a%tons b% the &aOoscas cannot pre,"dice the right of redemption granted b% la in favor of Veonni!# The lev% on attachment of Veonni! on the s"b,ect propert% as d"l% recorded on the T$T# Th"s, the lev% on attachment created a constr"ctive notice to all persons from the time of s"ch registration# The rit of attachment entitled the attaching creditor to e!ercise the right to redeem the foreclosed properties# + rit of attachment that has been levied on real propert% or an% interest therein belonging to the ,"dgment debtor creates a lien hich nothing can destro% b"t its dissol"tion

RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents) CA+T N and .E%R# CA+T N vs. 'E NN%A TRAD%N) C R" RAT% N A#R# 6o# 3425;3, Cctober 2, 2002 !acts$ The &aOoscas e!ec"ted a deed of real estate mortgage over the ho"se and lot as sec"rit% for the loan that the% obtained from 0amil% Savings 5an( :0S5< hich as annotated in the T$T# &ean hile, a lev% on attachment as annotated on the same in favor of Veonni! Trading $orporation p"rs"ant to a rit of preliminar% attachment iss"ed b% the $0.# Thereafter, a ?eed of +bsol"te Sale ith +ss"mption of &ortgage as e!ec"ted bet een the &aOoscas and $a%tons over the s"b,ect properties# +s part of the consideration, the $a%tons ass"med pa%ment to 0S5 of the real estate mortgage amorti9ations on the propert% and paid the real estate ta!es on the propert% thereon# 'o ever, the $a%tons failed to register the deed of absol"te sale ith ass"mption of mortgage beca"se the o ner/s d"plicate cop% of T$T as in the possession of 0S5 in vie of the loan# 'o ever, ,"dgment as rendered sentencing defendant to pa% plaintiff ith interest thereon "ntil f"ll% paid# S"bse-"entl%, the $a%tons defa"lted in the pa%ment to 0S5 of the monthl% amorti9ations, and the propert% as e!tra,"diciall% foreclosed ca"sing the sale in p"blic a"ction# The $a%tons ere declared as the highest bidder# The% then filed before the RT$ a civil case for -"ieting of title andGor removalGprevention of clo"d on title against respondent claiming that, ith the e!ec"tion of the deed of absol"te sale ith ass"mption of mortgage, all the rights, interests and participation over the propert% had been transferred to them b% the &aOoscas, incl"ding the right of redemption e!cl"ding respondent# Respondent, as ,"dgment creditor of the &aOoscas in civil case ,"dgment, offered to redeem the propert% b% tendering pa%ment to the $ler( of $o"rt representing the p"rchase price of the propert% and interest that had accr"ed thereon# .t also thereafter tendered pa%ment to cover the real estate ta!es paid b% the $a%tons#

RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents) ) (E' vs. )EAL NE 203 S$R+ ;1; M3223N !acts$ Plaintiffs)+pellees filed ith the $0. of Sorsogon a complaint to recover a parcel of land from the defendants)appellants, the trial co"rt rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiffs)appellees# ?efendants)appellants appealed the decision to the $+ hich as dismissed for their fail"re to pa% the doc(et fees ithin the reglementar% period# The trial co"rt/s decision became final and e!ec"tor% and the plaintiffs)appellees filed a motion for its e!ec"tion hich as granted and on 31 +pril 3213, the ?ep"t% Provincial Sheriff of Sorsogon delivered the land in disp"te to plaintiffs)appellees# The Provincial Sheriff iss"ed a Sheriffs 6otice of P"blic +"ction Sale of the properties on 7"ne 23, 3213, cop% f"rnished defendant) appellant and the heirs of plaintiff)appellee ?ionisio Aome9# Plaintiffs)appellee t"rned o"t to be the highest bidder in the a"ction sale and the Sheriff iss"ed a Sheriffs $ertificate of Sale to them, incorporating the statement that the sale is s"b,ect to the right of legal redemption ithin one %ear from the date of sale# Si! months after the lapse of the one)%ear redemption period the defendants)appellants filed a &otion to Set +side E!ec"tion Sale on the gro"nds that the val"e of the properties sold in the a"ction sale is grossl% in e!cess of the

,"dgment debt and costs and the residential ho"se and the land :on< hich the b"ilding as constr"cted is a famil% home or homestead e!empt from e!ec"tion# Plaintiffs)appellees filed their opposition to this motion alleging that the fail"re to assert or claim the right to the e!emption granted "nder Section 32 :a< of R"le 32 of the Revised R"les of $o"rt ithin a reasonable time constit"ted an abandonment or aiver thereof, and that there is no merit to the other contentions of defendants# %ss&e$ &a% a sheriffs sale on e!ec"tion of properties of a ,"dgment debtor be set aside after the period of redemption had e!pired on the gro"nd that either the properties are e!empt from e!ec"tion or that their val"e is grossl% in e!cess of the ,"dgment debt and costs, thereb% res"lting in an ini-"ito"s transaction amo"nting to a deprivation of propert% itho"t d"e process of la E R&ling$ 6o# + KhomesteadK refers to the d elling ho"se of the ,"dgment debtor in hich he resides and the land necessaril% "sed in connection there ith# .t is e!empt from e!ec"tion p"rs"ant to Section 32 of R"le 32 if its val"e at the time of the e!ec"tion sale as not more than P3,000#00# .n this case, the val"e of the s"b,ect propert% :P3,830#00< and the declared val"e of the 32)hectare lot :P3,220#00<, the Kval"eK of the claimed homestead as less than P3,000#00 at the time of the e!ec"tion sale# Dnfort"natel%, ho ever, it as onl% on 32 ?ecember 321;, or nearl% si! :4< months after the e!ec"tion of the 0inal 5ill of Sale on 2; 7"ne 321;, that appellants filed their motion to set aside the e!ec"tion sale# The% did not ob,ect to both the lev% on the propert% and the a"ction sale thereof# 6either did the% oppose the e!ec"tion of the certificate of sale and the 0inal 5ill of Sale b% the Sheriff# .n short, the% did not assert their right to claim e!emption "ntil si! :4< months after the lapse of the one)%ear period to redeem the propert%# We no r"le that claims for e!emption from e!ec"tion of properties "nder Section 32 of R"le 32 of the R"les of $o"rt m"st be presented before its sale on e!ec"tion b% the sheriff# This is to compl% ith the ver% p"rpose of e!ec"tion B to p"t an end to litigation# The price for hich the lots ere sold in the e!ec"tion sale as not grossl% inade-"ate# The combined assessed val"e of the s"b,ect properties is P3,050#00# +ppellants, ho ever, claim that the total assessed val"e is P3,120#00# Aranting the latter to be correct, and conceding f"rther, for the sa(e of arg"ment, to the statement of appellants that the assessed val"e of real propert% for ta!ation p"rposes is 30T of the mar(et val"e s"ch that the mar(et val"e then is P32,433#50, still the price for hich the% ere sold at the e!ec"tion sale B

P3,522#50 B is not grossl% inade-"ate#

RULE 38 (E9ec&tion* #atisfaction and Effect of 0&dg2ents) RE! R'AD -#. #" U#E# L "E' A#R# 6o# 3;8304 0ebr"ar% 2;, 2030 !acts$ +s administratri! of her father/s estate, Refor9ado filed a motion for a rit of possession in the probate co"rt for respondent spo"ses to t"rn over the possession of the disp"ted propert%# The probate co"rt granted the motion# Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari before the $+# .n the meantime, Refor9ado also filed a complaint against respondents for ann"lment and reconve%ance involving the disp"ted propert%# Respondents filed a motion to dismiss, b"t s"ch motion as denied b% the trial co"rt# Respondents assailed the order via petition for certiorari before the $+# +cting on the petition :regarding the order den%ing the motion to dismiss<, the appellate co"rt r"led in respondents favor and dismissed the ann"lment case primaril% on the gro"nd of res ,"dicata# The appellate co"rt based the r"ling on the prior ,"dgment of the $+ in the petition for certiorari filed b% respondents :regarding the order of the probate co"rt granting the iss"ance of a rit of possession< hich as decided in their favor# %ss&e$ Whether or not the $+ acted correctl% in r"ling in respondentsfavor primaril% on the gro"nd of res ,"dicata P 6C R"ling> The doctrine of res ,"dicata la%s do n t o main r"les hich ma% be stated as follo s> 3< The ,"dgment or decree of a co"rt of competent ,"risdiction on the merits concl"des the litigation bet een the parties and their privies and constit"tes a bar to a ne action or s"it involving the same ca"se of action either before the same or an% other trib"nal@ and 2< +n% right, fact or matter in iss"e directl% ad,"dicated or necessaril% involved in the determination of an action before a competent co"rt in hich a ,"dgment or decree is rendered on the merits is concl"sivel% settled b% the ,"dgment therein and cannot again be litigated bet een the parties and their privies hether or not the claims or demands, p"rposes or s"b,ect matters of the t o s"its are the same#

These t o main r"les mar( the distinction bet een the principles governing the t o t%pical cases in hich a ,"dgment ma% operate as evidence# .n spea(ing of these cases, the first general r"le above stated, and hich corresponds to Section ;1 :b< of R"le 32 of the R"les of $o"rt, is referred to as Hbar b% former ,"dgmentI@ hile the second general r"le, hich is embodied in Section ;1 :c< of R"le 32, is (no n as Hconclusi#eness of 5udgmentI# .n the case at bar, there is no res ,"dicata since the r"ling of the $+ in the first petition for certiorari is not a decision on the merits on the o nership of the propert%, the appellate co"rt in said case having merel% resolved the propriet% of the probate co"rt/s iss"ance of a rit of possession in favor of petitioner# The appellate co"rt in fact declared in its dispositive portion that herein petitioner had the remed% of filing a separate action for recover% of the propert% ) a reco"rse she availed of hen she filed the complaint for ann"lment and reconve%ance s"b,ect of the present petition#

the R"les of $o"rt challenging the ?ecision of the co"rt a 6uo on the gro"nds that> 3#< the finding of facts of the p"blic respondent is not s"bstantiated b% an% evidence@ 2#< Serio"s errors of facts and la ere committed b% the p"blic respondent hich o"ld ca"se grave andGor irreparable damage or in,"r%@ 3#< grave ab"se of discretion amo"nting to lac( of ,"risdiction as committed b% p"blic respondent@ ;#< the petition is p"rel% on -"estions of la # %ss&e$ Whether or not the petition filed b% pretitioner "nder R"le 45 of the R"les of $o"rt is properE R&ling$ Aeneral r"le is that the remed% to obtain reversal or modification of ,"dgment on the merits is appeal# This is tr"e even if the error ascribed to the co"rt is its lac( of ,"risdiction over the s"b,ect matter, or the e!ercise of po er in e!cess thereof, or grave ab"se of discretion in the findings of facts or of la set o"t in the decision# +lmost t o months after receipt of the decision of the co"rt of appeals, petitioner filed its petition for certiorari, hence, petitioner has lost its remed% of appeal "nder r"le ;5 r"les of co"rt# 0or civil action of certiorari to commence "nder R"le 45 of the R"les of $o"rt, the petitioner m"st be left ith *no appeal, nor an% plain, speed%, and ade-"ate remed% in the ordinar% co"rse of la # Th"s, for petitioner*s fail"re to file a motion for reconsideration the petition m"st be dismissed for not compl%ing ith a condition precedent#

RULE# @> and @; (A44eal fro2 t3e (&nici4al Trial Co&rts to Regional Trial Co&rts* A44eal fro2 t3e Regional Trial Co&rts) A## C%AT% N ! %NTE)RATED #ECUR%T+ ! RCE vs. CA B 0AN A#R# 6o# 3;0350, +"g"st 22, 2005

!acts$ The Philippine $onstab"lar%< $ivil Sec"rit% 0orce $ommand advised respondent P.$CP *to desist from "tili9ing %o"r $ompan% A"ard 0orce in cond"cting sec"rit% activities* for its fail"re to rene its license to operate# Petitioners, ho are members of the labor "nion of sec"rit% g"ards, filed a case in the 6LR$ against P.$CP alleging that the% ere illegall% terminated, and the% are entitled to reinstatement, bac( ages, damages, attorne%*s fees and other monetar% benefits, and that their termination as a res"lt of their having formed a "nion and that P.$CP allegedl% deliberatel% ref"sed to compl% ith the re-"irements for the rene al of its sec"rit% license# The 6LR$ dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal, bac( ages, etc# The petitioner filed its motion for reconsideration b"t as denied# 'ence, the% filed a petition for Certiorari before the S"preme $o"rt hich as referred to the $o"rt of +ppeals# 'o ever, the $o"rt of +ppeals rendered a ?ecision affirming the findings of the 6LR$# Thereafter, the members of petitioner +.S05)+LD, represented b% the latter, filed the present petition for certiorari "nder R"le 45 of

RULE @> and @; (A44eals) (ANAC " -# E,U%TABLE "C% BAN/ !acts$ Respondent Lavine Lo"nge ear &an"fact"ring, .nc# b"ildings and their contents ere devastated b% a fire, th"s claims ere made against the policies provided b% the follo ing ins"rers Phil0ire, Ri9al S"ret%, Tabacalera .ns"rance $ompan%, 0irst Lepanto, E-"itable .ns"rance and Reliance .ns"rance# E!cept for Polic% 6o# 33128 iss"ed b% 0irst Lepanto, all the policies provide that, loss, if an%, "nder this polic% is pa%able to E-"itable 5an(ing $orporation)Areenhills 5ranch, as their interest ma% appear s"b,ect to the terms, conditions, cla"ses and arranties "nder this polic%# The board of ?irectors filed a motion to intervene, the co"rt granted the same# +fter the pre)trial and the trial proper, the co"rt rendered its ,"dgment in

favo"r of the intervenors# The ins"rance providers s"bse-"entl% made their appropriate motions and appeals# The intervenors then filed a motion for e!ec"tion pending appeal# E-"itable 5an( filed for certiorari to the $o"rt of +ppeals# The $+ in its ,"dgment remanded the case to the trial co"rt for determination of ho is entitled to the ins"rance proceeds and lifting the order of garnishment against Lepanto# The intervenors no petitioners s"bse-"entl% too( reco"rse on R"le ;5 of the R"les of $o"rt alleging among others that the $+ erred in giving cogni9ance to the petition for certiorari of E-"itable 5an( and Lavine given that the ordinar% mode of appeal as available to them# %ss&es$ Whether or not the sim"ltaneo"s filing of a petition for certiorari "nder r"le 45 and ;3 b% t o different parties on the same case is proper# R&ling$ 6o# Sim"ltaneo"s filing of a petition for certiorari "nder R"le 45 and an ordinar% appeal "nder R"le ;3 of the Revised R"les of $ivil Proced"re cannot be allo ed since one remed% o"ld necessaril% cancel o"t the other# The e!istence and availabilit% of the right of appeal proscribes resort to certiorari beca"se one of the re-"irements for availment of the latter is precisel% that there sho"ld be no appeal# .t is elementar% that for certiorari to prosper, it is not eno"gh that the trial co"rt committed grave ab"se of discretion amo"nting to lac( or e!cess of ,"risdiction@ the re-"irement that there is no appeal, nor an% plain, speed% and ade-"ate remed% in the ordinar% co"rse of la m"st li(e ise be satisfied# .t is ell)settled that the remed% to obtain reversal or modification of the ,"dgment on the merits is appeal# This is tr"e even if the error, or one of the errors, ascribed to the trial co"rt rendering the ,"dgment is its lac( of ,"risdiction over the s"b,ect matter, or the e!ercise of po er in e!cess thereof, or grave ab"se of discretion in the findings of fact or of la set o"t in the decision# Th"s, hile it ma% be tr"e that a final order or ,"dgment as rendered "nder circ"mstances that o"ld other ise ,"stif% resort to a special civil action "nder R"le 45, the latter o"ld nonetheless be "navailing if there is an appeal or an% other plain, speed% and ade-"ate remed% in the ordinar% co"rse of la # +nother compelling reason for dismissing $+)A#R# 6os# 10222 and 10228 is that E-"itable 5an( and Lavine act"all% engaged in for"m)shopping#

#%(E DARB+ E("L +EE# A## C%AT% N et al.* vs. NLRC A#R# 6o# 3;8023, ?ecember 4, 2004 !acts$ Petitioners filed a complaint for .llegal ?ismissal, before the ?CLE, against the respondent compan%# The labor arbiter iss"ed an order re-"iring opposing parties to s"bmit their respective memorand"m for the resol"tion of the instant case# The petitioner, itho"t filing the memorand"m as ordered b% the labor arbiter, filed an +ppeal &emorand"m ith a petition for in,"nction andGor a temporar% restraining order before the 6LR$# The labor arbiter rendered his decision in the consolidated cases, dismissing for lac( of merit petitioners/ complaints against the compan% for illegal loc(o"t, illegal dismissal and "nfair labor practice# Petitioners appealed the labor arbiter/s ?ecision to the 6LR$ hich affirmed in toto the Labor +rbiter/s decision# .t r"led that that the labor arbiter co"ld not have lost ,"risdiction over the case hen petitioners appealed the Labor +rbiter/s order since the it as interloc"tor% in nat"re and cannot be appealed separatel%# The $+ denied the petition and affirmed the ?ecision of the 6LR$# Petitioners insist that the labor arbiter had lost ,"risdictional competence to iss"e ?ecision since the% have alread% perfected their appeal, ma(ing said ?ecision void a" initio # %ss&e$ Whether or not the Labor +rbiter lost ,"risdiction to iss"e a decision after a s"bse-"ent appeal made b% the petitioner# R&ling$ 6o# The labor arbiter/s order to s"bmit memorand"m is interloc"tor%, hence not appealable# Section 3, R"le ;3 of the R"les of $o"rt, hich provides> Section 3# S"b,ect of appeal# P +n appeal ma% be ta(en from a ,"dgment or final order that completel% disposes of the case or of a partic"lar matter therein hen declared b% these R"les to be appealable# 6o appeal ma% be ta(en from> !!! b< +n interloc"tor% order# .n this case, an interloc"tor% order, not being appealable, ma% be remedied b% filing an appropriate special civil action "nder R"le 45 b% the aggrieved part%# The Crder of the labor arbiter parta(es the nat"re of an interloc"tor% order, or one hich refers to something bet een the commencement and end of the s"it hich decides some point or matter b"t it is not the final decision of the hole controvers%# +n interloc"tor% order is not appealable "ntil

RULE @> and @; (A44eals)

after the rendition of the ,"dgment on the merits for a contrar% r"le o"ld dela% the administration of ,"stice and "nd"l% b"rden the co"rts# Crder merel% terminated formal trial of the consolidated cases, declared that the motion for inspection ill be dealt ith in the resol"tion of the case, and ordered the s"bmission of the parties/ respective memoranda after hich the case shall be s"bmitted for resol"tion# .t did not p"t an end to the iss"es of illegal loc(o"t, DLP, and illegal dismissal# &oreover, even if petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari, hich o"ld have been the proper remed%, the same o"ld still fail# 0or one, the holding of an adversarial trial is discretionar% on the labor arbiter and the parties cannot demand it as a matter of right# Section ;, R"le = of the 6e R"les of Proced"re of the 6LR$ grants a labor arbiter ide latit"de to determine, after the s"bmission b% the parties of their position papersGmemoranda, hether there is need for a formal trial or hearing#

RULE# @> and @; (A44eals) .E%R# ! TE !%L )AUD%AN * vs. N#TANC% BENE(ER%T * A#R# 6o# 31;2;1, 0ebr"ar% 23, 2001

!acts$ The respondents filed an action for redemption against the petitioners before the RT$# The trial co"rt rendered its decision allo ing the respondents to redeem their respective areas of c"ltivation from the petitioners and directing them to e!ec"te the doc"ments necessar% to effect the redemption# Petitioners received a cop% of the decision# .nstead of filing a 6otice of +ppeal, the% filed a &otion for E!tension of Time to 0ile a 6otice of +ppeal itho"t the assistance of co"nsel# The% pra%ed for a 35)da% e!tension claiming that their co"nsel s"ffered a stro(e and that the% needed to engage the services of another co"nsel ho can represent them# Then the% filed a 6otice of +ppeal thro"gh their ne co"nsel# 'o ever, the Regional Trial $o"rt iss"ed the assailed order den%ing the motion# %ss&e$ Whether or not the Regional Trial $o"rt correctl% denied petitioners/ &otion for an E!tension of Time to 0ile 6otice of +ppeal#

R&ling$ Qes# .n the case of *acsamana #s 'econd 'pecial Cases 0i#ision of the /ntermediate 2ppellate Court,S the S"preme $o"rt r"led that in ordinar% appeals b% mere notice of appeal, as in the instant case, no e!tension to file a notice of appeal is allo ed# The perfection of an appeal ithin the period and in the manner prescribed b% la is ,"risdictional and non)compliance ith s"ch legal re-"irements is fatal and has the effect of rendering the ,"dgment final and e!ec"tor%# The limitation on the period of appeal is not itho"t reason# The% m"st be strictl% follo ed as the% are considered indispensable to forestall or avoid "nreasonable dela%s in the administration of ,"stice, to ens"re an orderl% discharge of ,"dicial b"siness, and to p"t an end to controversies# Tho"gh as a general r"le, r"les of proced"res are liberall% constr"ed, the provisions ith respect to the r"les on the manner and periods for perfecting appeals are strictl% applied and are onl% rela!ed in ver% e!ceptional circ"mstances on e-"itable considerations, hich are not present in the instant case# 5eing a prohibited pleading, a motion for e!tension of time to file a notice of appeal is a mere scrap of paper and its filing does not toll the r"nning of the period to appeal# Petitioners filed their 6otice of +ppeal ithin the period pra%ed for in their motion for e!tension b"t be%ond the period to appeal# Sections 2:a< and 3 of R"le ;3 clearl% provide that decisions of Regional Trial $o"rts ma% be appealed b% filing a notice of appeal ithin 35 da%s from date of receipt of notice of ,"dgment# The filing of a notice of appeal ithin the reglementar% period is mandator%@ no e!tension is allo ed# Petitioners/ reliance on the po er of the $o"rt to rela! and disregard the application of technical r"les of proced"re in the interest of s"bstantial ,"stice is misplaced# The liberal application of r"les of proced"re for perfecting appeals is still the e!ception, and not the r"le@ and it is onl% allo ed in e!ceptional circ"mstances to better serve the interest of ,"stice#

RULE# @> and @; (A44eals) R #%TA D (%N) vs. C URT ! A""EAL# and ARANETA %N#T%TUTE ! A)R%CULTURE A#R# 6o# 302340 &arch 20, 3224 !acts$ Petitioner as one of the bona fide tenant)occ"pants of an 81 hectare

land of Aon9ales estate# +fter RP ac-"ired title to the estate, the President ordered that bigger portions of the estate ma% be sold to persons other than the bona fide tenant)occ"pants# .t as b% this change in polic% that prompted the tenant) occ"pants to file an action to compel the RP to sell the entire estate to them# Private respondent +.+ filed a complaint in intervention on the basis of a doc"ment entitled KU+SD6?D+6 6+ &+Q P+A5.5.A+Q U+P+6AQ+R.'+6 '.6AA.L S+ +SQE6?+ AC6V+LES#K The Uas"nd"an as act"all% a doc"ment of sale or transfer hereb% some tenants conve%ed their landholdings in the estate to +.+# 'ence, +.+ as allo ed to intervene# Thereafter, +.+ s"bmitted to the lo er co"rt a $ompromise +greement it entered into ith 33 tenants)occ"pants, of hom ?omingo as one of, of the estate# The trial co"rt approved the $ompromise +greement b% iss"ing a partial decision# + motion for immediate e!ec"tion of the partial decision as filed and as granted# &ean hile, some of the 33 tenants ho entered into the $ompromise +greement ith +.+ filed separate proceedings against the latter before the trial co"rts of $aloocan $it% to ann"l the partial decision approving their agreement# +ll the cases ere dismissed# Cn her part, petitioner filed $ivil $ase 6o# ;13 b"t the same as dismissed for fail"re to prosec"te# %ss&e$ Whether or not the partial decision of a compromise agreement entered into b% the tenants, of hom ?omingo as one of, ma% be ann"lled# R&ling$ The contention of ?omingo is "ntenable# The $o"rt r"led that a compromise is a contract hereb% the parties, b% ma(ing reciprocal concessions, avoid litigation or p"t an end to one alread% commenced# .t is a contract perfected b% mere consent, the latter being manifested b% the meeting of the offer and the acceptance "pon the thing and the ca"se hich are to constit"te the contract# Cnce an agreement is stamped ith ,"dicial approval, it becomes more than a mere contract binding "pon the parties@ having the sanction of the co"rt and entered as its determination of the controvers%, it has the force and effect of an% other ,"dgment# $onse-"entl%, a ,"dgment rendered in accordance ith a compromise agreement is immediatel% e!ec"tor% as there is no appeal from s"ch ,"dgment# The reason for this r"le being that hen both parties enter into an agreement to end a pending litigation and re-"est that a decision be rendered approving said agreement, it is onl% nat"ral to pres"me that s"ch action constit"tes an implicit aiver of the right to appeal against said decision# + compromise ma% ho ever be dist"rbed and set aside for vices of consent or forger%# 'ence, here an aggrieved part% alleges mista(e, fra"d,

violence, intimidation, "nd"e infl"ence, or falsit% in the e!ec"tion of the compromise embodied in a ,"dgment, an action to ann"l it sho"ld be bro"ght before the $o"rt of +ppeals# .n the case at bar, petitioner filed an action to ann"l the compromise ,"dgment ith the Regional Trial $o"rt on the gro"nd of forger%# Said case as ho ever dismissed for fail"re to prosec"te# $learl%, petitioner has forfeited her right to challenge the compromise ,"dgment not onl% beca"se she did not appeal from the order of dismissal b"t more so beca"se she ventilated her remed% to the rong co"rt hich had "ndo"btedl% no ,"risdiction to ann"l the ,"dgment of a conc"rrent co"rt# Th"s, the S"preme $o"rt has no reason to reverse the assailed decision of respondent co"rt# The partial decision m"st accordingl% be enforced and e!ec"ted ith deliberate dispatch and itho"t f"rther dela%#

RULE# @> and @; (A44eals) "R -%NCE ! "AN)A#%NAN vs. C URT 220 S$R+ 124 ! A""EAL#

!acts$ + contract as entered into bet een private respondent $o-"ial and petitioners Pangasinan Province and Pangasinan Aovernor $olet for the improvement of 4#;22 (ilometers of the Drdaneta)&apandan Road, Phase . and Phase .. for a total consideration of P5,342,232#30# .t as agreed that "pon the 300T completion of Phase ., private respondent sho"ld be paid P3,31;,083#20# 'o ever, petitioners had paid onl% P3,320,000#00 leaving a balance of P3,85;,083#20, hich the% ref"sed to pa%# Private respondent $o-"ial also claimed that he has also completed 40T of Phase .. hich costs P3,000,000#00 b"t petitioners li(e ise ref"sed to pa% and decided not to p"rs"e the pro,ect# 'ence, private respondent $o-"ial filed a complaint against petitioner pra%ing for the pa%ment of said amo"nts incl"ding monetar% a ards for damages and attorne%*s fees# Thereafter, private respondent filed a motion for partial s"mmar% ,"dgment on the balance of P3,85;,083#20 hich as granted b% the trial co"rt# + notice of appeal as thereafter filed b% petitioners hich as also denied# %ss&e$ WC6 the decision of the RT$ granting the motion for partial s"mmar% ,"dgment filed b% private respondent is interloc"tor%#

R&ling$ The S"preme $o"rt agreed ith the contention of the petitioners that the decision of the RT$ granting the partial s"mmar% ,"dgment is merel% interloc"tor%# $iting the case of -ue#arra, et al #s Court of 2ppeals, et al , the $o"rt agreed ith the petitioners that a partial s"mmar% ,"dgment is merel% interloc"tor% and not a final ,"dgment# .ts nat"re is specificall% provided for in Section ; of R"le 3; of the R"les of $o"rt hich provides> /f on motion under this rule, 5udgment is not rendered upon the whole case or for all the relief as8ed and a trial is necessary, the court at the hearing of the motion, "y e%amining the pleadings and the e#idence "efore it and "y interrogating counsel shall ascertain what material facts e%ist without su"stantial contro#ersy and what material facts are actually and in good faith contro#erted /t shall thereupon ma8e an order specifying the facts that appear without su"stantial contro#ersy, including the e%tent to which the amount of damages or other relief is not in contro#ersy, and directing such further proceedings in the action as are 5ust <pon the trial of the action the facts so specified shall "e deemed esta"lished, and the trial shall "e conducted accordingly# The $o"rt f"rther held that R"le 3; contemplates that the appeal from the partial s"mmar% ,"dgment shall be ta(en together ith the ,"dgment that ma% be rendered in the entire case after a trial is cond"cted on the material facts on hich a s"bstantial controvers% e!ists# The trial co"rt and the respondent co"rt erroneo"sl% relied on Section 5 of R"le 34 of the R"les of $o"rt, hich pertains to ,"dgments in general# Therefore, since partial s"mmar% ,"dgment does not finall% dispose of the action, e!ec"tion thereof shall not iss"e, conformabl% ith Section 3 of R"le 32 of the R"les of $o"rt# RULE# @> and @; (A44eals) #AN !ERNAND RURAL BAN/* %NC. vs. "A("AN)A (N%BU# DE-EL "(ENT C R" RAT% N and D (%N%C ). A,U%N 520 S$R+ 54; !acts$ Respondent PC?$ obtained a loan from petitioner San 0ernando R"ral ban( :S+0ER ban(<# PC?$ e!ec"ted a real estate mortgage in favor of the ban(# Dpon respondent PC?$/s fail"re to pa% its loan to petitioner, the latter foreclosed the propert% and as e!ec"ted b% the sheriff, a $ertificate of Sale, registered on 7"ne 1, 2003 hich stated that Kthe period of redemption of the propert% shall e!pire one :3< %ear after registration in the Register of ?eeds#K Respondent/s s"ccessf"ll% redeemed the propert% b"t the pet# assailed the same, filing a petition for a rit of possession in the RT$ hich as granted#

+fter resp/s motion for recon as denied b% the RT$, it filed a Petition for $ertiorari ith the $+ on the gro"nd of grave ab"se of discretion b% RT$# $+ set aside RT$/s r"ling sa%ing that the ?ecember 20, 2002 Crder of the RT$ granting the petition for a rit of possession as interloc"tor% and not final@ hence, it ma% be -"estioned onl% via petition for certiorari "nder R"le 45 of the R"les of $o"rt, not b% appeal# 'ence, this present petition %ss&e$ Whether or the Crder of the RT$ granting the petition for a rit of possession as interloc"tor% hich can be remedied b% petition for certiorari or final hich can be remedied b% appeal# R&ling$ The Crder of the RT$ granting the petition for a rit of possession as final# 'ence, the remed% as appeal# The $+ erred in holding that the Crder of the RT$ granting the petition for a rit of possession as merel% interloc"tor%# .nterloc"tor% orders are those that determine incidental matters and hich do not to"ch on the merits of the case or p"t an end to the proceedings# + petition for certiorari "nder R"le 45 of the R"les of $o"rt is the proper remed% to -"estion an improvident interloc"tor% order# Cn the other hand, a final order is one that disposes of the hole matter or terminates the partic"lar proceedings or action leaving nothing to be done b"t to enforce b% e!ec"tion hat has been determined# .t is one that finall% disposes of the pending action so that nothing more can be done ith it in the lo er co"rt# The remed% to -"estion a final order is appeal "nder R"le ;3 of the R"les of $o"rt# We agree ith petitioner/s contention that the ?ecember 20, 2002 Crder of the RT$ granting the petition for a rit of possession is final# The remed% of respondents as to appeal to the $+ b% filing their notice of appeal ithin the period therefor# The reliance of the $+ in $it% of &anila v# Serrano is misplaced# .n that case, the trial co"rt iss"ed the rit of possession in connection ith a complaint for e!propriation "nder R"le 41 of the R"les of $o"rt# S"ch a rit is interloc"tor% in nat"re# Cn the other hand, an order granting a rit of possession "nder +ct 6o# 3335, as amended, is of a different species# The latter order is final, hence, appealable# Even if the trial co"rt erred in granting a petition for a rit of possession, s"ch an error is merel% an error of ,"dgment correctible b% ordinar% appeal and not b% a petition for a rit of certiorari# S"ch rit cannot be legall% "sed for an% other p"rpose#

RULE# @> and @; (A44eals) .E%R# ! D R N% vs. .E%R# ! D R N% 5;3 S$R+ ;12 M2001N

#" U#E# ( RALE# vs. C URT ! A""EAL# ).R. No. ;<=;8=* 0an&arC <1* ;881 !acts$ .n 3212, 5a"tista, o ner of one hole parcel of land devoted to agric"lt"re s"bdivided his land# This as d"l% approved b% the Land Registration $ommission# 'e obtained individ"al transfer certificates of title of the s"bdivided lots# 'e li(e ise obtained a corresponding declaration of propert% for each lot from the &"nicipal +ssessor hich as approved b% the Provincial +ssessor reclassif%ing the lots as residential# Thereafter, on 3212 5a"tista sold 2 lots to Aregorio &orales and ; lots to &aria Teresa &orales# Teresa in t"rn, sold 3 of her p"rchased lots to three different persons ho are li(e ise plaintiffs in the case# These plaintiffs assert that the defendant s"rreptitio"sl% too( possession of their lots and prepared them for planting, thereb% altering its residential o"tline and appearance# ?efendant alleged that the reclassification of the land as not approved b% the proper a"thorities and that he as d"l% constit"ted as tenant thereof b% the previo"s o ner, Enri-"e 5a"tista# The m"nicipal co"rt received evidence on the iss"e of right of possession and the land*s proper classification# 'o ever, the &T$ dismissed the case for lac( of ,"risdiction finding the land to be agric"lt"ral and the fact that tenanc% as in iss"e# Cn appeal, the RT$ 7"dge fo"nd that the :m"nicipal< co"rt had ,"risdiction beca"se the land as d"l% reclassified from agric"lt"ral to residential and that tenanc% as not involved# 'e then proceeded to decide the iss"es on the merits res"lting in a ,"dgment favoring plaintiffs* recover% of possession of the lots in litigation# This prompted the defendant) petitioner to appeal b% a% of certiorari to the $+ alleging that the RT$ 7"dge gravel% erred its discretion and lac(ed ,"risdiction to decide the case# $+ set aside the RT$ decision and remanded the case to the &T$ for f"rther proceedings# %ss&e$ .s the RT$ correct in resolving the e,ectment s"it on its meritsE R&ling$ Qes# Dnder the present R"les hich incl"de the 3221 amendments Sec# 8, R"le ;0> 2ppeal from orders dismissing the case without trial$ lac8 of 5urisdiction # B .f an appeal is ta(en from an order of the lo er co"rt dismissing the case itho"t a trial on the merits, the Regional Trial $o"rt ma% affirm or reverse it, as the case ma% be# .n case of affirmance and the gro"nd of dismissal is lac( of ,"risdiction over the s"b,ect matter, the RT$ if it has ,"risdiction thereover, shall tr% the case on the merits as if the case as originall% filed ith it# /n case of re#ersal, the case shall "e remanded for further proceedings # We cannot s"stain

!acts$ The heirs of 0ort"nato ?oronio filed a petition for the reconsideration of the decision of the RT$ that ordered the registration of the s"b,ect deed of donation in favor of petitioner and pra%ed in the petition that an order be iss"ed declaring n"ll and void the registration of the private deed of donation and the T$T be cancelled# 'o ever, the petition as dismissed on the gro"nd that the decision in the petition for iss"ance of T$T to petitioner had alread% become final as it as not appealed# ?etermined to remain in their possessed propert%, respondent filed an action for reconve%ance and damages against petitioner b"t the RT$ r"led in favor of petitioner# Cn appeal, the $+ reversed the r"ling of the lo er co"rt and declared that the donation of the entire propert% in favor of petitioners/ predecessors is invalid on the gro"nd that it impairs the legitime of respondents/ predecessor# %ss&e$ Whether or not the $+ erred in passing "pon the iss"e of legitime in a $ivil +ction for Reconve%ance and ?amages# R&ling$ Qes# .ss"e regarding the impairment of legitime of respondent/s predecessor m"st be resolved in an action for the settlement of estates of spo"ses Simeon ?oronio and $ornelia Aante# .t ma% not be passed "pon in an action for reconve%ance and damages# + probate co"rt, in the e!ercise of its limited ,"risdiction, is the best for"m to ventilate and ad,"dge the iss"e of impairment of legitime as ell as other related matters involving the settlement of estate# +n action for reconve%ance ith damages is a civil action, hereas matters relating to settlement of the estate of a deceased person s"ch as advancement of propert% made b% the decedent, parta(e of the nat"re of a special proceeding# Special proceedings re-"ire the application of specific r"les as provided for in the R"les of $o"rt#

RULE# @> and @; (A44eals)

the $+# Dnder the afore-"oted provisions, an RT$, in the e!ercise of its appellate ,"risdiction, sho"ld remand a case in the event it reverses a decision of the &T$ hich r"led on a -"estion of la , provided that there as no trial on the merits# The significance of this second re-"irement cannot be overemphasi9ed, for it reveals the rationale for remanding the case# + remand is a d"e process re-"irement, beca"se it affords the parties an opport"nit% to present evidence on the merits of the case# Where the parties have presented their respective evidence before the &T$, a remand becomes a "seless s"perfl"it%, an "nd"e imposition on the time and the doc(ets of co"rts# .n the case at bar, it is clear that the &T$ afforded d"e process to the parties@ it received relevant evidence s"fficient to decide the e,ectment case on its merits#

22:b< of the .nterim R"les, or to this $o"rt thro"gh a petition for revie on certiorari in accordance ith R"le ;5 of the R"les of $o"rt and Section 25 of the .nterim R"les# The reason for e!tending the period for the filing of a record on appeal is also applicable to the filing of a petition for revie ith the $o"rt of +ppeals# The period for filing a petition for revie is fifteen da%s# .f a motion for reconsideration is filed ith and denied b% a regional trial co"rt, the movant has onl% remaining period ithin hich to file a petition for revie # 'ence, it ma% be necessar% to file a motion ith the $o"rt of +ppeals for e!tension of time to file s"ch petition for revie # Petitioners can therefore file a motion for e!tension of time in a petition for revie #

RULE# @> and @; (A44eals) RULE# @> and @; (A44eal fro2 t3e (&nici4al Trial Co&rts to Regional Trial Co&rts* A44eal fro2 t3e Regional Trial Co&rts) LAC#A(ANA vs. %AC B LL +D 3;3 S$R+ 4;3 !acts$ .n the case at bar, a decision as rendered against petitioners b% the Regional Trial $o"rt of &a(ati &etro &anila, in an appeal from the decision of the &etropolitan Trial $o"rt of &a(ati &etro &anila# $op% of said decision as received b% co"nsel for petitioners on September 30, 3285# Cn Cctober 33, 3285, co"nsel for petitioners filed a motion ith respondent $o"rt for 35 da%s e!tension or "p to Cctober 30, 3285 to file a petition for revie on the gro"nd that he needed additional time to finali9e the pleading :Petition for Revie < in vie of his other ritten pleadings and trial commitments# Together ith the filing of the motion for e!tension petitioners paid the necessar% doc(et fees# %ss&e$ Whether or not petitioners can file a motion for e!tension of time in a petition for revie R&ling$ The final ,"dgment or order of a regional trial co"rt in an appeal from the final ,"dgment or order of a metropolitan trial co"rt, m"nicipal trial co"rt and m"nicipal circ"it trial co"rt, ma% be appealed to the $o"rt of +ppeals thro"gh a petition for revie in accordance ith Section 22 of 5P 6o# 322 and Section .E%R# ! (AA%( R%) # -# CA

!acts$ 5elen Rigoso filed an action for partition against her h"sband &a!imo Rigoso# +fter the case as s"bmitted for decision, &a!imo died and he as not s"bstit"ted b% his heirs beca"se apparentl% his la %er failed to inform the co"rt of his death# Partition is an action hich s"rvives# Later ,"dgment as rendered against the defendant, hich the la %er appealed in accordance ith r"le ;3# The ife moved to dismiss the appeal on the gro"nd that deceased defendant ceased to have legal personalit% and that defendants co"nsel lac(ed an% a"thorit% to file the appeal d"e to his clients death# The $+ dismissed the appeal# %ss&e$ Whether or not the appeal is properl% made in this case# R&ling$ 6o# Dnder the r"les, it is the d"t% of the attorne% for the deceased defendant to inform the co"rt of his client*s death and to f"rnish the co"rt ith the names and residences of the e!ec"tor, administrator, or legal representative of the deceased# .n the case at bar, no s"ch notice of death, nor a motion for s"bstit"tion of the deceased defendant, as ever made# 'ence, the trial co"rt co"ld not be e!pected to (no or ta(e ,"dicial notice of the death of defendant, &a!imo Regoso, itho"t the proper manifestation from his co"nsel# .t m"st be remembered that the fa"lt or negligence as +ttorne% 7avier*s alone# +ttorne% 7avier*s appeal from the decision of the trial co"rt as correctl%

dismissed b% the appellate co"rt for "pon the death of &a!imo Regoso, +ttorne% 7avier*s a"thorit% to represent him also e!pired# Then notice of appeal, hich +ttorne% 7avier filed on behalf of the decedent, as an "na"thori9ed pleading, hence, invalid# 'o ever, the validit% of the ,"dgment of the trial co"rt as not affected b% the defendant*s demise for the action s"rvived# The decision is binding and enforceable against the s"ccessors)in)interest of the deceased litigant b% title s"bse-"ent to the commencement of the action MSection ;2:b< R"le 32, R"les of $o"rt#

RULE# @> and @; (A44eals) ATT+. 0E#U# !. !ERNANDE'* vs# . N. C URT C NCE"C% N L%-ARE#* ! A""EAL# and

!acts$ + $omplaint for "nla f"l detainer as filed b% private respondent $oncepcion Clivares against the herein petitioner 7es"s 0ernande9# dismissed the $omplaint for lac( of s"fficient ca"se of action# Regional Trial $o"rt reversed the &eT$, ordering 0ernande9 to pa% rental arrearages, attorne%*s fees, litigation e!penses and costs# Petitioner 0ernande9 received a cop% of the RT$ decision on 28 7"ne 322;# 'e filed a motion for reconsideration fo"rteen :3;< da%s after receipt of the decision# The motion as denied and he had onl% the remaining one :3< da% to file a motion for ne trial hich da% fell on 03 ?ecember 322;# Since 30 6ovember 322; as a holida%, 0ernande9 had "p to 03 ?ecember 322; to file the motion for ne trial# .nstead of filing a motion for ne trial, he filed before the $o"rt of +ppeals on 03 ?ecember 322; the motion for e!tension of time to file petition for revie # Thereafter, and pending the resol"tion of his motion before the $o"rt of +ppeals, 0ernande9 ent bac( to the RT$ and filed on 02 ?ecember 322; a motion for ne trial# %ss&e$ WC6 the motion for ne trial be given d"e co"rse# .eld$ 6o# The motion for ne trial as filed o"t of time# R"le 31, Section 3 of the Revised R"les of $o"rt providing for the period to file a motion for ne trial in relation to R"le ;3, Section 3 is in point#

R"le 31# # # # Section 3# -rounds of and period for filing motion for new trial or reconsideration# P Within the period for ta(ing an appeal, the aggrieved part% ma% move the trial co"rt to set aside the ,"dgment or final order and grant a ne trial for one or more of the follo ing ca"ses materiall% affecting the s"bstantial rights of said part%# R"le ;3 # # # # Sec# 3# 3eriod of ordinary appeal# P The appeal shall be ta(en ithin fifteen :35< da%s from notice of the ,"dgment or final order appealed from# Where a record on appeal is re-"ired, the appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal ithin thirt% :30< da%s from notice of the ,"dgment or final order# The period of appeal shall be interr"pted b% a timel% motion for ne trial or reconsideration# 6o motion for e!tension of time to file a motion for ne trial or reconsideration shall be allo ed# +ppl%ing the foregoing, 0ernande9*s motion for ne trial as filed o"t of time# The fifteen :35<)da% period for filing a motion for ne trial cannot be e!tended# +s earl% as the case of 1a"aluyas # 9ap.on, cited in :aguiat # /ntermediate 2ppellate Court, and reiterated in Tung Chin 1ui # Rodrigue., motions for e!tension of time to file a motion for ne trial or reconsideration ma% no longer be filed before all co"rts, lo er than the S"preme $o"rt# The r"le in 1a"aluyas applies even if the motion is filed before the e!piration of the period so"ght to be e!tended beca"se the fifteen :35< da%s period for filing a motion for ne trial or reconsideration ith said co"rt is non)e!tendible# Th"s, motions for e!tension of time to file a motion for ne trial or reconsideration ma% be filed onl% in connection ith cases pending before the S"preme $o"rt, hich ma% in its so"nd discretion either grant or den% the e!tension re-"ested# 6o s"ch motion ma% be filed before an% lo er co"rts#

RULE# @> and @; (A44eals) R (AN CAT. L%C ARC.B%#. " ! (AN%LA vs. C URT ! A""EAL#* #"#. ERNE#T RE+E# and L RNA RE+E# A#R# 6o# 33332;# 7"l% 5, 3224 !acts$ The case springs from a lease agreement e!ec"ted b% petitioner)lessor, the

Roman $atholic +rchbishop of &anila, and private respondent)lessees, spo"ses Ernesto and Lorna Re%es over a parcel of land located in .ntram"ros, &anila# Private respondent lessees ere given the right of pre)emption, ith first priorit% to p"rchase the propert% if the o ner, herein petitioner, offered it for sale# .ntending to have a fire all constr"cted, private respondents allegedl% had the propert% relocated# +s a res"lt, the% discovered that the ad,acent o ner*s concrete fence ab"tted on and encroached "pon 30#24 s-"are meters of the leased propert%# Private respondents re-"ested petitioner to ma(e ad,"stments in order to correct the encroachment problem# The spo"ses Re%es claim that despite repeated follo )"p, petitioner has failed to ta(e an% action on their demand# Private respondent spo"ses filed an action for specific performance and damages before the Regional Trial $o"rt of &anila# The correction or ad,"stment of the encroached portion of the propert% constit"ted their first ca"se of action# 0or their second ca"se of action, the spo"ses Re%es pra%ed that petitioner be compelled to sell the leased premises to them at P3,400#00 per s-"are meter, claiming that there as alread% a contract of sale bet een the parties# The trial co"rt iss"ed an Crder den%ing petitioner*s motion to dismiss insofar as the first ca"se of action is concerned b"t granted it for the second ca"se of action# Private respondent spo"ses filed a notice of appeal and elevated the case to the $o"rt of +ppeals# .n its decision, respondent appellate co"rt affirmed the trial co"rt*s Cctober 31, 3220 Crder b"t reversed and set aside the Partial 7"dgment# %ss&e$ Whether or not a record on appeal is necessar% to perfect the appeal# .eld$ 6o# The case at bar is not one here m"ltiple appeals can be ta(en or are necessar%# The disp"tes in the case belo for specific performance have arisen from the demand to ma(e ad,"stments on the propert% here the ad,acent o ner is alleged to have "s"rped a part thereof, the e!ercise of the right of pre)emption and the pa%ment of rental arrearages# + r"ling on the iss"e of encroachment ill perforce be determinative of the iss"e of "npaid rentals# These t o points do not arise from t o or more ca"ses of action, b"t from the same ca"se of action# 'ence, this s"it does not re-"ire m"ltiple appeals# There is no gro"nd for the splitting of appeals in this case, even if it involves an Crder granting :and den%ing< a motion to dismiss and a Partial 7"dgment granting a motion for ,"dgment on the pleadings# The s"b,ect matter covered in the Crder and in the Partial 7"dgment pertain to the same lessor)lessee relationship, lease contract and parcel of land# Splitting appeals in the instant case o"ld, in effect, be violative of the r"le against m"ltiplicit% of appeals#

The concl"sion is irresistible that since a case has not been made o"t for m"ltiple appeals, a record on appeal is "nnecessar% to perfect the appeal#

RULE @< ("etition for Review fro2 t3e Regional Trial Co&rt to t3e Co&rt of A44eals) "+R C ""ER (%N%N) C R" RAT% N vs. (%NE# AD0UD%CAT% N B ARD

!acts$ Private Respondent &ontag"e Reso"rces Philippines $orporation as granted their +pplication for E!ploration Permit :EP< covering the same properties as petitioner P%ro $opper &ining $orporation, hose same e!ploration permit as revo(ed b% the Secretar% of Environment &i(e ?efensor# S"bse-"ent to the granting of EP of Private Respondent, petitioner filed a =erified ProtestGCpposition to the private respondent/s +pplication for E!ploration Permit, hich the &A5 dismissed as having been filed o"t of time and that it failed to incl"de a certificate against for"m shopping# Petitioner appealed to the $+ for revie , Petitioner as given an opport"nit% to s"bmit +tt%# +csa%/s ritten a"thorit% to sign the =erification and $ertification against 0or"m Shopping# Which the% failed to do so, th"s the $+ dismissed the case# %ss&e$ Whether or not a certification against for"m shopping not signed b% a d"l% a"thori9ed person renders the petition s"b,ect to dismissal# R&ling$ Section 4:d<, R"le ; in relation to Section 2, R"le ;2 of the 3221 Revised R"les of $ivil Proced"re mandates that a petition for revie shall contain a s orn certification against for"m shopping, in hich the petitioner shall attest that he has not commenced an% other action involving the same iss"es in this $o"rt, the $o"rt of +ppeals or different divisions thereof, or an% other trib"nal or agenc%@ if there is s"ch other action or proceeding, he m"st state the stat"s of the same@ and if he sho"ld thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before this $o"rt, the $o"rt of +ppeals, or different divisions thereof, or an% other trib"nal or agenc%, he "nderta(es to promptl% inform the aforesaid co"rts and other trib"nal or agenc% thereof ithin five da%s therefrom# 0or fail"re to compl% ith this mandate, section 1 of R"le ;2 states that this becomes a gro"nd for dismissal#

The re-"irement that petitioner sho"ld sign the $ertification against 0or"m Shopping applies even to corporations, the R"les of $o"rt ma(ing no distinction bet een nat"ral and ,"ridical persons# + corporation, ho ever, e!ercises its po ers thro"gh its board of directors andGor its d"l% a"thori9ed officers and agents# Ph%sical acts, li(e the signing of doc"ments, can be performed onl% b% nat"ral persons d"l% a"thori9ed for the p"rpose b% corporate b%)la s or b% a specific act of the board of directors# The signator%, therefore, in the case of the corporation sho"ld be Ka d"l% a"thori9ed director or officer of the corporationK ho has (no ledge of the matter being certified# .f the petitioner is a corporation, a board resol"tion a"thori9ing a corporate officer to e!ec"te the $ertification against 0or"m Shopping is necessar%# + certification not signed b% a d"l% a"thori9ed person renders the petition s"b,ect to dismissal#

The S"preme $o"rt has held in a n"mber of instances that s"ch a deficienc% can be e!c"sed or dispensed ith in meritorio"s cases, the defect being neither ,"risdictional nor al a%s fatal# The re-"irement regarding verification of a pleading is formal# S"ch re-"irement is simpl% a condition affecting the form of pleading, the non)compliance ith hich does not necessaril% render the pleading fatall% defective# =erification is simpl% intended to sec"re an ass"rance that the allegations in the pleading are tr"e and correct and not the prod"ct of the imagination or a matter of spec"lation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith# The co"rt ma% order the correction of the pleading if verification is lac(ing or act on the pleading altho"gh it is not verified, if the attending circ"mstances are s"ch that strict compliance ith the R"les ma% be dispensed ith in order that the ends of ,"stice ma% thereb% be served#

RULE @< ("etition for Review fro2 t3e Regional Trial Co&rt to t3e Co&rt of A44eals) BAB+ ARLENE LARAN vs. #"#. AL!RED CALENDAC% N and RA!AELA T. CALENDAC% N !acts> Petitioner contends that the respondent $o"rt of +ppeals committed grave error in giving d"e co"rse to the private respondents* petition for revie not ithstanding the fact that said petition contains no verification to the effect that the allegations therein ere read and "nderstood b% the private respondents and that the% are tr"e and correct of their o n or personal (no ledge or based on a"thentic records, as re-"ired b% the r"les# Section 3 R"le ;2 provides> Sec# 3# Effect of fail"re to compl% ith re-"irements# The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing re6uirements regarding the payment of the doc8et and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of ser#ice of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall "e sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof %##UE$ WC6 fail"re to verif% the petition arrants the dismissal of the same# .ELD$ 6o# =erification is ,"st a formal re-"irement#

RULE @< ("etition for Review fro2 t3e Regional Trial Co&rts to t3e Co&rt of A44eals) BARAN)A+ #AN)ALAN) vs# BARAN)A+ (A)U%.AN A#R# 6o# 352122 > ?ecember 23, 2002 !acts$ The controvers% has its roots in a baranga% ,"risdiction disp"te bet een petitioner 5aranga% Sangalang and respondent 5aranga% &ag"ihan, both sit"ated in Lemer%, 5atangas# The case as lodged before the Sangg"niang 5a%an, hich referred it to a hearing committee# .n t"rn, the committee formed rendered a report to the effect that the properties in disp"te belonged to petitioner# The recommendation as s"bse-"entl% affirmedb% the Sangg"niang 5a%an of Lemer%, 5atangas# Respondent appealed the decision to the Regional Trial $o"rt :RT$<# The RT$ rendered a ?ecision r"ling in favor of respondent# Petitioner filed a &otion for Reconsideration, hich as, ho ever, denied b% the RT$# +ggrieved, petitioner then filed a 6otice of +ppeal# The $+ rendered a ?ecision dismissing the appeal# .n dismissing the appeal, the $+ r"led that petitioner had availed itself of the rong remed% in filing a notice of appeal instead of filing a petition for revie "nder R"le ;2 of the R"les of $o"rt# 'ence, herein petition#

%ss&e$ Whether or not the $+ as correct in stating that the Petitioner sho"ld have filed a petition for revie rather than a notice for appeal# .eld$ Qes. 5% filing a 6otice of +ppeal assailing the RT$ ?ecision, petitioner has availed itself of the remed% provided for "nder R"le ;3 of the R"les of $o"rt, hich provides for the ordinar% mode of appeal# The $+, ho ever, considered petitioner*s choice to be the rong remed% and, forth ith, dismissed the petition# +fter an e!amination of relevant la s pertinent to herein petition, this $o"rt finds that the $+ as correct in holding that petitioner had availed itself of the rong remed%# Section 332 of the Local Aovernment $ode also provides that the decision of the sangg"nian concerned ma% be appealed to the RT$ having ,"risdiction over the area in disp"te, ithin the time and manner prescribed b% the R"les of $o"rt# .t is clear that hen the case as appealed to the RT$, the latter too( cogni9ance of the case in the e!ercise of its appellate ,"risdiction, not its original ,"risdiction# 'ence, an% f"rther appeal from the RT$ ?ecision m"st conform to the provisions of the R"les of $o"rt dealing ith said matter# Cn this score, Section 2, R"le ;3 of the R"les of $o"rt provides> Sec# 2# &odes of appeal# LLLL :b< "etition for review# ) T3e a44eal to t3e Co&rt of A44eals in cases decided 6C t3e Regional Trial Co&rt in t3e e9ercise of its a44ellate 5&risdiction s3all 6e 6C 4etition for review in accordance wit3 R&le @<# 5ased on the foregoing, it is apparent that petitioner has availed itself of the rong remed%# Since the RT$ tried the case in the e!ercise of its appellate ,"risdiction, petitioner sho"ld have filed a petition for revie "nder R"le ;2 of the R"les of $o"rt, instead of an ordinar% appeal "nder R"le ;3# The la is clear in this respect# 'o ever, to serve the demands of s"bstantial ,"stice and e-"it%, the S"preme $o"rt opts to rela! proced"ral r"les and r"le "pon on the merits of the case# #" U#E# ED%LL vs. #"#. DUL"%NA A#R# 6o# 388340, 7an"ar% 23, 2030

A44eals)

!acts$ Cn 0ebr"ar% 23, 2004, plaintiffs)respondents Spo"ses 6orberto and ?esideria ?"lpina :plaintiffs-respondents< filed a $omplaint for 0orcible Entr% against the defendants)petitioners ith the &"nicipal $irc"it Trial $o"rt of ?el $armen)San .sidro)San 5enito, S"rigao del 6orte :,CTC<# Cn &a% 23, 2001, the &$T$ rendered ,"dgment dismissing the $omplaint# Cn 7"ne 5, 2001, the plaintiffs)respondents filed a &otion for Reconsideration hich the &$T$ denied in its Resol"tion of 7"ne 8, 2001# Cn 7"l% 30, 2001, the plaintiffs)respondents filed a 6otice of +ppeal ith the &$T$, hich the latter granted# Cn +"g"st 35, 2001, the plaintiffs)respondents filed their +ppeal &emorand"m ith the Regional Trial $o"rt# The RT$ decided the appeal on 6ovember 1, 2001# .t set aside the &$T$ ,"dgment and ordered the defendants)petitioners to vacate the s"b,ect propert% and to restore the plaintiffs)respondents to their possession# +fter the RT$ denied their &otion for Reconsideration, the defendants)petitioners elevated the case to the $+ thro"gh a Petition for Revie "nder R"le ;2 of the R"les of $o"rt# The% arg"ed that the plaintiffs)respondents/ appeal ith the RT$ as filed o"t of time since the Revised R"les of S"mmar% Proced"re : RR'3< prohibits the filing of a motion for reconsideration# The $+ dismissed the Petition in its Resol"tion of 7an"ar% 28, 2002 on the gro"nd that it does not contain a statement of the fact"al bac(gro"nd of the case, in violation of Sections 2 and 3 of R"le ;2 of the R"les of $o"rt# R&ling$ 7e find for the defendants-petitioners That there as s"bstantial compliance ith the R"les beca"se the bac(gro"nd facts can be fo"nd ithin the fo"r corners of the petition and its incorporated anne!es, is not a novel r"ling for this $o"rt# .n the case of 0eloso # ,arapao :involving the same deficienc% for lac( of a specific and separate statement of facts o"tlining the fact"al bac(gro"nd relied "pon<, e said> H+n e!amination of the petition filed ith the $o"rt of +ppeals reveals that hile it does not contain a separate section on statement of facts, the facts of the case are, in fact, integrated in the petition partic"larl% in the disc"ssionGarg"ment portion# &oreover, the decision of the ?+R+5 hich contains the facts of the case as attached to the petition and as even -"oted b% the appellate co"rt# The petition also s"fficientl% disc"sses the errors committed b% the ?+R+5 in its assailed decision#I There as, therefore, s"bstantial compliance ith Sec# 4, R"le ;3 of the R"les of $o"rt# .t is settled that liberal

RULE @< ("etition for Review fro2 t3e Regional Trial Co&rts to t3e Co&rt of

constr"ction of the R"les ma% be invo(ed in sit"ations here there ma% be some e!c"sable formal deficienc% or error in a pleading, provided that the same does not s"bvert the essence of the proceeding and connotes at least a reasonable attempt at compliance ith the R"les# +fter all, r"les of proced"re are not to be applied in a ver% rigid, technical sense@ the% are "sed onl% to help sec"re s"bstantial ,"stice# Aiven this precedent, it onl% remains for "s to determine if e can appl% a liberal constr"ction of the R"les beca"se a meaningf"l litigation of the case can ens"e given the Petition/s prima facie merit#

RULE @3 (A44eals fro2 t3e Co&rt of Ta9 A44eals and ,&asiB0&dicial Agencies) !%R#T LE"ANT CERA(%C vs. C URT Cctober 31, 322; ! A""EAL#

!acts$ Petitioners contended that $irc"lar 6o# 3)23 cannot be deemed to have s"perseded +rticle 82 of the Cmnib"s .nvestments $ode of 3281 :E#C#6o# 224< beca"se the $ode, is in the nat"re of a s"bstantive act of $ongress defining the ,"risdiction of co"rts p"rs"ant to +rt# =..., Section 2 of the $onstit"tion, hile the circ"lar is a r"le of proced"re hich this $o"rt prom"lgated p"rs"ant to its r"le) ma(ing po er "nder +rt# =..., Section 5:5<# Petitioner -"estions that altho"gh the right to appeal granted b% +rt# 82 of the $ode is a s"bstantive right hich cannot be modified b% a r"le of proced"re, nonetheless, -"estions concerning where and in what manner the appeal can be bro"ght are onl% matters of proced"re hich the S"preme $o"rt has the po er to reg"late# %ss&e$ Whether or not the $+ has ,"risdiction over appeals from the decisions of 5oard of .nvestments and, conse-"entl%, dismissing the petition for certiorari and prohibition filed b% petitioner# R&ling$ The S"preme $o"rt denied petitioner/s motion# 7"dicial revie of the decisions and final orders of the 5C. as originall% provided for in +rticle 18 of the Cmnib"s .nvestments $ode of 3283# .t as s"bse-"entl% amended b% 5#P# 5lg# 322, Section 2 e!cl"sive appellate ,"risdiction to the then .ntermediate +ppellate $o"rt :no the $o"rt of +ppeals< over the decisions and final orders of -"asi),"dicial agencies# When the Cmnib"s .nvestments $ode of 3281 :E#C# 6o# 224< as prom"lgated on 7"l% 31, 3281, the

right to appeal from the decisions and final orders of the 5C. to the S"preme $o"rt as again granted# 5% then, the present $onstit"tion had ta(en effect hich provides in +rt# =., Section 30 that K6o la shall be passed increasing the appellate ,"risdiction of the S"preme $o"rt as provided in this $onstit"tion itho"t its advice and conc"rrence#K &oreover, +rticle 82 of the 3281 Cmnib"s .nvestments $ode, b% providing for direct appeals to the S"preme $o"rt from the decisions and final orders of the 5C., it increases the appellate ,"risdiction of the S"preme $o"rt# Since it as enacted itho"t the advice and conc"rrence of the S"preme $o"rt, this provision never became effective, ith the res"lt that it can never be deemed to have amended 5P 5lg# 322, Section 2# $onse-"entl%, the a"thorit% of the $o"rt of +ppeals to decide cases appealed to it from the 5C. m"st be deemed to have been conferred b% 5#P# 5lg# 322, Section 2, to be e!ercised b% it in accordance ith the proced"re prescribed b% $irc"lar 6o# 3)23# .n this case, the $o"rt r"led that there is no reason h% decisions and final orders of the 5C. m"st be directl% appealed to the S"preme $o"rt# The p"rpose of Section 2 of 5#P# 5lg# 322 is to provide "niform appeals to the $o"rt of +ppeals from the decisions and final orders of all -"asi),"dicial agencies, ith the e!ception onl% of those iss"ed "nder the Labor $ode and those rendered b% the $entral 5oard of +ssessment +ppeals# .t is, therefore, regrettable that in the adoption of the Cmnib"s .nvestments $ode of 3281, the advice and conc"rrence of the S"preme $o"rt, as re-"ired b% the $onstit"tion, had not been obtained in providing for the appeal of the decisions and final orders of the 5C. directl% to the S"preme $o"rt# RULE @3 (A44eals fro2 t3e Co&rt of Ta9 A44eals and ,&asiB0&dicial Agencies) .%LAR% ". # R%AN -#. 'ENA%DA A. CABA%#

!acts$ 'ilario P# Soriano, petitioner, is the President of the R"ral 5an( of San &ig"el, .nc# :R5S&<# Cn the other hand, Venaida +# $abais, respondent, is the comptroller designated b% the 5ang(o Sentral ng Pilipinas :5SP< to oversee the ban(/s operations# the R5S& as closed and placed "nder receivership b% the 5SP# There"pon, petitioner filed ith the $o"rt of +ppeals a petition for revie # .n the co"rse of the proceedings e!ec"ted t o affidavits stating that> +bo"t a ee( before R5S& declared a Hban( holida%I on 7an"ar% ;, 2000, R5S& on ?ecember 21, 3222 and ?ecember 22, 3222, paid 0orcecollect Professional Sol"tion, .nc# and S"recollect Professional Sol"tion, .nc#, entities o nedGcontrolled b% &r# Soriano and other R5S& officers# Petitioner filed ith

the Cffice of the $it% Prosec"tor of &anila a complaint for per,"r%# The case as for arded to the Cmb"dsman hich s"bse-"entl% dismissed the complaint# Petitioner filed ith the $o"rt of +ppeals a petition for revie # $+ dismissed the complaint sa%ing that HThis is an appeal, b% a% of petition for revie "nder R"le ;3 of the 3221 R"les of $ivil Proced"re, of the Cmb"dsman/s resol"tion dismissing petitioner/s criminal complaint for per,"r% against respondent# 'o ever, a petition for revie before this $o"rt of the Cmb"dsman/s decision ill lie onl% if the proceedings had in that office pertains to p"rel% administrative disciplinar% casesI, sighting the case of 0abian vs# ?esierto, 225 S$R+ ;10# 'ence, this present petition for revie # %ss&e$ Whether the $o"rt of +ppeals erred in invo(ing its r"ling in )a"ian # 0esierto R&ling$ 6o# .n )a"ian, e r"led that appeals from the decisions of the Cffice of the Cmb"dsman in administrative disciplinar% cases sho"ld be ta(en to the $o"rt of +ppeals b% a% of a petition for revie "nder R"le ;3 of the 3221 R"les of $ivil Proced"re, as amended# This r"ling has been repeatedl% reiterated in s"bse-"ent cases and contin"es to be the controlling doctrine# 'ere, petitioner/s complaint is criminal in nat"re# .n 4strada # 0esierto, e held that the remed% of aggrieved parties from resol"tions of the Cffice of the Cmb"dsman finding probable ca"se in criminal cases or non)administrative cases, hen tainted ith grave ab"se of discretion, is to file an original action for certiorari ith this $o"rt, not ith the $o"rt of +ppeals# .n cases hen the aggrieved part% is -"estioning the Cffice of the Cmb"dsman/s finding of lac( of probable ca"se, as in this case, there is li(e ise the remed% of certiorari "nder R"le 45 to be filed ith this $o"rt and not ith the $o"rt of +ppeals# This r"le as s"bse-"entl% restated in 2cu=a # 0eputy !m"udsman for *u.on here e held that the remed% of an aggrieved part% in criminal complaints before the Cmb"dsman is to file ith this $o"rt a petition for certiorari "nder R"le 45# $learl%, petitioner availed of the rong remed%# Even ass"ming that petitioner filed a petition for certiorari ith this $o"rt, e o"ld have dismissed it ,"st the same since there is nothing in the records to even s"ggest that the Cffice of the Cmb"dsman acted ith grave ab"se of discretion amo"nting to lac( or e!cess of ,"risdiction in dismissing the complaint for per,"r% against respondent#

RULE @3 (A44eals fro2 t3e Co&rt of Ta9 A44eals and ,&asiB0&dicial Agencies) #T. (ART%N !UNERAL . (E vs. NLRC A#R# 6o# 330844 September 34, 3228 !acts$ Private respondent alleges that he started or(ing as Cperations &anager of petitioner St# &artin 0"neral 'ome# 'o ever, there as no contract of emplo%ment e!ec"ted bet een him and petitioner nor as his name incl"ded in the semi)monthl% pa%roll# Respondent as dismissed from his emplo%ment for allegedl% misappropriating P38,000#00 hich as intended for pa%ment b% petitioner of its =+T to 5.R# Petitioner on the other hand claims that private respondent as not its emplo%ee# Labor arbiter rendered a decision in favor of petitioner on declaring that no emplo%er)emplo%ee relationship e!isted# Cn appeal, the 6LR$ rendered a resol"tion setting aside the -"estioned decision prompting petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration hich as ho ever denied# 'ence, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari "nder r"le 45 alleging that the 6LR$ committed grave ab"se of discretion# %ss&e$ Whether or not the S$ is the proper for"m to revie the decision of the 6LR$ R&ling$ 6o# R#+# 6o# 1202: &arch 38, 3225< Sec# 2# 7"risdiction# B The $o"rt of +ppeals shall e!ercise> :3< E!cl"sive appellate ,"risdiction over all final ,"dgments, decisions, resol"tions, orders or a ards of Regional Trial $o"rts and -"asi),"dicial agencies, instr"mentalities, boards or commissions, incl"ding the Sec"rities and E!change $ommission, the Social Sec"rit% $ommission, the Emplo%ees $ompensation $ommission and the $ivil Service $ommission, e!cept those falling ithin the appellate ,"risdiction of the S"preme $o"rt in accordance ith the $onstit"tion, the Labor $ode of the Philippines "nder Presidential ?ecree 6o# ;;2, as amended, the provisions of this +ct, and of s"bparagraph :3< of the third paragraph and s"bparagraph :;< of the fo"rth paragraph of Section 31

of the 7"diciar% +ct of 32;8# Paragraph :3<, Section 2 of 5#P# 6o# 322 no grants e!cl"sive appellate ,"risdiction to the $o"rt of +ppeals over all final ad,"dications of the Regional Trial $o"rts and the -"asi),"dicial agencies generall% or specificall% referred to therein e!cept, among others, Kthose falling ithin the appellate ,"risdiction of the S"preme $o"rt in accordance ith # # # the Labor $ode of the Philippines "nder Presidential ?ecree 6o# ;;2, as amended, # # # #K Therefore, all references in the amended Section 2 of 5#P# 6o# 322 to s"pposed appeals from the 6LR$ to the S"preme $o"rt are interpreted and hereb% declared to mean and refer to petitions for certiorari "nder R"le 45# $onse-"entl%, all s"ch petitions sho"ld hence forth be initiall% filed in the $o"rt of +ppeals in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarch% of co"rts as the appropriate for"m for the relief desired#

%ss&e$ .s the evidence presented s"fficient to s"pport the findings of the trial ,"dge leading to the ann"lment of E!hibits +, 5, and $E R&ling$ Qes# We have st"died caref"ll% all the record and having done so e are entirel% "nable to sa% that a preponderance of the evidence does not s"pport the trial ,"dge in his findings# +ccordingl%, to save the time of the co"rt e are content to ma(e the decision of the trial ,"dge the decision of the appellate co"rt# Wherefore, deciding the iss"e in the manner herein before indicated, accepting the findings of fact s"bstantiall% as made b% the trial ,"dge, and noting in the record no reversible or pre,"dicial error, the res"lt ill be the affirmance of the ,"dgment, the costs of this instance to be paid ,ointl% and severall% b% the appellants# We have read the bill of e!ceptions, the specified errors, the briefs, and the record, and have listened to the arg"ments, as indeed it as o"r d"t% to do, b"t e have not done so in a gracio"s mood, for it has seemed to "s that co"nsel co"ld have lightened the b"rden thro n "pon the co"rt# The R"les of this co"rt do not attempt to limit the n"mber of assigned errors or the length of the briefs# +t the same time, co"nsel co"ld vol"ntaril% assist in the prompt disposition of the b"siness of the co"rt b% ma(ing onl% an assignment of the errors alleged to have been committed in the trial co"rt hich are pre,"dicial and reversible, and b% plainl% and concisel% presenting their cases in ell ordered briefs to the co"rt# Let it be recalled that the ord E6riefE is derived from the Latin brevis* and the 0rench briefe* and literall% means a short or condensed statement# The p"rpose of the brief, as all la st"dents and la %ers (no , is to present to the co"rt in concise form the points and -"estions in controvers%, and b% fair arg"ment on the facts and la of the case to assist the co"rt in arriving at a ,"st and proper concl"sion# The brief sho"ld be so prepared as to minimi9e the labor of the co"rt in the e!amination of the record "pon hich the appeal is heard and determined# We feel free to insert these observations bl"ntl% presenting the vie point of the co"rt for the benefit not partic"larl% of the la %ers in this case b"t of the Philippine bar in general# RULE @@ ( rdinarC A44ealed Cases) A#TA ( #/ ?#/+ vs. C URT ! A""EAL#* ANT N% D R%A* ED)ARD ALCARA' and E-AN)EL%NE D R%A A#R# 6o# 30;222 &arch 3, 322; !acts$ + decision as rendered b% the RT$ of Pasig on 6ovember 34, 3282 in favor of petitioner# Said decision as appealed b% private respondents and the records ere elevated to the $+# +cting on a motion for e!tension of time to file

RULE @@ (ordinarC A44ealed Cases) E#T%-A vs. CA?%T D8 "3il. =7 !acts$ .n this case there are 334 assignment of errors# +s for the briefs, for one appellant, 318 pages, for another appellant, 4 pages, for another appellant, 28 pages, for the fo"rth appellant, 30 pages, and for the appellees, 254 pages# The stenographic record is 485 pages and n"mero"s e!hibits# The iss"e on appeal is simple, it is to determine if the evidence is s"fficient to s"pport the findings of the trial ,"dge leading to the ann"lment of E!hibits +, 5, and $# E!hibit + is the doc"ment b% hich &r# and &rs# +ntonio Estiva p"rported to grant to Aon9alo $a il a broad and absol"te po er to sell their propert%, b"t hich the spo"ses claimed as not their p"rpose# The% claimed that the% onl% granted &r# $a il an a"thorit% to enter into a contract to sec"re a loan and not an absol"te transfer of propert%# E!hibit 5 is the ?eed of Sale of the propert% b% Aon9alo $a il to +le,andro &# Panis for the s"m of P31,000# E!hibit $ e!ec"ted on the same da% as E!hibit 5 is the mortgage of the propert% b% +le,andro &# Panis to ?r# Eladio R# +ldecoa, a co"sin b% marriage# The trial co"rt r"led that the testimon% presented b% the spo"ses is s"fficient and re,ected as fallacio"s m"ch of the testimonies of the defendants# 'ence, the defendants filed this appeal#

appellants* brief filed b% the private respondents, the $+ in a resol"tion granted a non-e%tendi"le period of ninet% :20< da%s ithin hich to file appellants* brief or "ntil :o#em"er 1, 1>>1# Cn :o#em"er &, 1>>1, the private respondents thro"gh co"nsel filed an KDrgent &otion for a )inal E!tension of 20 da%s to 0ile 5rief#K Cn even date, the petitioner, thro"gh co"nsel, filed a &otion to ?ismiss +ppeal on the gro"nd that no appellants* brief had %et been filed despite the lapse of the reglementar% period on 6ovember 3, 3223# Cn 6ovember 25, 3223 the private respondents filed an KDrgent &otion for 0ive :5< ?a%s to file 5rief#K Cn ?ecember 3, 3223, the% filed a K&otion to +dmit +ppellants* 5rief#K .n a Resol"tion dated ?ecember 32, 3223, the Respondent $o"rt of +ppeals resolved to admit +ppellants* 5rief# Cn 7an"ar% 4, 3222, petitioner filed a &otion for Reconsideration arg"ing that the period ithin hich to s"bmit +ppellants* 5rief had e!pired# The $+ ho ever denied the petitioner*s &otion for Reconsideration# 'ence, the petition# %ss&e$ Was the motion for e!tension filed on timeE .eld$ Private respondents* former co"nsel filed on +"g"st 2, 3223, an KDrgent 4%-3arte &otion 0or E!tension of Time To 0ile 5riefI for a period of 20 da%s co"nted from +"g"st 3, 3223# Said ninet%)da% period o"ld end on 6ovember 3, 3223# 6ovember 3 is a reg"lar holida%# Then President +-"ino declared 6ovember 2, 3223 as a special holida%# The ne!t da%, 6ovember 3, 3223 t"rned o"t to be a S"nda%# The ne!t b"siness da% as, therefore, 6ovember ;, 3223 B a &onda%# .nstead of filing a brief, private respondents B this time, thro"gh new co"nsel, filed a motion for a 20)da% e!tension to file a brief on 6ovember ;, 3223# The la for pretermission of holida%s is that KWhere the da%, or the last da%, for doing an% act re-"ired or permitted b% la falls on a reg"lar holida% or special da%, the act ma% be done on the ne!t s"cceeding b"siness da%#K The abovementioned motion as, therefore, filed on time, i#e#, the motion for the e!tension so"ght as filed before the e!piration of the time so"ght to be e!tended#

complaint against Rivera declaring the sale as n"ll and void on the gro"nd that the sale is a mortgage# The co"rt dismissed the complaint# So the r"ling of the trial co"rt as that the sale as valid# 5"t on the $+, &artine9 spo"ses pra%ed that the% ma% be allo ed to redeem the propert%# The $+ redeem reversed the Trial $o"rt and allo ed the &artine9 spo"ses to redeem the propert%# 6o , Rivera appealed to the $+, contending that &artine9 changed the theor% of their case beca"se in the original complaint the latter pra%ed for the ann"lment of the sale and in the $+ the% pra%ed that the% be allo ed to redeem the propert%# %ss&e$ Was there a change of theor% of the &artine9 spo"sesE R&ling$ There as no change of theor%# There as no s"rprise against Rivera or to the $+# The real p"rpose of the &artine9 spo"ses in as(ing for the n"llit% of the contract is to enable them to recover the propert% from Rivera# Prescinding from those allegations and from the pra%er all clearl% set o"t in the complaint, it is fair to concl"de that the real p"rpose in as(ing for the n"llit% of the contract of sale is to enable the private respondents to recover or redeem the propert% the% deeded in favor of &ercedes Teehan(ee Rivera Th"s the nat"re of the contract has been raised as an iss"e the pleadings# .t o"ld be abs"rd to pra% for the n"llit% of an agreement and stop there There o"ld be a vac""m and the la , li(e nat"re, abhors a vac""m# .n the $+, the% persisted in their claim to entitlement of the right to recover, redeem, or rep"rchase# This agreement cannot be constr"ed as change of theor%> it is persistence, plain and simple# .t does not leave an% interstice :definition opening, crac(< in the entire theor% of the case# $onsistenc% in the position of the private respondents r"ns thro"gho"t the presentation of their claim#

RULE @@ ( rdinarC A44ealed Cases) #"#. 0 #E".%NE (END 'A ) : .ENR+ ) * vs# LE NARD +A(ANE RULE @@ ( rdinarC A44ealed Cases) R%-ERA -# CA !acts$ The spo"ses &artine9 sold their ho"se and lot to Rivera# Later, the% filed a !acts$ The RT$ rendered a decision adverse to the respondent# Respondent received a cop% of the RT$ ?ecision on +pril 8, 3228# 'e had, therefore, "ntil +pril 23, 3228, ithin hich to file an appeal# Prior to the latter date, ho ever, he moved that his ne co"nsel be allo ed to file a motion for reconsideration on

&a% 30, 3228# .t as event"all% filed on &a% 28, 3228, b"t as denied# Respondent s"bse-"entl% filed a 6otice of +ppeal on 7"ne 35, 3228 before the $o"rt of +ppeals# 5% this time, the original period to appeal had e!pired# 'o ever, $+ gave d"e co"rse to the appeal and reversed the RT$*s ?ecision# %ss&e$ WC6 the $+ erred in giving d"e co"rse to the appeal filed b% respondent be%ond the 35)da% reglementar% period# .eld$ The $+ is correct in giving d"e co"rse to the appeal despite fail"re to file it ithin the reglementar% period# Section 3, R"le ;3 provides> Sec# 3# Period of ordinar% appeal# ) The appeal shall "e ta8en within fifteen (15) days from notice of the 5udgment or final order appealed from The perfection of an appeal in the manner and ithin the period prescribed b% the R"les of $ivil Proced"re is not onl% mandator%, b"t also ,"risdictional@ and the lapse of the appeal period of fifteen da%s deprives a co"rt of the ,"risdiction to alter a final ,"dgment# There have been e!ceptions, ho ever, in hich the $o"rt dispensed ith technical infirmities and gave d"e co"rse to tard% appeals# .n some of those instances, the presence of an% ,"stif%ing circ"mstance recogni9ed b% la )) s"ch as fra"d, accident, mista(e or e!c"sable negligence )) properl% vested the ,"dge ith discretion to approve or admit an appeal filed o"t of time# .n other instances, lapsed appeals ere allo ed in order to serve s"bstantial ,"stice, "pon consideration of a< matters of life, libert%, honor or propert%@ b< the e!istence of special or compelling circ"mstances@ c< the merits of the case@ d< ca"ses not entirel% attrib"table to the fa"lt or negligence of the part% that o"ld be favored b% the s"spension of the r"les@ e< the fail"re to sho that the revie being so"ght as merel% frivolo"s and dilator%@ and f< the fact that the other part% o"ld not be "n,"stl% pre,"diced# K.n Ramos vs# 5agasao, the $o"rt e!c"sed the dela% of fo"r da%s in the filing of the notice of appeal beca"se the -"estioned decision of the trial co"rt had been served "pon appellant Ramos at a time hen her co"nsel of record as alread% dead# The ne co"nsel co"ld onl% file the appeal fo"r da%s after the prescribed reglementar% period as over# .n Rep"blic vs# $o"rt of +ppeals, the $o"rt allo ed the perfection of an appeal b% the Rep"blic despite the dela% of si! da%s to prevent a gross miscarriage of ,"stice since the Rep"blic stood to lose h"ndreds of hectares of land alread% titled in its name and had since then been

devoted for p"blic p"rposes# .n Clacao vs# 6ational Labor Relations $ommission, a tard% appeal as accepted considering that the s"b,ect matter in iss"e had theretofore been ,"diciall% settled ith finalit% in another case, and a dismissal of the appeal o"ld have had the effect of the appellant being ordered t ice to ma(e the same reparation to the appellee#I The S"preme $o"rt believe that a s"spension of the R"les is similarl% arranted in the present controvers%# The $o"rt caref"ll% st"died the merits of the case and noted that the revie being so"ght has not been sho n to be merel% frivolo"s and dilator%# The $o"rt has come to the concl"sion that the ?ecision of the RT$, m"st be set aside# .t o"ld be far better and more pr"dent to attain the ends of ,"stice, rather than to dispose of the case on technicalit% and ca"se grave in,"stice in the process# Th"s, e o"ld rather e!c"se a technical lapse and afford respondent a revie of the case on appeal#

RULE @@ ( rdinarC A44ealed Cases) ,UE' N C%T+ vs AB#BCBN BR ADCA#T%N) C R" RAT% N* A#R# 6o# 344;08 Cctober 4, 2008 !acts$ +5S)$56 as granted the franchise to install and operate radio and television broadcasting stations in the Philippines "nder R#+# 6o# 1244# Section 8 of R#+# 6o# 1244 provides the ta! liabilities of +5S)$56# +5S)$56 had been pa%ing local franchise ta! imposed b% J"e9on $it%# 'o ever, in vie of the above provision in R#+# 6o# 2144 that it Hshall pa% a franchise ta! ! ! ! in lie" of all ta!es,I the corporation developed the opinion that it is not liable to pa% the local franchise ta! imposed b% J"e9on $it%# $onse-"entl%, +5S)$56 paid "nder protest the local franchise ta! imposed b% J"e9on $it%# +5S)$56 filed a ritten claim for ref"nd for local franchise ta! paid to J"e9on $it% for 3224 and for the first -"arter of 3221# 0or fail"re to obtain an% response from the J"e9on $it% Treas"rer, +5S) $56 filed a complaint before the RT$ in J"e9on $it% see(ing the declaration of n"llit% of the imposition of local franchise ta! b% the $it% Aovernment of J"e9on $it% for being "nconstit"tional# The RT$ rendered ,"dgment declaring as invalid the imposition on and collection from +5S)$56 of local franchise ta! paid p"rs"ant to J"e9on $it%

Crdinance 6o# SP)23, S)23, after the enactment of R#+# 6o# 1244, and ordered the ref"nd of all pa%ments made# +ppeal as made to the $+# The $+ dismissed the petition of J"e9on $it% and its Treas"rer# +ccording to the appellate co"rt, the iss"es raised ere p"rel% legal -"estions cogni9able onl% b% the S"preme $o"rt# 'ence, the present reco"rse# %ss&e$ Whether or not it is proper to appeal to the $+ .eld$ 6o, beca"se petitioners have raised p"rel% legal iss"es, namel%> 3< Whether appellee, hose franchise e!pressl% provides that its pa%ment of franchise ta! shall be in lieu of all ta%es in this franchise or earnings thereof, is absol"tel% e!c"sed from pa%ing the franchise ta! imposed b% appellants@ 2< Whether appellants/ imposition of local franchise ta! is a violation of appellee/s legislative franchise@ and 3< Whether one can do a a% ith the re-"irement on prior ritten claim for ref"nd# Cbvio"sl%, these are p"rel% legal -"estions, cogni9able b% this $o"rt, to the e!cl"sion of all other co"rts# There is a -"estion of la hen the do"bt or difference arises as to hat the la is pertaining to a certain state of facts# Section 2, R"le 50 of the R"les of $o"rt provides that an appeal ta(en to the $+ "nder R"le ;3 raising onl% -"estions of la is erroneo"s and shall be dismissed, iss"es of p"re la not being ithin its ,"risdiction# $onse-"entl%, the dismissal b% the $+ of petitioners/ appeal as in order# 'o ever, to serve the demands of s"bstantial ,"stice and e-"it%, the S"preme $o"rt opts to rela! proced"ral r"les and r"le "pon on the merits of the case#

of land so"ght to be e!propriated# 6evertheless, the records sho that the commissioners did not afford the parties the opport"nit% to introd"ce evidence in their favor, nor did the% cond"ct hearings before them# .n fact, the commissioners did not iss"e notices to the parties to attend hearings nor provide the concerned parties the opport"nit% to arg"e their respective ca"ses# Dpon the s"bmission of the commissioners report, petitioner as not notified of the completion or filing of it nor given an% opport"nit% to file its ob,ections to it# +s regards the commissioners fail"re to cond"ct a hearing to give the parties the opport"nit% to present their respective evidence, as alleged b% petitioner, the $+ opined that MtNhe filing b% MpetitionerN of a motion for reconsideration accorded it ample opport"nit% to disp"te the findings of the commissioners, so that MpetitionerN as as f"ll% heard as there might have been hearing act"all% ta(en place# Significantl%, petitioner did not file a &otion for Reconsideration of the $+ 6ovember 38, 2002 ?ecision, b"t it directl% filed a petition for revie before "s# %ss&e$ Whether or not the petition for revie as proper#

RULE @@ ( rdinarC A44ealed Cases) NAT% NAL " ?ER C R" RAT% N vs. DE LA CRU' A#R# 6o# 354023 0ebr"ar% 2, 2001 !acts$ Petitioner filed a $omplaint for eminent domain and e!propriation of an easement of right)of) a% against respondents as registered o ners of the parcels

R&ling$ Qes# .t is be%ond -"estion that petitions for revie ma% onl% raise -"estions of la hich m"st be distinctl% set forth@ th"s, this $o"rt is mandated to onl% consider p"rel% legal -"estions in this petition, "nless called for b% e!traordinar% circ"mstances# .n this case, petitioner raises the iss"e of denial of d"e process beca"se it as allegedl% deprived of the opport"nit% to present its evidence on the ,"st compensation of properties it anted to e!propriate, and the s"fficienc% of the legal basis or bases for the trial co"rts Crder on the matter of ,"st compensation# Dn-"estionabl%, a petition for revie "nder R"le ;5 of the R"les of $o"rt is the proper vehicle to raise the iss"es in -"estion before this $o"rt# .n vie of the significance of the iss"es raised in this petition, beca"se this case involves the e!pendit"re of p"blic f"nds for a clear p"blic p"rpose, this $o"rt ill overloo( the fact that petitioner did not file a &otion for Reconsideration of the $+ 6ovember 38, 2002 ?ecision, and br"sh aside this technicalit% in favor of resolving this case on the merits#

RULE @D (A44eal 6C Certiorari to t3e #&4re2e Co&rt)

BA#E# C N-ER#% N DE-EL "(ENT AUT. R%T+ vs. U+ 6ovember 2, 2004 !acts$ P"blic Estates +"thorit% :PE+< entered into a Landscaping and $onstr"ction +greement# :L$+< ith respondent D%, doing b"siness "nder the name and st%le of Edison ?evelopment and $onstr"ction# The controvers% arose hen respondent D% received from PE+ a Letter of Termination # of the L$+ hich prompted respondent to file for /n5unction and 0amages ith the Parana-"e RT$ against PE+, petitioner 5ases $onversion ?evelopment +"thorit% and private petitioners# The trial co"rt iss"ed an order en,oining petitioners from e!cl"ding respondent from his contract"al obligations "nder the L$+# Petitioners ho ere not ,oined b% PE+ forth ith filed their 7oint Petition for $ertiorari and Prohibition# before the $+# +lleging facts falling "nder the e!ceptions on filing a motion for reconsideration, said petition raised the sole iss"e of lac( of ,"risdiction of the RT$ to hear an in,"nction case against the 5$?+ and the propriet% of the iss"ance of the TRC in vie of the proscription "nder Section 23 of R+ 1221# When the $+ r"led that the RT$ as the proper ven"e to hear the in,"nction case and to iss"e the TRC, petitioners, itho"t filing a motion for reconsideration, filed before the S"preme $o"rt their 7oint Petition for Revie on $ertiorari "nder R"le ;5 on p"re -"estions of la , raising the same sole iss"e of ,"risdiction of the RT$ to hear an in,"nctive case and to iss"e a TRC against the 5$?+# %ss&e$ Whether or not a motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent "nder R"le ;5# R&ling$ R"le ;5 does not re-"ire the prior filing of a motion for reconsideration for the S"preme $o"rt to ta(e cogni9ance of appeals thro"gh petitions for revie on certiorari# Sections 3 and 2 of R"le ;5 do not re-"ire the filing of a motion for reconsideration as a condition precedent "nli(e certiorari "nder R"le 45# .t m"st be noted that hile both R"les ;5 and 45 are petitions for certiorari, the former is a petition for revie hile the latter is an original special civil action for certiorari#

NA)/A.%U#AN) (A(U(U #A "%C " RE# URCE#* %NC. -#. T.E . N. C URT ! A""EAL# (!ift3 Division) and "%C " RE# URCE#* %NC. !acts$ cPetitioner 6ag(ahi"sang &am"m"o sa P.$CP Reso"rces .nc#, *So"thern Philippines 0ederation of Labor :6+&+PR.)SP0L< is the recogni9ed labor "nion of the ran( and file emplo%ees in the paper mill and pl% ood man"fact"ring plant of respondent Picop Reso"rces, .nc# :P.$CP<# 6+&+PR.)SP0L members engaged in a stri(e and pic(eted pic(eted P.$CP*s plant and mill "pon finding o"t that P.$CP is permanentl% sh"ting do n its operations# P.$CP dismissed the remaining or(ers and ent thro"gh ith the permanent clos"re of the paper mill and pl% ood man"fact"ring plant# Labor Secretar% iss"ed the September 2, 3222 Crder, ?eclaring the temporar% sh"tdo n at the paper and pl% ood plants of Picop Reso"rces, .nc# legitimate and the temporar% la%)off of the affected or(ers therein li(e ise legal# Pet moved for the e!ec"tion of the earlier order# P.$CP filed an Drgent &otion for .ss"ance of Temporar% Restraining Crder andGor Preliminar% .n,"nction or &andator% .n,"nction ith the appellate co"rt hich as granted# Pet, then filed a petition for certiorari ith the $+# $+ decided to grant a rit of preliminar% in,"nction against petitioner# 'ence, this present appeal# %ss&e$ Whether the $+ committed grave ab"se of discretion in the iss"ance of its &arch 1, 2003 and 7"l% ;, 2003 Resol"tions# R&ling$ Cn a proced"ral matter, respondent P.$CP ma(es m"ch of the "nconventional manner b% hich petitioner st%les the instant action as one "nder R"le ;5 hich is an appeal b% certiorari from a $+ decision to the S"preme $o"rt and sim"ltaneo"sl%, also a special civil action "nder R"le 45 based on alleged grave ab"se of discretion in a decision of the $+# 'o ever, in its &emorand"m, 6+&+PR.)SP0L clarified that it as act"all% a petition "nder R"le ;5# +s a general r"le, a part% cannot file a petition both "nder R"les ;5 and 45 of the R"les of $o"rt beca"se said proced"ral r"les pertain to different remedies and have distinct applications# &ean hile, in 1an5in 4ngineering and Construction Co , *td , # C2 , e held that the remed% of appeal "nder R"le ;5 and an original action for certiorari "nder R"le 45 are m"t"all% e!cl"sive and not alternative or c"m"lative# Th"s, a part% sho"ld not ,oin both petitions in one pleading# .n ,ercado # Court 2ppeals, e held that * hen a part% adopts an improper remed%, as in this case, *his petition ma% be dismissed o"tright#

RULE @D (A44eal 6C Certiorari to t3e #&4re2e Co&rt)

ver% basic r"le in ,"rispr"dence that certiorari cannot be availed of hen the part% has ade-"ate remed% s"ch as an appeal# Where appeal is available, certiorari ill not prosper, even if the gro"nd availed of is grave ab"se of discretion#

RULE @7 (Ann&l2ent of 0&dg2ents or !inal RULE @D (A44eal 6C Certiorari to t3e #&4re2e Co&rt) T%BLE : T%BLE C ("AN+* %NC.* vs. R +AL #A-%N)# AND L AN A#R# 6o# 355804, +pril 8, 2008 !acts$ 0ail"re on the part of petitioner to pa% the loan it obtained from respondent necessitated the parties to enter into a compromise agreement hich f"rther stated that Kfail"re on the part of the defendants to pa% an% one of the installments as and hen the same is d"e and pa%able, shall ma(e the hole obligation immediatel% d"e and pa%able and shall entitle the plaintiff to immediatel% e!ec"te itho"t f"rther verbal or ritten notice to the defendant#I +fter TT$. defa"lted in its monthl% pa%ments, RSL+ moved for immediate e!ec"tion of the compromise agreement itho"t f"rnishing TT$. an% cop% of s"ch motion hich the $0. granted the motion and iss"ed the order# .n its e! parte motion RSL+ so"ght the iss"ance of an alias rit of e!ec"tion, hich as again granted b% the# +lmost ten %ears after the s"pposed p"blic a"ction sale, the sheriff iss"ed the final deed of sale in favor of RSL+# +ggrieved b% these developments, petitioners filed an action for K+nn"lment of E!ec"tion Sale and other related ?oc"ments, andGor Reconve%ance of Real Propert% ith pra%er to Preliminar% .n,"nction and Restraining Crder ith ?amagesK# .t dismissed the complaint for ant of ,"risdiction and s"ggested that the complaint be filed in $avite $it% instead b"t as s"bse-"entl% denied for ant of proof hen refiled# Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari ith the $+ b"t the petition for certiorari as dismissed o"tright on proced"ral gro"nds# %ss&es$ Whether or not the $+ erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari# R&ling$ 6o# The S"preme $o"rt has invariabl% "pheld dismissals of certiorari petitions erroneo"sl% filed, appeal being the correct remed%# .t is a C #(%C LU(BER C R". #s. C URT 254 S$R+ 348 M3224N

rders and Resol&tions) ! A""EAL#

!acts> $osmic L"mber $orp# e!ec"ted a Special Po er of +ttorne% appointing Pa9 A# =illamil)Estrada as its attorne%)in)fact to initiate, instit"te and file an% co"rt action for the e,ectment of third persons andGor s-"atters in a parcel of land o ned b% $osmic# 5% virt"e of this po er of attorne% Pa9 A# =illamil)Estrada instit"ted an action for the e,ectment against .sidro Pere9 and for recover% of possession before the RT$# Cn 6ovember 21, 2285 =illamil)Estrada entered into a compromise agreement ith Pere9 selling to the latter a portion of this parcel of land for the s"m of P24,4;0#00# This compromise agreement as approved b% the trial co"rt# +ltho"gh the decision became final and e!ec"tor% it as not e!ec"ted ithin the 5)%ear period from date of its finalit% allegedl% d"e to the fail"re of $osmic to prod"ce the o ner/s d"plicate cop% to Pere9# Th"s on 25 7an"ar% 3223 Pere9 filed a complaint to revive the ,"dgment and it as onl% hen the s"mmons for the revival of ,"dgment as served "pon $osmic that it came to (no of the compromise agreement entered into bet een Pa9 A# =illamil)Estrada and .sidro Pere9# Petitioner filed a complaint for the ann"lment of the decision of the trial co"rt before the $+ on the gro"nd of fra"d@ ho ever this as dismissed on the basis of its finding that not one of the gro"nds for ann"lment, namel%, lac( of ,"risdiction, fra"d or illegalit% as sho n to e!ist# 'ence, the petitioner ent to the S$# %ss&e$ .s the petition to ann"l the decision of the trial co"rt before the $o"rt of +ppeals properE R&ling$ Qes# The $o"rt r"led that =illamil)Estrada e!ceeded the a"thorit% granted to him thr" the Special Po er of +ttorne%# The sale ipso 5ure is conse-"entl% void# So is the compromise agreement# This being the case, the ,"dgment based thereon is necessaril% void# +ntipodal to the opinion e!pressed b% respondent

co"rt in resolving petitioner/s motion for reconsideration, the n"llit% of the settlement bet een =illamil)Estrada and Pere9 impaired the ,"risdiction of the trial co"rt to render its decision based on the compromise agreement# Dnder a"thorit% of Sec# 2, par# :2<, of 5#P# 5lg# 322, a part% ma% no petition the $o"rt of +ppeals to ann"l and set aside ,"dgments of Regional Trial $o"rts# HTh"s, the .ntermediate +ppellate $o"rt :no $o"rt of +ppeals< shall e!ercise :2< E!cl"sive original ,"risdiction over action for ann"lment of ,"dgments of the Regional Trial $o"rtsI 'o ever, certain re-"isites m"st first be established before a final and e!ec"tor% ,"dgment can be the s"b,ect of an action for ann"lment# .t m"st either be void for ant of ,"risdiction or for lac( of d"e process of la , or it has been obtained b% fra"d# The S$ also r"led that there e!ist an e!trinsic fra"d in this case# =illamil)Estrada deliberatel% concealed from petitioner, her principal, that a compromise agreement had been forged ith the end res"lt that a portion of petitioner/s propert% as sold literall% for a song, for P24, 000# Th"s completel% (ept "na are of its agent/s artifice, petitioner as not accorded even a fighting chance to rep"diate the settlement so m"ch so that the ,"dgment based thereon became final and e!ec"tor%#

5"gasong, +nti-"e, ith 5a%og as the Lando ner)Lessor and &agdato as Tenant) Lessee# Soon after, then Pres# &arcos iss"ed a $ertificate of +gric"lt"ral Leaseholdto&agdato# ?espite the e!istence of the Leasehold $ontract bet een the parties, 5a%oge!ec"ted a so)called ?eed of E-"itable &ortgage, ith right of redemption ithin five %ears, in favor of Santiago Pesa%co#'ence, the filing of an E,ectment andGor +batement of 6"isance ith Pra%er for ?emolition against 5a%og#Service of S"mmons ere then made "pon &agdato, ho ever, he as onl% able to file an ans er to the complaint 3 da%s after the reglementar% period had passed# +s s"ch, the &$T$ iss"ed an order holding that since the +ns er as filed o"tside the reglementar% period, it co"ld not ta(e cogni9ance thereof itho"t e!ceeding its ,"risdiction "nder Section 34 of 5#P# 5lg# 322 and claiming a"thorit% "nder Section 5 of the R"le on S"mmar% Proced"re, the &$T$ rendered ,"dgment in favor of plaintiffs 5a%og and Pesa%co# Th"s, the filing of &agdato of a petition for relief from ,"dgment alleging that that the late filing of his ans er as d"e to mista(e or e!c"sable neglect, for he as sic( at the time of receipt of the s"mmons and that beca"se of his illiterac% he as "na are of the "ne!tendible period herein to file an ans er#&agdato f"rther asserted that he had good, valid, and strong evidence to co"nteract 5a%og*s claim, and if given a chance to be heard, o"ld prove that he as a d"l% instit"ted tenant of 5a%og, as evidenced b% copies of the +gric"lt"ral Leasehold $ontract and the $ertificate of +gric"lt"ral Leasehold# 5a%og, on the other hand, maintained that a petition for relief from ,"dgment as a prohibited pleading "nder Section 32 :d< of the Revised R"le on S"mmar% Proced"re# &oreover, the petition as not accompanied b% the affidavit of merit re-"ired b% Section 3, R"le 38 of the R"les of $o"rt# +s s"ch, relief from ,"dgment cannot be validl% claimed b% &agdato# %ss&e$ Whether or not an entr% of defa"lt m"st be entered if a defendant fails to ans er in a case of action for e,ectment decided thro"gh s"mmar% proced"re#

RULE @7 (Ann&l2ent of 0&dg2ents or !inal

rders and Resol&tions)

ALE0ANDR BA+ ) and 0 R)E "E#A+C * 0R. vs. . N. ANT N% (. NAT%N * ALBERT (A)DAT A#R# 6o# 338423 7"l% 5, 3224 !acts$ Petitioner +le,andro 5a%og and private respondent +lberto &agdato entered into an +gric"lt"ral Leasehold $ontract over a lot located in $entro Po,o,

R&ling$ 6o# The Revised R"les on S"mmar% Proced"re does not provide that an ans er filed after the reglamentar% period sho"ld be e!p"nged from the records# +s a matter of fact, there is no provision for an entr% of defa"lt if a defendant fails to file his ans er# The defense of lac( of ,"risdiction ma% have even been raised b% the defendant in a &otion To ?ismiss as an e!ception to the r"le on prohibited pleadings in the Revised R"le on S"mmar% Proced"re# S"ch a motion is allo ed "nder Sec# 32:a< thereof, hich e!plicitl% provides> Sec# 32# 3rohi"ited pleadingsandmotions# B The follo ing pleadings, motions, or petitions shall not be allo ed in the cases covered b% this R"le>

:a< ,otiontodismiss the complaint or to 6uash the complaint or information e%cepton the ground of lac8 of 5urisdictiono#erthesu"5ectmatter , or fail"re to compl% ith the preceding section@ !!!

ann"lment of the ,"dgment on foreclos"re not ithstanding the fact that o nership of the ho"se and lot s"b,ect of the mortgage had passed from the mortgagee ho foreclosed the mortgage and p"rchased the propert% at p"blic a"ction to a person ho bo"ght the same and finall% to another individ"al in hose name the Torrens certificate of title stood b% the time the case reached this Trib"nal#

RULE @7 (Ann&l2ent of 0&dg2ents or !inal %#LA(%C DAF?A. C UNC%L -# C URT

rders and Resol&tions) ! A""EAL#

!acts$ The .slamic ?a/Wah $o"ncil as mortgagee ith the mortgagors 0reddie and &arconi ?a Silva, e!ec"ted a compromise agreement d"e to the mortgagors fail"re to compl% ith their obligation# S"bse-"entl%, the co"ncil filed a complaint for -"ieting of title# While the case as pending the heirs of a certain 7es"s +raneta filed a complaint ith the $o"rt of +ppeals petition to ann"l the ,"dgment granted b% the Trial $o"rt, claiming among others that the% ere the real o ners of the s"b,ect propert% and not the mortgagors# + Temporar% Restraining Crder as iss"ed b% the $o"rt of +ppeals# Th"s the $o"ncil resorted to the reco"rse of $ertiorari "nder R"le 45 of the R"les of $o"rt# %ss&e G;$ $an a person ann"lment of ,"dgment# ho is not a part% to the ,"dgment, file an action for

.eld G;$ + person need not be a part% to the ,"dgment so"ght to be ann"lled# What is essential is that he can prove his allegation that the ,"dgment as obtained b% the "se of fra"d and coll"sion and he o"ld be adversel% affected thereb%# .n this present case it is tr"e that the heirs of +raneta are not parties to the foreclos"re case# 6either are the% principall% nor secondaril% bo"nd b% the ,"dgment rendered therein# 'o ever# their petition filed ith the $o"rt of +ppeals the% alleged fra"d and connivance perpet"ated b% and bet een the ?a Silvas and the $o"ncil as o"ld adversel% affect them# %ss&e G<$ S"ppose the ,"dgment had alread% been f"ll% e!ec"ted and implemented, can %o" still file a case for ann"lment of ,"dgmentE .eld G<$ .n Aarchitorena "# Sotelo, s"pra, the $o"rt affirmed the trial co"rt*s