Cases

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)
Justice Magdangal de Leon

Petition for Review on Certiorari
Rule 45
(Sections 1 to 9)
What to file; from what courts (Sec 1)
CA, SB, CTA, RTC only [or other courts, whenever authorized by law]
File with the SC a verified petition for review on certiorari
Petition may include an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or
other provisional remedies
Shall raise forth only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth
Petitioner may seek the same provisional remedies by verified motion filed
in the same action or proceeding at any time during its pendency
Filing of certiorari petition under Rule 65 improper should be Pet for Review under
R45
Sea Power Shipping Enterprises Inc vs CA
- Adonis Saquilon was hired as fitter by Fil-Pride.
- 2 mos and 2 wks later, righted off and hospitalized. Repatriated to Manila.
Confined. Died.
- Wife (herein Respondent) demanded death and burial benefits, medical and
sickness allowance from Sea Power, Wester Shipping, Fil-Pride, et al.
- Refused to pay, denied liability.
- LA rendered decision favorable to Respondent. NLRC absolved Fil-Pride. MR filed
by Sea Power. Denied. Sea Power filed Pet for Certiorari w/ CA. Dismissed
because no copies of all pleadings and documents pertinent thereto. MR. Denied.
- SO NOW: pleading courts compassion to set aside dismissal of case solely on
grounds of technicality. Rules should give way to considerations of equity and
substantial justice.
COURT RULED: NO!
1. Party desiring to appeal by certiorari from judgment, final order or resolution of
CA XXX as in this case, may file with SC a verified Pet for Review on certioari
within 15 days from notice of judgment, final order, or resolution appealed from.
However, in this case, instead of Pet for Review under Rule 45 filed with
SC, filed Pet for Certiorari under Rule 65 was filed. This is an improper
remedy which merits outright dismissal pursuant to Circular No. 2-90.
2. Failed to comply with Sec 1, Rule 65 when it filed its Pet for Certioari
Party who seeks to avail of extraordinary remedy of certiorari must
observe rules laid down by law, and non-observance of said rules may not
be brushed aside as mere technicality
In this case, excuse was first time to file Certiorari of counsel. This is not
excuse falling within the ff grounds for liberal construction:
a. rigid application result in manifest failure or miscarriage of
justice
b. interest of substantial justice will be served
c. resolution of motion is addressed solely to the sound and
judicious discretion of court
LIPANA. MORALES. NOGRALES. PEREZ. ROSALES. UY. VARON.
|Page 1 of 75

d. injustice to adverse party is not commensurate with the degree of
his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure
prescribed.
Petition for Certiorari treated/not treated as petition for review
Delsan Transport Lines Inc. vs. CA
- American Home Delsan Transport. Delsan ordered to pay. Delsan filed NOA.
Motion to withdraw appeal, then MTD because already satisfied judgment
amount.
- But, Writ of Execution filed by American Home, saying that it still was not paid.
Delsan filed Pet for Certiorari.
- Shoud this Pet for Certioari be dismissed outright because what should have been
filed is Pet for Review?
NO. Treat this Pet as filed under R45 BECAUSE:
1. liberal spirit pervading the Rules and in interest of justice
2. Filed within the 15D reglemenetary period for filing Pet for Review so it cannot
be claimed as substitute for lost appeal (which is not allowed)
3. Stripped of allegation of GAD, this Petition actually avers errors of judgment
rather than of jurisdication which are subject of Pet for Review
AMA Computer College vs. Nacino
- AMA employed Nacino as Online Coordinator. AMA guilty of illegal suspension
and termination. Before the VA, agreed to amicable settlement.
- Nacino died in acident. Spouse and heirs filed for Writ of Exec which was
granted. AMA bank deposits garnished.
- AMA filed Pet for Certiorari but since wrong more of review (should have been
R43), dismissed outright.
- Certiorari can be granted despite availability of appeal:
1. Public welfare and advancement of public policy dictates
2. Broader interest of justice so requires
3. Writs issued are null and void
4. Questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial
authority
If it does not fall under the 4 exceptions, cannot treat Pet for Certiorari as having
been filed under R 45 because filed way beyong 15D reglementary period.
In this case, received VA decision Apr 15, 2003. Filed June 16, 2003. Same 15D
period applies to R 43 wrt appeals from VA.
Remedies of appeal and certiorari mutually exclusive; Rule 45 distinguished from Rule
65; petition for certiorari treated as petition for review
Mutually exclusive once you file one, you exclude the other
Distinguished:
|Page 2 of 75

Rule 45 Petition for review
on certiorari
(appeal by certiorari)
Involves correction of errors of
judgment
Mode of appeal
Petition based on question of law
Involves review of the judgment
award or final order on the
merits
Must be made within the
reglementary period
Stays the judgment or order
appealed from
Petitioner and respondent are
original parties to the action,
lower court or quasi-judicial
agency not impleaded
MR not required
Court is in the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction and power
of review
Rule 65 Petition for

certiorari (special civil action
of certiorari)
Involves errors of jurisdiction
Special civil action
Petition raises issues as to w/n
the lower court acted w/o
jurisdiction or in excess of
jurisdiction or with GADALEJ
Directed against an interlocutory
order of the court where there is
no appeal or any other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy
Filed not later than 60 days from
notice of judgment, order or
resolution appealed from
Unless a writ of preliminary
injunction or TRO is issued, does
not stay the challenged
proceeding
Parties are the aggrieved party
against the lower court, quasijudicial bodies and prevailing
party
MR or MNT required. If MR or
MNT filed, period shall not be
interrupted but another 60 days
shall be given to the petitioner
Court exercises original
jurisdiction
Nunez vs. GSIS Family Bank (475 SCRA 305)

- Leonilo obtained 3 loans from GSIS. GSIS extrajudicially foreclosed after 19
years. Leonilo filed w/ RTC complaint against GSIS for annulment of extrajudicial
foreclosure sale, reconveyance, cancellation.
- FIRST. Bank filed MR but said MR did not comply with Sec 4 Rule 15 on notice of
hearing.
- excuse of bank was inadvertent deletion from computer file of standard
clauses for pleadings and reqd notice of hearing and due to heavy
workload of handling counsel
- So, MR stricken off he record
- SECOND. Bank filed NOA which was filed one day late. MTD filed by Nunez.
Court granted MTD.
- NOW: Pet for Certiorari with CA
|Page 3 of 75

1. Since it was filed on time, treat this Pet for Certiorari as Pet for Review under R
45.
2. Regarding the MR stricken off record proper because requirement of notice is
mandatory. Absence of this mandatory reqmt renders the motion a worthless
piece of paper which the clerk of court has no right to receive and which court
has no authority to act upon; fatal defect, in cases of MR a decision, the running
of period to appeal is not tolled by their filing or pendency
3. From denial of this MR, had one day. But did not file within such period. Filed one
day late, so decision became final and executory.
4. Failure to timely perfect an appeal cannot simply be dismissed as mere
technicality, for it is jurisdictional. Another reason is that it has prescribed.
(Action to foreclose, 10 yrs. Waited more than 19 yrs.)
o
The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not
alternative nor successive. The distinctions between Rules 45 and 65
are far and wide. However, the most apparent is:
Rule 45 Petition for review
on certiorari
judgment
Mode of appeal

certiorari (special civil action
of certiorari)
The SC, in accordance with the liberal spirit which pervades the Rules
of Court and in the interest of justice, may treat a petition for certiorari
as having been filed under Rule 45, more so if the same was filed within
the reglementary period for filing a petition for review.
Records show that the petition was filed on time both under Rules 45
and 65. Following Delsan Transport vs. CA, the petition, stripped of
allegations of grave abuse of discretion, actually avers errors of
judgment which are the subject of a petition for review.
Categorizing petition to be both under Rule 65 and Rule 45

Ybanez vs. CA
1. Must file MR before filing this Petition
2. Categorized petition to be both under Rule 65 and Rule 45 Rules of Court
o Court cannot tolerate this; Petitioners cannot delegate upon the Court the
task of determining under which rule the petition should fall
o Par 4(e) of Circular 2-90: Duty of Counsel
Make sure of nature of errors he proposes to assign, whether fact or
law
Then upon such basis to ascertain carefully which court has
appellate jurisdiction
Finally, to follow scrupulously the requisite for appeal prescribed by
law, ever aware that any error or imprecision in compliance may
well be fatal to his clients clause
|Page 4 of 75

o
Merits an outright dismissal
Only questions of law may be raised

Except - Questions of fact may be raised in an appeal from a judgment or final
order of the court in a petition for a:
1. Writ of amparo
AM No. 07-9-12-SC, Rule of Writ of Amparo
(Effective Oct 24, 2007)
2. Writ of habeas data
AM No. 08-0-16-SC, Rule on Writ of Habeas Data
(Effective Feb 2, 2008)
Questions of law and questions of fact distinguished; If no Q of Fact, Rule 45.
China Road and Bridge Corp. vs. CA (348 SCRA 401)
Question of law
Doubt or controversy as to
what the law is on a certain
state of facts
Question of fact
Doubt or difference arises as
to the truth or falsehood of
facts, or when the query
necessarily invites
calibration of the whole
evidence considering mainly
the credibility of witnesses,
existence and relevancy of
specific surrounding
circumstances, their relation
to each other and to the
whole and probabilities of the
situation
Ordinarily, the determination of whether an appeal involves only questions

of law or both questions of law and fact is best left to the appellate court,
and all doubts as to the correctness of such conclusions will be resolved in
favour of the CA.
In a motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action, the issue if passed

upon on the basis of the allegations assuming them to be true; Court does
not inquire into the truth of the allegations and declare them to be false.
o Only statements in complaint may be considered and court cannot
take congnizance of external facts or hold preliminary hearings to
ascertain their existence
o Test of determining W/N complaint states coa against defendants is
W/N, admitting hypothetically the truth of the allegations of fact
made in complaint, judge may validly grant the relief demanded in
the complaint.

|Page 5 of 75

-
Dismissing a complaint based on failure to state a cause of action

necessarily precludes a review of same decision on questions of fact.
o One is legal and the logical opposite of the other
o There cannot be any question of fact or doubt or difference as to
the truth or falsehood of facts, simply because there are no findings
of fact in the first place.
o What the trial court merely does is to apply the law to the facts as
alleged in the complaint, assuming such allegations to be true. It
follows then that any appeal therefrom could only raise questions of
law or doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a certain state
of facts.
o What inevitably arise from such a review are pure questions of law,
and not questions of fact.
The test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation
given to such question by a party raising the same but whether the
appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or
evaluating the evidence, in which case it is a question of law, otherwise it is
a question of fact. Applying the test to the instant case, it is clear that
private respondent raises pure questions of law which are not proper in an
ordinary appeal under Rule 41, but should be raised by way of a petition
for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
SCs Choice: dismiss for being the wrong remedy or remand to CA

SC has discretion to dismiss or remand
CA can only dismiss, no discretion
**Side issue: Hierarchy of Courts
Latorre vs. Latorre
Respondent also did not do very well, procedurally. When the RTC denied his Motion
to Dismiss, respondent could have filed a petition for certiorari and/or prohibition
inasmuch as the denial of the motion was done without jurisdiction or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
However, despite this lapse, it is clear that respondent did not waive his objections
to the fact of improper venue, contrary to petitioner's assertion. Notably, after his
motion to dismiss was denied, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration to
contest such denial. Even in his Answer Ad Cautelam, respondent stood his ground
that the case ought to be dismissed on the basis of improper venue.
Finally, petitioner came directly to this Court on a Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45, in relation to Rule 41, of the Rules of Civil Procedure on alleged pure
questions of law.
R 41: brought to CA (fact, mixed fact and law)
R 42: brought to CA (fact, law, mixed fact and law)
R 45: filed with SC (law)
A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a
certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt
|Page 6 of 75

arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one
of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of
the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of
the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of
circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the
evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of
whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to
such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the
appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or
evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it
is a question of fact.
Prayed that this Court decide the case on the merits. To do so, however, would
require the examination by this Court of the probative value of the evidence
presented, taking into account the fact that the RTC failed to adjudicate this
controversy on the merits. This, unfortunately, we cannot do. It thus becomes
exceedingly clear that the filing of the case directly with this Court ran afoul of the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Pursuant to this doctrine, direct resort from the
lower courts to the Supreme Court will not be entertained unless the appropriate
remedy sought cannot be obtained in the lower tribunals. This Court is a court of last
resort, and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to
it by the Constitution and by immemorial tradition.
SC bound by CA findings of fact; exceptions
Salandanan vs. Mendez
MeTC: spouses Fernandez lost
RTC: affirmed MeTC
CA (filed by Fernandez): affirmed RTC. Ordered Fernandez to vacate
MR denied.
Motion for Intervention (by Salandanan): alleged she and deceased spouse real
owners, by virtue of said donation, Fernandez able to register; denied for lack of
merit
-
Intervention allowed at any time before rendition of judgment by TC. After lapse
of this period, NOT warranted anymore because it is not an independent actin but
is ancillary and supplemental to an existing litigation.
Ejectment designed to summarily restore physical possession to one who has
been illegally deprived of such possession; primarily a quieting processes
intended to provide expeditious manner for protecting possession or right to
possession without involvement of title
Judgment rendered in forcible entry or detainer shall be conclusive with respect
to possession only and shall in no wise bind title or affect ownership of land or
building.
In ejectment, possession means actual physical possession; NOT legal possession
in the sense contemplated in civil law
Who is entitled to physical or material possession?

|Page 7 of 75

-
Does not matter if partys title is questionable; complete determination of rights

in action for annulment, revocation and reconveyance of title that she had
previously filed not in the instant action for ejectment
GR: factual findings of TC conclusive on parties and not reviewable by SC, more so
when CA affirms factual findings.
Except:
1. findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures
2. when inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible
3. when there is grave abuse of discretion
4. when the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts
5. when the findings of facts are conflicting
6. when in making its findings, the CA went beyong issues of case OR its
findings are contrary to admissions of both appellant and appellee
7. when findings are contrary to trial court
8. when findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which
they are based
9. when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in petitioners main and
rpely briefs are not disputed by respondent
10.when findings of fact are premised on supposes absence of evidence and
contradicted by evidence on record
11.when CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the
parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.
Asian Construction & Devt Corp vs. Tulabut
- SC not trier of facts. Only q of Law may be raised. Findings of fact of TC, affirmed
by CA are conclusive on SC. Only exceptions are those above (11 exceptions).
Time for filing (Sec 2)
Within 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution appealed
from, or of the denial of the petitioners MNT or MR filed in due time after notice
of the judgment
On motion duly filed and served, with full payment of the docket and other lawful
fees and the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period,
the SC may for justifiable reasons grant an extension of 30 days only within
which to file the petition
o 30 days only hindi hulugan like w/ the CA
Docket and other lawful fees (Sec 3)
Unless he has theretofore done so, petitioner shall pay corresponding docket and
other lawful fees to the SC clerk of court and deposit the amount P500 for costs
at the time of the filing of the petition
Proof of service (Sec 3)
Proof of service of a copy thereof on the lower court concerned and on the
adverse party shall be submitted together with the petition
Contents of and documents to accompany petition (Sec 4)
|Page 8 of 75

Filed in 18 copies, with the original copy intended for the court being indicated
as such by the petitioner
Shall:
a. State the full name of the appealing party as petitioner and adverse party
as respondent, without impleading the lower courts or judges thereof
either as petitioners or respondents;
b. Indicate material dates showing when notice of judgment or final order or
resolution subject thereof was received, when a MNT or MR, if any, was
filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received;
c. Set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, and the reasons or
arguments relied on for the allowance of the petition;
d. Be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original, or a certified true
copy of the judgment or final order or resolution certified by the clerk of
the court a quo and the requisite number of plain copies thereof, and such
material portions of the record as would support the petition; and
e. Contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the
last paragraph of sec 2, Rule 42.
Effect of failure to comply with requirements (Sec 5, par 1)
Sufficient ground for dismissal
Denial motu proprio (Sec 5, par 2)
W(P)PQ
(Patently) Without merit, or is
Prosecuted manifestly for delay, or
Questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration
Dismissal technical defects
Denial on merits
Review discretionary (Sec 6)
Not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion
o Ordinary appeal is a matter of right
Granted only when there are special and important reasons
The following, while neither controlling nor fully measuring the courts
discretion, indicate the character of the reasons which will be considered:
o When the court a quo has decided a question of substance, not theretofore
determined by the SC, or has decided it in a way probably not in accord
with law or with the applicable decisions of the SC; or
o When the court a quo has so far departed from the accepted and usual
course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure by a
lower court, as to call for an exercise of the power of supervision.
Pleadings and documents that may be required (Sec 7)
to determine whether to dismiss or deny petition under Sec 5
where petition given due course under Sec 8
o SC may require elevation of the complete record of the case or specified
parts thereof within 15 days from notice (Sec 8)
|Page 9 of 75

SC may require or allow the filing of pleadings, briefs, memoranda or documents
as it may deem necessary within such periods and under such conditions as it
may consider appropriate, and impose the corresponding sanctions in case of
non-filing or unauthorized filing of such pleadings and documents or noncompliance with the conditions therefor.
Rule applicable to both civil and criminal cases (Sec 9)
Except in criminal cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment

|Page 10 of 75

Certiorari
RULE 65
Constitutional Provision: Article 8, sec. 1, par. 2
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
Petition for Certiorari in general (sec. 1)
Without Jurisdiction- When the judge does not have the legal power to
determine a case
In excess of jurisdiction- any act, which although falling within the
general powers of the judge, is not authorized. Hence, the decision is void
because the conditions under which the judge was only authorized to exercise his
general power in that case did not exist; judicial power was not legally exercised.
Grave abuse of discretion- capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment; or equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; or when power is exercised in an
arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility; so patent
or gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to
perform the duty enjoined or to act in accordance with law.
REMEDY TO CORRECT ERRORS OF JURISDICTION
Jamer vs. NLRC
FACTS: Jamer et al were dismissed by Isetan. They filed an illegal dismissal case
against Isetan. The Labor Arbiter ruled in their favour. However, the NLRC reversed the
labor arbiter. They now contend that NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.
RULING: Errors of judgment, as distinguished from errors of jurisdiction, are not
within the province of a special civil action for certiorari. Grave abuse of discretion is
committed when the judgment is rendered in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or
despotic manner. An abuse of discretion does not necessarily follow just because there
is a reversal by the NLRC of the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Neither does the mere
variance in the evidentiary assessment of the NLRC and that of the Labor Arbiter
would, as a matter of course, so warrant another full review of the facts. The NLRC's
decision, so long as it is not bereft of support from the records, deserves respect from
the Court.
The special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of
jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The rationale for this rule is simple. When a
court exercises its jurisdiction an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it
of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is committed. If it did, every error
committed by a court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment
would be a void judgment. This cannot be allowed. The administration of justice would
not countenance such a rule. Consequently, an error of judgment that the court may
|Page 11 of 75

commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is not correctible through the original special
civil action of certiorari.
QUESTIONS OF FACT CANNOT BE RAISED
Day vs. RTC of Zamboanga
FACTS: Go, who owns a building constructed on Days land, refused to vacate and
remove the improvement after being requested by the latter. Day instituted a formal
complaint against Go for unlawful detainer. The MTC ruled in favor of Day. Go filed a
petition for certiorari with the RTC which granted the same. Day now maintains that the
RTC has no jurisdiction in a certiorari case to entertain procedural questions or
questions of facts.
RULING: In an original action for certiorari, questions of fact cannot be raised much
less passed upon by the respondent court. Only established or admitted facts can be
considered. Errors in the appreciation of evidence may not be reviewed by certiorari
because they do not involve any jurisdictional question.
NEITHER QUESTIONS OF FACT NOR OF LAW ENTERTAINED
Romys Freight vs. Castro
FACTS: Castro filed a complain t for illegal dismissal against Romys. The labor arbiter
ruled in favour of Castro. The NLRC reversed. Castro filed a petition for certiorari with
the CAC. The CA reversed the NLRC.
RULING: As a general rule, a motion for reconsideration is needed before a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 can be resorted to. However, there are well recognized
exceptions to this rule. Private respondents petition for certiorari before the CA was
covered by the exceptions.
The issue raised in the certiorari proceeding before the appellate court, i.e., whether
private respondents were constructively dismissed without just cause, was also the very
same issue raised before the NLRC and resolved by it. Moreover, the employeremployee relationship between petitioner and private respondents was impressed with
public interest. Thus, it was proper for the appellate court to take cognizance of the
case even if no motion for reconsideration had been filed by private respondents with
the NLRC.
The other issues raised by petitioner, i.e., whether private respondents were illegally
dismissed (as the CA and the labor arbiter ruled) or abandoned their work (as the NLRC
held) and whether they were entitled to backwages, unpaid benefits, separation pay and
attorneys fees, are not proper subjects of a petition for certiorari. They involve an
inquiry into factual matters.
The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, more so in the consideration of the
extraordinary writ of certiorari where neither questions of fact nor of law are
entertained, but only questions of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion. The sole object of the writ is to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse
of discretion. The phrase grave abuse of discretion has a precise meaning in law,
denoting abuse of discretion "too patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a
|Page 12 of 75

positive duty, or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or act in contemplation of
law, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of
passion and personal hostility." It does not encompass an error of law. Nor does it
include a mistake in the appreciation of the contending parties respective evidence or
the evaluation of their relative weight.
The Court cannot be tasked to go over the proofs presented by the parties and analyze,
assess and weigh them all over again to ascertain if the trial court or quasi-judicial
agency and the appellate court were correct in according superior credit to this or that
piece of evidence of one party or the other. The sole office of a writ of certiorari is the
correction of errors of jurisdiction including the commission of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and does not include the review of public
respondents evaluation of the evidence and the factual findings based thereon.
ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED JURISDICTION EITHER WANT OR EXCESS THEREOF
Gerardo vs. de la Pena
FACTS: This involves a dispute over a parcel of land between the Gerardos and the De
la Penas. The RTC ruled in favour of the latter. On appeal to the CA, the CA dismissed
the same. Several years later the Gerardos filed a suit for reconveyance and annulment
of judgment. However, it was dismissed by the RTC due to res judicata.
RULING: The Supreme Court has no authority to rule upon non-jurisdictional issues in
a certiorari proceeding. The only question involved is jurisdiction, either want or excess
thereof.
Estrera vs. CA
FACTS: Kavooli was dismissed from his post as postman because of pilferage and
transferred to the motorpool division. The administrative charge against him was
dismissed because the same was not subscribed and sworn to by Estrera. Estrera filed 2
petitions for certiorari with the CA which, however, was dismissed.
RULING: The special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction
of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The raison detre for the rule is
when a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged
does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error is
committed. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of its
jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. In such a
scenario, the administration of justice would not survive. Hence, where the issue or
question involved affects the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision not
the jurisdiction of the court to render said decision the same is beyond the
province of a special civil action for certiorari.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN ERROR OF JURISDICTION AND ERROR OF

JUDGMENT
a.) When court without jurisdiction and it rendered decision, committed error of
jurisdiction decision null and void; remedy CERTIORARI

|Page 13 of 75

b.) When court with jurisdiction and rendered decision, but decision not correct,
committed error of judgment - decision valid even if wrong; remedyAPPEAL
Banco Filipino vs. Court of Appeals

review on certiorari
certiorari (special civil
action of certiorari)
judgment
Mode of appeal
Petition raises issues as to
w/n the lower court acted w/o
Petition based on question of law
jurisdiction or in excess of
jurisdiction or with GADALEJ
Directed against an
Involves review of the judgment
interlocutory order of the
award or final order on the
court where there is no
merits
appeal or any other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy
Filed not later than 60 days
Must be made within the
from notice of judgment,
reglementary period
order or resolution appealed
from
Unless a writ of preliminary
Stays the judgment or order
injunction or TRO is issued,
appealed from
does not stay the challenged
proceeding
Petitioner and respondent are
Parties are the aggrieved
original parties to the action,
party against the lower court,
lower court or quasi-judicial
quasi-judicial bodies and
agency not impleaded
prevailing party
MR or MNT required. If MR
or MNT filed, period shall not
MR not required
be interrupted but another 60
days shall be given to the
petitioner
Court is in the exercise of
Court exercises original
appellate jurisdiction and power
jurisdiction
of review
NO APPEAL, NOR PLAIN, SPEEDY, AND ADEQUATE REMEDY
General rule: if appeal available, no certiorari
Fajardo vs. Bautista
|Page 14 of 75

Generally, an order of dismissal, whether right or wrong, is a final order, and
hence a proper subject of appeal, not certiorari. The remedies of appeal and
certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. Accordingly,
although the special civil action of certiorari is not proper when an ordinary
appeal is available, it may be granted where it is shown that the appeal would be
inadequate, slow, insufficient, and will not promptly relieve a party from the
injurious effects of the order complained of, or where appeal is inadequate and
ineffectual. Nevertheless, certiorari cannot be a substitute for the lost or lapsed
remedy of appeal, where such loss is occasioned by the petitioner's own neglect
or error in the choice of remedies.
Appeal is antithetical to the special civil action of certiorari
The nature of the questions of law intended to be raised is immaterial
Pan Realty vs. CA
Appealwhether by writ of error (where issues of fact and law are intended to
be raised) or by certiorari (where only questions of law will be set up)is
antithetical to the special civil action of certiorari. Thus, as may not infrequently
happen, when both remedies are available to a party aggrieved by a judgment or
final order of a Regional Trial Court (formerly Court of First Instance, or of any
inferior court, for that matter), the availability of appeal proscribes recourse to
the special civil action of certiorari. It may not be amiss to stress here that under
the law at present, a special civil action of certiorarie.g., challenging an act of a
Regional Trial Court as having been done without or in excess of jurisdiction, or
with grave abuse of discretion-may be instituted either in the Court of Appeals or
the Supreme Court, an appeal by certiorari, however, may be taken only to the
Supreme Court, never to the Court of Appeals; there is no provisions of law for
taking appeals by certiorari to the Court of Appeals.
The nature of the questions of law intended to be raised on appeal is of no
consequence. It may well be that those questions of law will treat exclusively of
whether or not the judgment or final order was rendered without or in excess of
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion (which questions are the peculiar
targets of the extraordinary writ of certiorari). This is immaterial. The remedy, to
repeat, is appeal, not certiorari as a special civil action. If the situation presents
itself in an inferior court, the remedy is appeal to the Regional Trial Court, not
the filing with that Court of a special civil action of certiorari. If the situation
develops in a Regional Trial Court (Court of First Instance), the remedy is an
appeal to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari "filed and served
in the form required for petitions for review on certiorari of decisions of the
Court of Appeals," i.e., in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules.
The antithetic character of the remedies is expressed in Section 1 of Rule 65. The
provision clearly and explicitly lays down the rule that a special civil action of
certiorari is proper only if "there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." And the rule has been
consistently applied in numerous cases, saving only those rare instances where

|Page 15 of 75

appeal is satisfactorily
circumstances.
shown
to
be
an
inadequate
remedy
under
the
Remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative
or successive; except, if there are attendant circumstances
PRC vs. CA
It is settled that the remedies of an ordinary appeal and certiorari are mutually
exclusive, not alternative or successive.
NOTE: In the case of Lansang vs. Garcia, an example of an attendant circumstance
making appeal and certiorari not mutually exclusive is when there is a need to relieve
the appealing party from the effects of an unfavourable judgment.
Not a substitute for lost appeal
Certiorari is not a substitute for lost appeal even if the error ascribed to
the court is lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion.
Bugarin vs Palisoc (2005)
FACTS: Palisoc filed ejectment case against Bugarin in the MeTC. Palisoc won.
Bugarin appealed to RTC. RTC affirmed MeTC. Bugarin filed MR which was also
denied by RTC. Decision was received on March 12. Writ of execution pending
appeal was issued. Bugarin filed petition for Certiorari and prohibition before
the CA on April 10 contending that RTC committed GADLEJ in affirming MeTC
decision and insisted that MeTC had no jurisdiction over the complaint.
ISSUE: Whether Certiorari will lie in this case.
HELD: NO. Once the RTC decides on the appeal, such decision is immediately
executory, without prejudice to an appeal, via a petition for review, before the
Court of Appeals or Supreme Court. However, Bugarin failed to file a
petition for review.
Bugarin received on March 12, 2003 the RTC decision denying their MR. They
had until March 27, 2003 to file a petition for review before the CA. Instead,
they filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition on April 10, 2003.
Bugarins petition for certiorari before the CA was filed as a substitute for the
lost remedy of appeal.
Certiorari is not and cannot be made a substitute for an appeal where
the latter remedy is available but was lost through fault or negligence.
Thus, the filing of the petition for certiorari did not prevent the RTC decision
from becoming final and executory.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. May be availed of even when appeal is available or period to
appeal has expired.
Ruiz vs CA (1993)
FACTS: Carmeling Crisologo donated lots to Sent to God Foundation under
the condition that it be used solely for monastic and religious purposes.
Unfortunately, the Caryana Movement was denied canonical recognition
|Page 16 of 75

and their spiritual director was expelled from the Benedictine order. Due to
this, Carmeling sought for reversion or reconveyance of the said land in
her favor. Due to undue delay on the reversion, Carmeling and her children
filed a complaint against Sent to God (STG) for revocation of donation. STG
filed answer. It also filed MTD and asked to be dropped as defendants.
Secretary of plaintiffs counsel received the copy of the motion one day
short of the reglementary 3-day notice. They filed opposition to MTD. Judge
Ruiz dismissed because filed out of time. Carmeling filed petition for
certiorari with CA alleging GADLEJ but was dismissed on the ground that
the proper remedy was appeal.
ISSUE: Whether certiorari under Rule 65 would lie
HELD: YES. The finality of the trial courts order dismissing the
Crisologos complaint was not an obstacle to their recourse to the CA via
Rule 65 for such a petition may be filed within reasonable time and not
within the time of appeal.
Even appeal should have been the proper remedy against the oppressive
and arbitrary order or decision of the lower court, the aggrieved party may
avail of the SCA of Certiorari when appeal would not be a speedy and
adequate remedy.
In the instant case, appeal would have been neither speedy not adequate
for the plaintiffs had not been given a chance to prove their causes of
action, hence, there was no evidence in the records upon which to anchor a
judgment of the appellate court in their favor.
2. When appeal not beneficial, speedy, or adequate.
Jaca vs Davao Lumber (1982)
FACTS: Jaca is a licensee of logging concession in Davao. It entered to an
agreement with defendant whereby plaintiffs may secure by way of
advance, cash or materials, or equipments from defendant. Payment was to
be made either in cash and or by plaintiffs turning over all the logs they
would produce. Plaintiffs were surprised when they received letters of
demand from defendant requesting payment when the plaintiffs thought
they even made overpayemtns. Plaintiffs filed complaint and respondent
judge ruled in favor of defendant. Defendant filed motion for execution
pending appeal which was granted. Plaintiffs filed MR of the order
granting execution but was denied. Plaintiffs thereafter filed petition for
certiorari with SC with preliminary injunction.
ISSUE: Whether certiorari was proper
HELD: YES. The availability of the ordinary course of appeal does not
constitute sufficient ground to prevent a party from making use of the
extraordinary remedy of certiorari where the appeal is not an adequate
remedy or equally beneficial, speedy and sufficient.

|Page 17 of 75

It is the inadequacy not the mere absence of all other legal remedies
and the danger of failure of justice without the writ, that must usually
determine the propriety of certiorari.
In this case, appeal is inadequate. The slow and inexpensive remedy of
appeal will not prevent respondent judge from executing his decision
requiring petitioners to pay the huge amount.
3. To prevent a miscarriage of justice and correct and a very serious
error.
Del Pozo vs Penaco (1988)
FACTS: An information for falsification of public documents was filed
against Atty. Borje and 3 others. After presentation of evidence for both
prosecution and defense, the accused moved for the deferment of the trial
until resolution of a petition for inhibition against Judge Penaco which they
filed with the SC. During the pendency of the inhibition proceedings in the
SC, judge Penaco issued an order denying the motion to defer the trial and
declared the case submitted for decision and set the promulgation of
sentence. Penaco signed a decision finding Borje and the others guilty.
Accused filed MNT but was denied. Accused then filed SCA for certiorari
with SC with preliminary injunction.
ISSUE: Whether extraordinary remedy of appeal was proper
HELD: YES. This is an exception to the general rule. The remedy, to
repeat, is appeal, not certiorari as a special civil action. This is specially
true if other errors of facts or law are, in addition, intended to be
submitted in the appeal.
If the situation presets itself in an inferior court, the remedy is appeal to
the RTC not the filing with the CA of SCA of certiorari. If the situation
develops in the RTC, remedy is appeal to the SC via Rule 45.
In this case, the judgment of conviction not having been appeal within the
time and in the manner prescribed by Rule 123 of the Rules of Court, it
became final and executory upon the lapse of the reglementary period to
appeal/
However, special circumstances in this case make necessary the
suspension of those principles to prevent a miscarriage of justice and
correct a very serious error the actuality of which is conceded by virtually
all the parties.
These serious errors include denial of petitioners right to due process, the
submission of the case for decision when the defense had at least one more
witness to present and had not made a formal offer of its exhibits yet, the
preparation of the decision in haste, etc.
WHEN WRIT MAY ISSUE
order denying motion to dismiss
|Page 18 of 75

Lalican vs Vergara (1997)
FACTS: An information was filed against Lalican and 3 others before the
RTC for illegal possession of lumber under PD 705. Lalican filed motion to
quash the information on the ground tat what the law proscribes is only
illegal possession and custody of timber not lumber. RTC issued order
quashing the information. Prosecution filed MR. RTC issued an order
setting assigned its order quashing the information. Lalican sought MR of
this order but was denied. Hence this petition for certiorari alleging
GADLEJ on part of RTC.
ISSUE: Whether petition should be given due course.
HELD: NO. SC held that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in
denying the quashal of the information.
Consequently, Certiorari may not be availed of where it is not shown that
the respondent court lacked or exceeded its jurisdiction or committed
grave abuse of discretion. Where the court has jurisdiction over the case,
even if its findings are not correct, its questioned acts would at most
constitute errors of law and not abuse of discretion correctible by
certiorari.
Furthermore, in case of denial of motion to quash, the accused should
enter a plea, go to trial without prejudice on his part to present special
defenses he had invoked in his motion, and if after trial on the merits, an
adverse decision is rendered, to appeal such conviction as well as denial of
the motion to quash.
An appeal from a judgment does not bar a certiorari petition
against the order granting execution pending appeal and the
issuance of the writ of execution.
Manacop vs Equitable PCI Bank
FACTS: Lavine insured its building and supplies against fire with different
insurance companies. A fire gutted Lavines buildings & their contents. The
insurance companies expressed their willingness to pay the insurance
proceeds, but only to the rightful claimant. (Lavine was indebted to
Equitable Bank, and there was a dispute as to whether the insurance
proceeds should be paid directly to Equitable Bank, or to Lavine first who
would then pay Equitable Bank). The RTC ruled in favor of petitioners &
ordered the insurance companies to pay Lavine, as well as Equitable Bank
to refund Lavine. Petitiones filed motion for execution pending appeal
which was granted. Without filing an MR from the decision of the RTC, and
even before the RTC could rule on the Motion for Execution Pending
Appeal, Equitable Bank filed a Petition for Certiorari. Its Petition for
Certiorari assailed the RTC decision (and NOT the order granting the
Motion for Execution Pending Appeal & the Writ of Execution.) On the
other hand, First Lepanto & Philfire filed a Petition for Certiorari assailing
the RTCs order granting the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal & the
Writ of Execution.
|Page 19 of 75

ISSUES:
(a) W/N the Petition for Certiorari assailing the RTC judgment was proper
(the one filed by Equitable).
(b) W/N the Petition for Certiorari assailing the order granting the Motion
for Execution Pending Appeal & the Writ of Execution was proper.
HELD:
(a)NO. Simultaneous filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and an
ordinary appeal under Rule 41 cannot be allowed since 1 remedy would
necessarily cancel out the other. The existence & availability of the
right of appeal proscribes resort to certiorari because one of the
requirements for availment of the latter is precisely that there should
be no appeal. It is well-settled that the remedy to obtain reversal or
modification of the judgment on the merits is appeal. Thus, while it may
be true that a final order or judgment was rendered under
circumstances that would otherwise justify resort to a special civil
action under Rule 65, the latter would nonetheless be unavailing if
there is an appeal or any other plain, speedy & adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law.
(b)
YES. An appeal from a judgment does NOT bar a certiorari petition
against the order granting execution pending appeal & the issuance of
the writ of execution. Certiorari lies against an order granting execution
pending appeal where the same is not founded upon good reasons. 1
The fact that the losing party had also appealed from the judgment does
NOT bar the certiorari proceedings, as the appeal could not be an
adequate remedy from such premature execution. Since the execution
of a judgment pending appeal is an exception to the general rule, the
existence of good reasons is essential. In the case at bar, petitioners
insist that execution pending appeal is justified because the insurance
companies admitted their liabilities under the insurance contracts and
thus have no reason to withhold payment. We are not persuaded. The
fact that the insurance companies admit their liabilities is not a
compelling or superior circumstance that would warrant execution
pending appeal. On the contrary, admission of their liabilities &
willingness to deliver the proceeds to the proper party militate against
execution pending appeal since there is little or no danger that the
judgment will become illusory.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION REQUIRED; EXCEPTIONS:
1
Discretionary execution of appealed judgments may be allowed under Sec. 2(a) of Rule 39 upon
concurrence of the ff requisites: (a) there must be a motion by the prevailing party w/ notice to the adverse
party; (b) there must be a good reason for execution pending appeal; and (c) the good reason must be
stated in a special order.

|Page 20 of 75

Marawi Marantao General Hospital vs CA (2001)
FACTS: Petitioners filed a complaint against SSS for specific performance with
damages. They allege that the parties executed a deed of conditional sale but
despite satisfying condition of the sale, SSS refused to execute a deed of absolute
sale. Petitioners then prayed for the execution of an absolute deed of sale. The
Court ordered for the execution of an absolute deed of sale. Petitioners filed a
motion for partial execution, serving a copy of said motion on petitioner. A writ of
execution was issued, and a notice of garnishment served. SSS filed an urgent
motion for reconsideration and immediate stay of execution, which was denied. It
then filed a notice of appeal. It also filed a petition for certiorari with the CA,
which court also nullified the order and writ of execution issued by the lower
court. Petitioners contend that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is an
indispensable requirement before a petition for certiorari of an order of a
regional trial court may be filed with the Court of appeals. Considering that the
SSS did not file a motion for reconsideration with the RTC before it filed a
petition for certiorari, the CA should have dismissed the petition outright.
ISSUE: W/N a Motion for Reconsideration in this case is required before
certiorari with the CA.
HELD: NO.
SSS did not file a motion for reconsideration with the RTC before it filed its
petition for certiorari with the CA. Generally, the special civil action for certiorari
will not lie unless the aggrieved party has no other plain, speedy ad adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, such as a timely filed motion for
reconsideration, so as to allow the lower court to correct the alleged error.
However, there are several exceptions where the special civil action for action
for certiorari will lie even without the filing of a motion for reconsideration,
namely:
o Where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court has no
jurisdiction;
o Where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly
raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those
raised and passed upon in the lower court;
o Where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question
and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the government
or the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable
o Where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be
useless;
o Where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme
urgency for relief;
o Where, in a criminal case, relief form an order of arrest is urgent and
the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable;
o Where the proceedings in the lower court are a mullity for lack of due
process;
o Where the proceedings was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no
opportunity ot object; and

|Page 21 of 75

Where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is
involved.
In the present case, considering that the RTC no longer had jurisdiction to
issue the questioned orders, the first exception is applicable. Consequently,
the CA cannot be faulted to giving due course to the petition for certiorari
filed by the SSS despite its failure to file a motion for reconsideration.
o
WHEN AND WHERE PETITION FILED (SEC. 4, AS AMENDED)

WHEN: Not later than 60 days from notice of judgment, order or resolution.
o In case MR or MNT is timely filed, whether the same is required or not,
the petition shall be filed not later than 60 days counted from the notice
of the DENIAL of the motion.
WHERE TO FILE:
o To the RTC exercising jurisdiction over territorial area: to acts and
omissions of municipal trial court or corporation, a board, an officer or
a person.
o To the CA or Sandiganbayan, whether or not the same is in aid of the
courts appellate jurisdiction.
o To the CA: to acts or omissions of quasi-judicial agencies, unless
otherwise provided by the laws or these Rules.
o To COMELEC: election cases involving acts or omissions of MTC or
RTC.
When petition dismissed without prejudice, re-filing should be done
within the original 60-day period. (if with prejudice: APPEAL)
Estrera vs CA (2006)
FACTS: Estrera filed a formal charge against Kayoori based on the
recommendations of the investigation team for alleged pilferage and loss of PVAO
checks and foreign mail matters. Kayoori filed a petition before the RTC for
prohibition, injunction with prayer for preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order. The lower court ruled in favor of Kayoori and invalidated the
earlier proceedings. It ruled however that Estrera may re-file again the formal
charge. Petitioner no longer filed an MR of the foregoing RTC Order and
proceeded to file a petition for certiorari with the CA which was dismissed.
Petitioner filed the petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the resolution of the
CA dismissing his petition for Certiorari.
ISSUE: W/N the CA properly dismissed the petition for Certiorari
HELD: YES. Although it is true that the dismissal of the petition for certiorari
was without prejudice and petitioner could have re-filed such petition, such refiling should still be done within the prescribed period under Section 4, Rule 65
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, or not later than sixty days from notice of
the assailed Order of the RTC.
The CA was correct in ruling that since petitioner received said RTC Order dated
October 24, 2001 on November 7, 2001, the last day for filing a petition for
certiorari was on January 6, 2002. Thus, the filing of the petition for certiorari on
|Page 22 of 75

February 8, 2002 was undoubtedly beyond the 60-day period provided for under
Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
PERIOD NOW INEXTENDIBLE last paragraph of section 4:
No
extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for
compelling reasons and in no case exceeding 15 days has been
DELETED by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, effective December 27, 2007.
Laguna Metts vs CA (2009)
FACTS: Private Respondents (PR) filed illegal dismissal case against Petitioner.
Labor Arbiter(LA) decided in their favor but the NLRC reversed the LA decision.
PRs filed an MR but it was denied. PRs counsel received the denial on MAY 26,
2008. On the last day of the 60-day filing period of a petition for certiorari, PRs
counsel filed a motion for extension to file the petition praying for an extension of
15 days. CA granted a non-extendible 15D period. LMC moved for the
reconsideration of the resolution claiming that under the current Sec 4 of Rule
65 as amended by AM 07-7-12 dated Dec. 4 2007, extension of time to file a
petition for certiorari is no longer allowed.
ISSUE: W/N a motion for extension to file a petition for certiorari is still allowed?
HELD: NO MORE. The amended rules explicitly deleted the last paragraph of
Section 4 of Rule 65 allowing for an extension of the period for not longer than 15
days due to compelling reasons.
The rationale for the amendment is to essentially prevent the use (or abuse) of
the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to delay a case or even defeat the ends of
justice.
When the CA granted the extension, it arrogated unto itself the power it did not
posses, a power only the SC may exercise. Even assuming, the CA retained the
discretion to grant extension, the reasons (lack of material time due to
voluminous pleadings that have to be written and numerous court appearances to
be undertaken; lack of funds) of PRs counsel and PR did not qualify as
compelling.
EFFECT OF AMENDMENT OF SECOND PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 4 BY
A.M. NO.07-7-12-SC:
1. Following the hierarchy of courts, no Certiorari against the RTC shall be
filed with the SC.
2. For election cases involving acts or omissions of an MTC or RTC, the
petition shall be filed exclusively with COMELEC.
EFFECT OF AMENDMENT OF SEC. 7 BY A.M. NO.07-7-12:
1. Unless there is a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction
issued by a higher court, the main or principal case should proceed despite
the filing of a petition for certiorari questioning an act or omission of a
court or tribunal.

|Page 23 of 75

2. Judicial courtesy can no longer be used as an excuse by courts or tribunal
not to proceed with the principal case.
RESPONDENTS AND COSTS IN CERTAIN CASES (SEC. 5)
- When the petition filed relates to acts/omissions of a:
o Judge
o Court
o Quasi-judicial agency, tribunal
o Corporation
o Board, officer, or person;
the petitioner shall join, as private respondent/respondents with such public
respondent/s the person/s interested in sustaining the proceedings in the
court.
-
The costs awarded in such proceedings in favor of the petitioner shall be

against the private respondents only, and not against the judge, court, quasijudicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person impleaded as
public respondent/s.
If the case is elevated to a higher court by either party, public respondents

shall be included as nominal parties therein but they shall not appear or
participate in the proceedings unless otherwise directed by the court.
ORDER TO COMMENT (SEC.6)

- If petition sufficient in FORM and SUBSTANCE, the court shall issue an order
requiring respondent/s to comment within 10 days from receipt of copy.
- In petitions for Certiorari before the SC and CA, Rule 56, sec 2 shall be
observed.
o Before giving due course, the court may:
Require respondents to file comment (not MTD) on the petition.
Thereafter, require the filing of REPLY and such other responsive
or other PLEADINGS as it may deem necessary and proper.
EXPEDITING PROCEEDINGS (SEC.7)
- court in which petition is filed may:
o Issue orders expediting proceedings;
o Grant TRO/preliminary injunction to preserve rights of parties pending
appeal.
- petition shall not interrupt the course of the principal case unless
TRO/injunction has been issued.
- Public respondent shall proceed with the principal case within 10 days from
filing of petition for certiorari with a higher court/tribunal (absent
TRO/injunction, or upon expiration thereof). Failure to do so may be ground
for administrative charge.
PROCEEDINGS AFTER COMMENT IS FILED (SEC.8)
- After comment/other pleadings filed/time thereof expired, court may:
o Hear the case; OR
|Page 24 of 75

o Require the parties to submit memoranda

if court finds allegations are true, it shall render judgment for such relief to
which petitioner is entitled.
court may dismiss the petition when (W/PPQ):
o patently without merit;
o prosecuted manifestly for delay;
o questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration.
Court may award in favor of respondents treble costs against
petitioner and counsel in addition to admin charges against
counsel.

|Page 25 of 75

Petition for Relief from Judgments, Orders, or Other Proceedings
Rule 38
(Sections 1 to 7)
I.
Grounds and nature ( 1 & 2)

a. The phrase any court refers only to Municipal/Metropolitan and Regional
Trial Courts
Must be harmonized with Rule 56; not an available remedy in the
Supreme Court; not included in the list of Rule 56 cases originally
cognizable by the SC.
Cannot have a new trial when not in the 1st and 2nd level courts
Different from old rule, now allows the Metropolitan or Municipal
Trial Court which decided the case or issued the order to hear the
petition for relief. In line with Rule 5, prescribing uniform procedure
for Municipal and Regional Trial Courts and designation of
Municipal/Metropolitan Trial Courts as courts of record.
No provision in the Rules of Court making the petition for relief
applicable in the CA or SC. If a petition for relief from judgment is
not among the remedies available in the CA, with more reason that
this remedy cannot be availed of in the SC. The SC entertains only
questions of law. A petition for relief raises questions of facts on
fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, which are beyond
the concerns of the SC.
Only special proceedings with multiple appeals (ex. Settlement of
estate)
An equitable remedy that is allowed only in exceptional cases when
there is no other available or adequate remedy. It may be availed of
only after a judgment, final order, or other proceeding was taken
against petitioner in any court through fraud, accident, mistake, or
excusable negligence.
Will not be granted to a party who seeks avoidance from the effects
of the judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was due to his
own negligence or a mistaken mode of procedure, otherwise the
petition for relief will be tantamount to reviving the right of appeal
which has already been lost either because of inexcusable
negligence or due to a mistake in the mode of procedure by counsel.
(Purcon v. MRM Philippines, G.R. No. 182718, Sep. 26, 2008.)
b. Grounds
i. Fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence
"Mistake" mistake of fact, not of law, which relates to the case;
does not apply and was never intended to apply to a judicial error
which the court might have committed in the trial. Such errors may
be corrected by means of an appeal.
"Fraud" extrinsic or collateral, that is, the kind which prevented
the aggrieved party from having a trial or presenting his case to the
|Page 26 of 75

court, or was used to procure the judgment without fair submission
of the controversy. This is not present in the case at hand as
respondent was not prevented from securing a fair trial and was
given the opportunity to present her case.
Negligence ordinary diligence and prudence could not have
guarded against.; generally imputable to the party because if it is
imputable to the counsel, it is binding on the client. To follow a
contrary rule and allow a party to disown his counsel's conduct
would render proceedings indefinite, tentative, and subject to
reopening by the mere subterfuge of replacing counsel. What the
aggrieved litigant should do is seek administrative sanctions against
the erring counsel and not ask for the reversal of the court's ruling.
(Gomez v. Montalban, G.R. No. 174414, Mar. 14, 2008)
ii. Extrinsic fraud, meaning
Extrinsic or collateral fraud prevented the unsuccessful party
from fully and fairly presenting his case or defense and the losing
party from having an adversarial trial of the issue; a party is
prevented from fully presenting his case to the court as when the
lawyer connives to defeat or corruptly sells out his client's interest;
can be committed by a counsel against his client when the latter is
prevented from presenting his case to the court. (Sy Bang v. Sy, G.R.
No. 179955, Apr. 24, 2009)
iii. Mistake pertains to mistake of fact, not law
Mistake of fact, not of law, which relates to the case.
"Mistake" which grants relief from judgment, does not apply and
was never intended to apply to a judicial error which the court might
have committed in the trial. Such error may be corrected by means
of an appeal.
The arguments raised by petitioner in his petition for relief from
judgment, i.e., he cannot be held civilly liable for obligations he, as
corporate president thereof, has incurred in behalf of the
corporation which is vested with a personality separate and distinct
from its officers and stockholders; and that he cannot be held jointly
and solidarily liable for the obligations, are proper issues which
petitioner could have raised in a motion for reconsideration which he
did not.
Grounds which should have been raised, more appropriately, in a
simple motion for reconsideration will not be entertained. (Samonte
v. S.F. Naguiat, Inc., G.R. No. 165544, Oct. 2, 2009)
iv. When negligence not excusable

|Page 27 of 75

Not be granted to a party who seeks to be relieved from the effects
of the judgment, when the loss of the remedy at law was due to his
own negligence or to a mistaken mode of procedure for that
matter; otherwise, the petition for relief will be tantamount to
reviving the right of appeal, which has already been lost either due
to inexcusable negligence or due to a mistake of procedure by
counsel.
When the excuse of counsel is high blood pressure and the names of
the hospital and doctor are left blank then the excuse can hardly be
given credence. Though there are exceptional circumstances when
the negligence of the counsel may excuse the party, this is not one of
them. If the negligence of counsel is generally admitted as a
justification for opening cases, there would never be an end to a suit
so long as a new counsel can be employed who could allege and
show that prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent,
experienced or learned. (Romago, Inc. v. Siemens Building
Technologies, Inc., G.R. No. 181969, Oct. 2, 2009)
c. Requires final judgment or loss of appeal
i. Only available against a final and executory judgment
When the trial court's judgment subject of the petition for relief has
not yet attained finality because of the timely appeal by private
respondents, the relief is not available. Therefore, petitioner cannot
require the judge to follow the procedure laid down in Rule 38. The
judge did not err nor abuse his discretion when he deferred action
on the petition. (Valencia v. CA, 352 SCRA 72 (2001))
ii. Cannot be filed after denial of motion for new trial
Where another remedy is available, as, in fact, private respondent
had filed a motion for new trial and/or reconsideration alleging
practically the same main ground of the petition for relief under
discussion, which was denied, what respondent should have done
was to take to a higher court such denial. A party who has filed
a timely motion for new trial cannot file a petition for relief after his
motion has been denied. These two remedies are exclusive of each
other. It is only in appropriate cases where a party aggrieved by a
judgment has not been able to file a motion for new trial that a
petition for relief can be filed. (Francisco v. Puno, 108 SCRA 427
(1981))
II.
Time for filing ( 3)

a. When no entry counted from
i. Issuance of writ of execution
The 60-day period must be reckoned from the date when the party is
served with a copy of the assailed decision, not from when the
|Page 28 of 75

decision is rendered. It should be counted from the entry of the
judgment or order. A judgment or order is entered only after its
finality. When there is no record of that date then it can be counted
from when the writ of execution of the final judgment was issued
The phrase or other proceeding in 3, Rule 38 includes a writ of
execution. (Marasigan v. IAC, 152 SCRA 253 (1987))
ii. Order approving compromise agreement
GR: A judgment of the court approving a compromise agreement is
final and immediately executory because when the parties agree to
settle their differences to end up a litigation and request the court to
render judgment on the basis of their agreement, there is an
implied waiver of their right to appeal from the judgment. It is
"right there and then writes finish to the controversy."
EXCEPTION: A party to a compromise agreement may move to set it
aside on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress in which case an
appeal may be taken from the order denying the motion. Under what
provision of the Rules of Court can the judgment be set aside? Under
3, Rule 38. The six-month period within which they could file their
motion to set aside the judgment in question should have started
from the date of the occurrence of the "proceeding which need not
be entered." (Compromise Agreements do not have to be entered by
the CoC) It must be within the 60-day period from knowledge of the
judgment or the six-month limit from its rendition. (Samonte v.
Samonte, 64 SCRA 524 (1975))
b. Period strictly followed
The former counsel of record received a copy of the partial decision when
he was still their counsel of record. The reckoning of the 60-day period
therefore is the date when the said counsel of record received a copy of the
partial decision. The petition for relief was filed by the new counsel after
90 days have already lapsed on July 4, 1994. Moreover, the records further
show that they received the partial decision on September 13, 1993 as
evidenced by Registry return cards. They, apparently in an attempt to cure
the lapse of the aforesaid reglementary period to file a petition for relief
from judgment, included in its petition the two Orders dated May 6, 1994
and June 29, 1994. But these Orders are only consequences of the partial
decision subject of the petition for relief, and thus, cannot be considered in
the determination of the reglementary period within which to file the said
petition for relief. Furthermore, no fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
negligence exists in order that the petition for relief may be granted.
(Escueta v. Lim, G.R. No. 137162, Jan. 24, 2007)
It was only after the Notice of Appeal was denied that the petitioner had
pursued the two remedies it could have undertaken from the MTC Order
declaring its motion for reconsideration as a mere scrap of paper. First,
|Page 29 of 75

petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment with the MTC. The
problem with this remedy was the utter belatedness in the resort thereto.
Section 3 of Rule 38 requires that said petition must be filed within sixty
(60) days after petitioner learns of the judgment, final order or other
proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six (6) months after such
judgment or final order was entered. Neither benchmark was met by the
petitioner, since the petition was filed some sixteen (16) months after the
rendition of the judgment sought to be set aside, and around fourteen (14)
months after such judgment was declared final and executory. Petitioner
had opportunely learned of both the rendition of the judgment and the
Order refusing to give cognizance to the motion for reconsideration. Had it
simply consulted the rulebook, it should have realized that a petition for
relief from judgment was a remedy available to it, and certainly one more
appropriate than the Notice of Appeal it ultimately resorted to. (Victory
Liner, Inc. v. Malinias, G.R. No. 151170, May 29, 2007)
i. Exceptions
The time of filing of the petition must satisfy both periods as
indicated in the Rule within sixty (60) days after knowledge of
order and not more than six (6) months after entry. However, a few
days in excess of the 60-day requirement is not fatal as long as it is
filed within six (6) months from issuance of the order.
In this case, the petition was filed nine (9) days after the 60-day
period but it was still well within the 6-month period. As to the issue
of failure to demonstrate the presence of fraud, mistake, accident or
excusable negligence in the affidavits of merit. (Mago v. CA, 303
SCRA 600 (1999))
Though the petition was filed after 101 days and is within the six
months period computed from date of entry, it is certainly BEYOND
the 60-day period from notice given to the private respondent, hence
it is inaccurate to say that the petition for review under Rule 38 of
the Rules of Court was seasonably filed. But because of the very
peculiar circumstances obtaining in this case, the Petition for Relief
may be considered as having substantially complied with the Rules
and, therefore, seasonably filed. Petitioner's minor daughter had
suffered injuries. He was almost through with the presentation of his
evidence except for one witness who failed to appear. The petitioner
did not formally offer any evidence but had already presented the
substance of his evidence in support of his claim yet the petition was
dismissed. As a matter of conscience, in keeping with the demands
of equity and to attain substantial justice, the case must be excepted
from the strict operation of the Rules. It is always within the power
of the Court to suspend its own rules, or to except a particular case
from its operation, whenever the purposes of justice require it.
(Funtila v. CA, 93 SCRA 600 (1979))

|Page 30 of 75

The lawyer did not give any significance at all, to the processes of
the court, which has proven prejudicial to the rights of his clients.
Counsel did not even inform them of the court's processes so they
could not have attended them themselves. Counsel had simply
ignored the rights of his clients by giving a lame and flimsy
explanation that the court's processes just escaped his attention. He
deprived them of their day in court.
There should be no dispute regarding the doctrine that normally
notice to counsel is notice to parties, and that such doctrine has
beneficient effects upon the prompt dispensation of justice. Its
application to a given case, however, should be looked into and
adopted, according to the surrounding circumstances; otherwise, in
the court's desire to make a short cut of the proceedings, it might
foster, wittingly or unwittingly, dangerous collusions to the detriment
of justice. It would then be easy for one lawyer to sell one's rights
down the river, by just alleging that he just forgot every process of
the court affecting his clients, because he was so busy. Under this
circumstance, one should not insist that a notice to such
irresponsible lawyer is also a notice to his clients. (PHHC v. Tiongco,
12 SCRA 471 (1964))
III.
Contents
a. Affidavit of merit ( 3)
Two kinds of Affidavit of Merit:
i. Shows FAME
ii. Shows substantial cause of action
An affidavit of merit is an essential requirement in filing a petition for relief
from judgment and that without said affidavit the same would be denied.
Must show: (1) the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied
upon by petitioner and (2) the facts constituting the petitioner's good and
substantial cause of action or defense as the case maybe. A petition for
relief without a separate affidavit of merit is sufficient where facts
constituting petitioners substantial cause of action or defense, as the case
may be, are alleged in a verified petition since the oath elevates the
petition to the same category as a separate affidavit.
The absence of an affidavit of merit in itself is not a fatal defect to warrant
denial of the petition so long as the facts required to be set out also appear
in the verified petition. Furthermore, a petition for relief without a
separate affidavit of merit is sufficient where facts constituting petitioner's
substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be, are alleged. The
oath elevates the petition to the same category as a separate affidavit. In
this case, the allegations of accident and excusable negligence, although
not expounded on the affidavits of merit, were nevertheless substantiated
on the verified petition. (substantial compliance)
|Page 31 of 75

Not Necessary in the following cases:
i. Verified petition and merits are apparent;
ii. Sworn petition alleges that defendant has a meritorious defense;
iii. Movant was deprived of his day in court through no fault or
negligence of his;
iv. There was no jurisdiction over the defendant or subject matter of
action;
v. Judgment was taken by default before the time to answer expired
bec of pending motion to dismiss;
vi. No notice was furnished to the movant; and
vii. The subsequent filing of the affidavit of merit was made before the
hearing.
IV.
Action of court before answer

Order to file answer ( 4)
An order to answer shall issue only if the petition is sufficient in form and
substance (within 15 days from its receipt); order accompanied with copies
of the petition and affidavits.
V.
Procedure
a. Availability of preliminary injunction ( 5)
The judgment is not automatically stayed unless there is an
injunction. The issuance of a writ of execution of judgment is not proper
when a petition for relief against judgment is filed. Enforcement of the
judgment of the trial is premature where the judgment can still be modified
by appellate court of reversed.
Therefore the proper remedy is for the CA to issue a writ of preliminary
injunction. There is, however, no more appeal from an order denying a
petition for relief from judgment.
b. Proceedings after answer is filed ( 6)
Since the petition for relief from judgment is filed in the same court which
rendered the judgment, if the petition is granted and the judgment is set
aside, the court shall proceed to hear and determine the case as if a timely
motion for new trial had been granted.
Two hearings must be held:
To determine whether or not the judgment or order has been
rendered thru FAME and w/n it should be set aside; and
ii. If the decision thereon is in the affirmative, a trial on the merits of
the principal case.
i.
c. Where denial of appeal is set aside ( 7)

Reworded to conform and complement 2. The court must elevate the
record of the appealed case as if a proper appeal was made.

|Page 32 of 75

VI.
Action of court after giving due course

Grant of petition for relief ( 6 & 7)
If the petition for relief is from the denial or dismissal of an appeal and the
petition is granted, the court shall give due course to the appeal. A new
trial is not required.
VII.
Remedies
Denial of petition for relief (Rule 41, 1 (b))
An order granting a petition from relief under Rule 38 is interlocutory and
is not appealable.
The aggrieved party (who opposed the petition) may raise the same
question on appeal from the judgment on the merits of the main case. He
does not have to repeat his objections or perform any act in order to
preserve his right to question the same eventually on appeal. So long as he
made of record his objection and its grounds.

|Page 33 of 75

Annulment of Judgment
Rule 47
(Sections 1-10)
When remedy available (Sec. 1)
- annulment by CA of judgments, final orders and resolutions of RTC
Annulment of judgment can be availed of when a petition for relief is no longer
available through no fault of the petitioner
Valencia v. CA (352 SCRA 72) (2001)
FACTS: Valencia entered into lease with Roman Catholic Bishop over fishpond.
Barrio Sta. Cruz file claim against RCBM stating RCBM was a mere trustee.
Judge issued injunction against RCBM and allowed Barrio to operate fishpond
with court supervision.
RCBM moved to set aside decision of judge, judge dismissed based on lack of
jurisdiction; jurisdiction was with Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board.
Valencia failed to attend pretrial; Valencia moved for execution pending appeal
Denied, trial court said grant of petition for relief during pendency of appeal
would pre-empt appellate courts ruling
Valencia filed petition for certiorari and mandamus claiming GAD Denied, trial
court has discretion to grant or deny motion for execution.
ISSUE: W/N trial court committed GAD
HELD: A petition for relief under Rule 38 is only available against a final and
executory judgment. In this case, the TC judgment subject of the petition of
relief has not attained finality because of the timely appeal by private
respondents.
The CA did not err in dismissing the case bec. the case can well be settled in the
petition for relief before the trial court. Rule 47 provides that annulment of
judgment can be availed of only when a petition for relief is no longer available
through no fault of the petitioner.
Grounds (Sec. 2)
Extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction
Lack of jurisdiction, meaning
Republic v. Technological Advocates for Agro-Forest Programs (G.R No.
165333, Feb. 9, 2010)
FACTS: TAFPA and DENR entered into community organizing activities. TAFPA
sought reimbursement for expenses but was late in filing reports so was
penalized. Penalty was bigger than reimbursement expenses so DENR asked for
payment from TAFPA.
TAFPA refused and filed SCA for mandamus with damages against DENR. The
RTC subsequently treated the case as one for specific performance rather than an
action for mandamus, since the allegations in the complaint clearly reflected that
respondents cause of action was based on a contract.
|Page 34 of 75

RTC ruled for TAFPA; DENR filed MR denied; DENR filed notice of appeal after
there was already entry of judgment denied
DENR filed under Rule 47, claiming lack of jurisdiction, should have been with
COA
ISSUE: W/N there was lack of jurisdiction
HELD: Under Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the only
grounds for annulment of judgment are extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment of judgment refers to either lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of
the claim. It is absence of, or no, jurisdiction; that is, the court should not have
taken cognizance of the petition because the law does not vest it with jurisdiction
over the subject matter.
It should be stressed that in a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack
of jurisdiction, petitioner must show not merely an abuse of jurisdictional
discretion, but an absolute lack of jurisdiction.
CA already correct in ruling that the action a quo is one for mandamus and,
under Section 21 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as amended, the Regional Trial
Court exercises original jurisdiction in the issuance of the writs of certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and injunction which may
be enforced in any part of their regions. The court a quo after evaluating the
allegations in the initiatory pleading concluded that the action is one for specific
performance and proceeded to hear it as such. In doing so, the said court
retained jurisdiction.
Non-substitution of heirs of a deceased party not jurisdictional
Nudo v. Hon. Caguioa (G.R. No. 176906, Aug. 4, 2009)
FACTS: Resps. filed for partition against petitioners Granted;
Gumersindo(one of petitioners) died but no substitution was effected.
RTC ruled for resps; Petitioners filed appeal but dismissed for failure to file
appellants brief.
Zosima(other petitioner died); RTC issued writ of execution. Writ was
served twice, both returned unenforced.
Petitioners heirs filed petition for annulment under Rule 47, claiming they
were not substituted and allegedly rendered the proceedings null and void.
ISSUE: W/N annulment is proper because of non-substitution
HELD: No. Non-substitution of heirs is not jurisdictional. The rule on
substitution of heirs is not a matter or jurisdiction but a requirement of due
process.

|Page 35 of 75

It is only when there is a denial of due process, as when the deceased is
not represented by any legal representative or heir that the court nullifies
the court proceedings and judgment therein.
At no time was petitioners parents deprived of representation as Zosima
was still alive during appeal.
Acknowledgment of trial courts jurisdiction
Mandy Commodities Co, Inc. v. The International Commercial Bank
of China (G.R. No. 166734, July 3, 2009)
Petitioner in its petition for annulment kept alluding to several errors of
the trial court which tend to show that said tribunal had no jurisdiction to
issue the orders. Inasmuch as the petition questioned the manner by
which the trial court arrived at the issuance of its orders, it is unmistakable
that petitioner in effect, acknowledged that the trial court possessed
jurisdiction to take cognizance of respondents application for writ of
possession.
Judgment annulled due to both lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud
Cosmic Lumber Corp. v. CA (265 SCRA 166) (1996)
FACTS: SPA was made in favor of Paz by Cosmic Lumber.
Paz made compromise agreement selling part of land of Cosmic Lumber which
was approved by trial court; sale was made without authority.
ISSUE: W/N there was lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud
HELD: YES! Sale is void for lack of jurisdiction by agent so Compromise
agreement is also void and so is the judgment based thereon.
When an agent is engaged in the perpetration of a fraud upon his principal for his
own extrinsic benefit, he is not really acting for the principal but is really acting
for himself, entirely outside the scope of his agency.
Fraud must be extrinsic and collateral and committed by the adverse party, not
by ones own counsel
Sanchez v. Tupas (158 SCRA 459) (1988)
Action for annulment of judgment is based on the ground of extrinsic fraud
allegedly committed by her own lawyer by telling her that she cannot be
ejected anymore fro the land in dispute, but did not disclose to her that at
the same time she would have to recognized the prior possession of the
respondent.
Fraud should be committed by the adverse party and not by ones own
counsel.
Use of forged instruments or perjured testimonies not extrinsic fraud
Strait Times, Inc. v. CA (294 SCAR 714) (1998)
FACTS: Resp. Penalosa lost his owners duplicate certificate of two land titles so
file for issuance of new one before RTC. RTC granted. Petitioner Strait Times
claims RTC was misled by testimony produced by Resps witness that said title to
|Page 36 of 75

lands was not pledged or otherwise delivered to any person or entity to
guarantee any obligation when the truth is it was delivered to Callera.
ISSUE: W/N there is extrinsic fraud
HELD: No. Use of forged instruments or perjured testimonies during trial is not
an extrinsic fraud, because such evidence does not preclude the participation of
any party in the proceedings.
Extrinsic fraud pertains to an act committed outside of the trial.
When counsels negligence not gross or palpable as to amount to extrinsic fraud
Gacutana-Fraile v. Domingo (348 SCRA 414) (2000)
FACTS: Petitioner Fraile filed case for quieting of title, Atty. Pascua was counsel
for petitioners. While petitioners case was pending before trial court, Atty.
Pascua filed the required pleadings and presented evidence in support of
petitioners cause. Trial court ruled against petitioner. Petitioner filed with CA
petition for annulment citing procedural lapses committed by counsel amounting
to extrinsic fraud.
ISSUE: W/N Atty. Pascuas actions amount to extrinsic fraud
HELD: No. Atty. Pascuas negligence in filing a defective notice of appeal and
defective motions for reconsideration and in not elevating nor advising petitioner
to elevate adverse orders cannot be said to be sheer absence of real effort on his
part to defend his clients cause amounting to gross negligence.
Proceedings in the trial court satisfied the requirement that the petitioner be
afforded due process of law.
When a partys lawyer connives at his defeat or corruptly sells out his clients
interest
Laxamana v. CA (87 SCRA 48) (1978)
Laxamanas lawyer was paid P1500 by the plaintiffs. The act of the successful
party in inducing the lawyer of the losing party to commit professional
delinquency or infidelity constitutes extrinsic or collateral fraud.
Not a substitute for lost remedy or appeal CA need not retry the facts.
Pinlac v. CA (349 SCAR 635) (2001)
The action for annulment of judgment cannot and was not a substitute for the
lost remedy of appeal. The very purpose of the action for annulment of
judgment was to have the final and executory judgment set aside so that there
will be a renewal of litigation. Whether or not the assailed Partial Decision
based solely on facts and evidence presented by the petitioners is meritorious
is irrelevant and immaterial.
The CA need not retry the facts. It need only resolve the issues of lack of
jurisdiction, existence of extrinsic fraud and denial or due process of law.
Where petition filed (Secs. 1, 10)
|Page 37 of 75

-
RTC decision ordinary civil action filed with CA

MTC decision ordinary civil filed with RTC
Annulment of MTC judgment should be filed with RTC

Victory Liner, Inc. v. Malinias (G.R. No. 151170, May 29, 2007)
An action to annul a judgment or final order of a Municipal Trial Court shall be
filed in the RTC having jurisdiction over the former and not with the CA.
Considering the periods prescribed under Rule 47 for the filing of an action for
annulment of judgment are quite broad or capable of discretionary appreciation,
the petitioner could have filed such action for annulment of the MTCs judgment
with the RTC which would not have been lightly disregarded with timeliness as
premise.
Period for filing (Sec. 3)
- Extrinsic fraud 4 years from discovery; Lack of jurisdiction before laches or
estoppel
Laches
Marcelino v. CA (210 SCRA 444) (1992)
o Laches in a general sense means the failure or neglect for an unreasonable
and unexplained length of time to do that which, by exercising due
diligence could or should have been done earlier.
Reopening of case not allowed if defendant has no real defense to the action,
having admitted his liability
RCBC v. Lood (110 SCRA 205) (1981)
FACTS: Resps executed two promissory notes in favor of RCBC to be paid within
1 year from execution.
Resps failed to pay so RCBC filed action for collection of money. Resps repeatedly
postponed hearings upon representation that they will amicably settle the issue
and the last time was bec. of withdrawal of their counsel. Lower court ruled for
RCBC. Resps filed for motion for extension (granted) and reply opposition and to
motion to set aside decision (denied). However, petition for relief from judgment
by resps was given due course by the lower court
ISSUE: W/N the lower court was correct in giving due course to the petition for
relief
HELD: NO! When the resps filed a Reply Opposition and Motion to Set Aside
Decision, the same amounted to a motion for new trial under Rule 37. Having
denied such, resps can no longer avail of remedy under Rule 38.
Also it would appear from the pleadings that the resps have no real defense since
they have admitted their liability to the action by RCBC claiming only that they
were granted an extension of time to satisfy the same.
If the defendant has no real defense to the action or intends only a technical plea,
there would be no justice in permitting the case to be reopened and subject
|Page 38 of 75

plaintiff to further delay and expense for the mere purpose of rendering judgment
in regular manner.
May be filed by a non-party to the judgment (Sec. 9)
Available even if judgment has been executed
Islamic DaWah Council of the Phils. v. CA (178 SCRA 178) (1989)
In Garchitorena v. Sotelo, the Court affirmed the trial courts annulment of the
judgment on foreclosure notwithstanding the fact that ownership of the house
and lot subject of the mortgage had passed from the mortgagee who foreclosed
the mortgage and purchased the property at public auction to a person who
bought the same and finally to another individual in whose name the Torrens
certificate of title stood by the time the case reached this Tribunal.
A person need not be a party to the judgment sought to be annulled what is
essential is that he can prove his allegation that the judgment was obtained by
use of fraud and collusion and the would be adversely affected.
Judgment of the RTC nullified for lack of jurisdiction even if previously affirmed
by IAC and SC
Arcelona v. CA (280 SCRA 20) (1997)
FACTS: Petitioners are naturalized Americans, who have 3 more sisters living in the
Phils, all 6 parties are co-owners over a fishpond. The sisters in the Phils. executed a
lease contract over the fishpond with Tandoc and resp. Farnacio was appointed
caretaker. Upon termination of lease, Tandoc surrendered possession of the fishpond
to the sisters, but 3 days later Farnacio instituted case for peaceful possession,
maintenance and security of tenure, intended to maintain Farnacio as tenant of the
fishpond. RTC ruled for Farnacio. CA and SC affirmed. Petitioners then filed a
petition for annulment of judgment.
ISSUE: W/N a decision previously affirmed by the CA and SC can be nullified for
lack of jurisdiction
HELD: YES! The petitioner being co-owners of the fishpond are indispensible
parties to the case. The absence of an indispensible party renders all subsequent
actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the
absent parties but even as to those present.
A judgment of the RTC even if previously affirmed by the IAC and SC may be
nullified on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the RTC over the persons of
indispensible parties where said issue of lack of jurisdiction was not raised in the
earlier appellate proceedings.
Parties and contents (Sec. 4)
Verified petition alleging with particularity the facts and law relied upon
7 legible copies, together with sufficient copies to the number of resps.
certified true copy or duplicate original of judgment or final order attached to
original copy of petition
affidavits of witnesses or documents supporting cause of action
certification of non-forum shopping

|Page 39 of 75

Action by the court (Sec. 5)
no substantial merit may be dismissed outright
Procedure (Sec. 6)
same as ordinary civil cases; reception of evidence may be referred to member of
court or judge of RTC (but rarely done according to Sir)
Effect of judgment (Sec. 7)
annulment of judgment shall set aside the questioned judgment and render the
same null and void without prejudice to refiling the original action in proper
court
if based on extrinsic fraud, court may on motion try the case as if a timely motion
for new trial had been granted therein
Suspension of prescriptive period (Sec. 8)
prescriptive period suspended from refiling of said original action until finality of
judgment of annulment
NOT suspended if extrinsic fraud is attributable to the plaintiff in the original
action
Remedy from Court of Appeals decision
Mandy Commodities Co, Inc. v. The International Commercial Bank of
China (G.R. No. 166734, July 2009)
A party aggrieved by the decision of the CA in a petition filed with it for
annulment of judgment, final order or resolution is not a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65, but rather an ordinary appeal under Rule 45 where only
questions of law may be raised.

|Page 40 of 75

RULE 44 to 56
(except 45 & 47)
Contents of appellants brief (Rule 44, Sec 13)
In the order herein indicated:
(Definition of the parts from De Liano vs CA)
Brief
Should be so prepared to minimize the labor of the court in the examination of
the record upon which the appeal is heard and determined
Presents to the court in concise form the points and question in controversy,
and by fair argument on the facts and law of the case to assist the court in
arriving at a just and proper conclusion
1. Subject index - A subject index of the matter in the brief with a digest of the
arguments and page references, and a table of cases alphabetically arranged,
textbooks and statutes cited with reference to pages where they were cited
- Intended to facilitate review of appeals by providing ready reference,
functioning much like a table of contents.
2. Assignment of Errors - An assignment of errors intended to be urged, which
errors shall be separately, distinctly and concisely stated without repetition and
numbered consecutively;
- Is an enumeration by appellant or plaintiff in error of the errors alleged to
have been committed by the court below in the trial of the case upon which
he seeks to obtain a reversal of the judgment or decree
- In the nature of a pleading, and performs in the appellate court the same
office as a declaration or complaint in a court of original jurisdiction
- Enable the reviewing court and opposing party to see on what points
appellant or plaintiff in error intends to ask a reversal of the judgment
decree, and to limit discussion to those points
3. Statement of the Case
- Gives the appellate tribunal an overview of the judicial antecedents of the
case, providing material information regarding the nature of the
controversy, the proceedings before the trial court, the orders and ruling
elevated on appeal, and the judgment itself
Contains:
a. A clear and concise statement of the nature of the action
b. A summary of the proceedings
c. Appealed rulings and orders of the court
d. Nature of the judgment
e. Other matters necessary to an understanding of the nature of the
controversy
4. Statement of Facts - a clear and concise statement in a narrative form of the
facts admitted by both parties and of those in controversy, together with the

|Page 41 of 75

substance of the proof relating thereto in sufficient detail to make it clearly
intelligible, with page references to the record;
- Comprises the very heart of the appellants brief the facts constitute the
backbone of a legal argument; they are determinative of the law and
jurisprudence applicable to the case, and consequently, will govern the
appropriate relief
- Note that the CA is empowered to review both question of fact and law.
Otherwise, where only a pure question of law is involved, appeal would
pertain to the SC.
Contains:
a. Statement in a narrative form of the facts admitted by both parties and of
those in controversy
b. Substance relating thereto; with page references
5. Statement of the issues of fact or law - Not to be confused with the assignment of errors. They put forth the
questions of fact or law to be resolved by the appellate court.
- Questions of law exists when the doubt or difference arises as to what the
law is on certain state of facts
- Questions of fact doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the
falsehood of alleged facts
6. Argument - the appellants arguments on each assignment of error with page
references to the record. The authorities relied upon shall be cited by the page of
the report at which the case begins and the page of the report on which the
citation is found;
- Provide the justification supporting his contentions, and in so doing
resolves the issues. It will not do to impute error on the part of the trial
court without substantiation.
7. Relief
- Specification of the order or judgment which the appellant seeks
8. If brought up by record on appeal
- The appellants brief shall contain, as an appendix, a copy of the judgment
or final order appealed from
Questions that may be decided (Rule 51, Sec 8)
- Unless assigned or closely related to or dependent on an assigned error, no
error shall be considered:
Exceptions
1. Error in the jurisdiction over the subject matter
2. Validity of the judgment appealed from or the proceeding therein.
- Court however, may pass upon plain errors and clerical errors.
De Llano vs CA
|Page 42 of 75

FACTS: Case involves the cancellation of 2 real estate mortgages in favor of San
Miguel Corporation executed by Tango over his house and lot in QC. The
mortgages were third party accommodation mortgages in behalf of spouses
Bernardino and Carmelita Ibarra who were dealers of SMC products. RTC of QC
ruled in favor of Tango, ordering SMC to release to the plaintiff the owners
duplicate and to release the originals of the REM contracts dated December 4,
1990 and Feb 17, 1992 and to cause the cancellation of the annotation. De Llano
and SMC appealed the decision of the RTC ruling. De Llanos lawyer filed the
appeal but the Appellants brief were defective. According to the opposing
counsel: the deficiencies consisted of:
o Lack of Subject Index nor Table of Cases and Authorities with page
references
o Statement of the Cases, Statement of Facts, Arguments in the Brief has no
page reference to the record
ISSUE: Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to pure technicalities?
HELD: YES. The premise that underlies all appeals is that they are merely
rights which arise from statute; therefore they must be exercised in the manner
prescribed by law. Rule 44, Sec 13 provides for the Contents of the Appellants
brief and requires that they should be strictly followed. A general assignment of
errors is unacceptable under the rules. The appellant must carefully formulate his
assignment of errors. Its importance cannot be underestimated as Sec 8, Rule 51
will attest. The failure of SMCs lawyer to comply with the requirements for an
Appellants brief warranted its denial.
(For the detailed contents of the brief, please refer to the enumeration above)
Rule 44, Sec 13
Liberal Rule: substantial compliance with requirements as to appellants brief
Phil Coconut Authority vs Corona International
FACTS: Corona International filed a case against Phil Coconut for recovery of a
sum of money representing the balance for the unpaid balance of communication
and computer facilities sold by respondent to petitioner.
Phil Coconut denied. RTC ruled in favor of Corona International. Phil Coconut
thus filed an appeal. However their appellants brief contained deficiencies. The
Statement of the Case and the Statement of the Facts were not strictly complied
with.
ISSUE: Whether the appellants brief complied with the requirements under Sec
13, rule 44?
HELD: YES. The requirements laid down in Sec 13, Rule 44 are intended to aid
the appellate court in arriving at a just and proper conclusion of the case.
Admittedly, petitioners Statement of the Case did not strictly adhere to the
requirement under the Sec 13. Nonetheless we should not lose sight of the
purpose of Sec 13 which is to apprise the court of the nature of the case. Despite
its deficiencies petitioners appellants brief is sufficient in form and substance as
|Page 43 of 75

to apprise the appellate court of the essential facts and nature of the case. Other
than the lack of page reference, there are no other violations of the Statement of
Facts. It was sufficient to apprise the court of the points and questions in the
controversy. Technical and procedural rules are intended to help secure, and not
suppress, substantial justice.
Extension of time for filing briefs (Rule 44, Sec 12)
- No extension, except:
1. For good and sufficient case
2. Only if the motion for extension was filed before the expiration of the time
sought to be extended.
Grounds for dismissal of appeal [Rule 50, Sec 1 (e)]
Failure of the appellant to serve and file the required number of copies of
his brief or memorandum within the time provided by these Rules;
Liberal rule: late filing of appellants brief
Rep. vs Imperial
FACTS: Republic thru the OSG seeks to revert the lands owned by respondent
Imperial into public domain, citing that such was foreshore land. Respondent
contends that the judgment of the cadastral courts rendered such as not
foreshore. The RTC dismissed the petition of the OSG.The OSG filed a notice of
appeal and asked for an extension of 30 days in filing the appellants brief citing
heavy workload. They filed for such extension 2 more times and a final one for 5
days. The CA dismissed the appeal for failure to file the appellants brief.
ISSUE: WON the appeal should be granted despite delay.
HELD: YES. The SC acknowledged that the OSG regularly asks for extensions
and such contributes to needless delays in litigation.However, after thorough
examination of this case, we are of the view that the challenged resolutions
should be reconsidered.
The rules of court governing practice and procedure were formulated in order to
promote just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action or proceeding
without sacrificing substantial justice and equity considerations.
The filing of appellants brief in appeal is not a jurisdictional requirement.
Nevertheless, an appeal may be dismissed by the CA on its own motion or on that
of the appellee upon failure of the appellant to serve and file the required number
of copies the brief within the time provided.
If appeal brief cannot be filed on time, extension of time may be allowed provided
(1) there is good and sufficient cause, and (2) the motion for extension is filed
before the expiration of the time sought to be extended. The court however, has
the power to relax or suspend the rules or to except a case from their operation
when compelling reasons so warrant or when the purpose of justice requires it.
What constitutes sufficient cause that will merit the suspension of the rules is
discretionary.
|Page 44 of 75

Among the reasons allowed by the court are:
1.
Cause of delay was not entirely attributable to the fault or
negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules
2.
There was no objection from the State, and the brief was filed within
the period requested.
3.
No material injury was suffered by the appellee
4.
The fake lawyer failed to file the brief.
5.
Appellant was represented by council de oficio
6.
Original counsel died
7.
Preparation of the consolidated brief involved comparative study of
many exhibits.
In this case, the need to determine once and for all whether the lands subject of
petitioners reversion efforts are foreshore lands constitutes good and sufficient
cause for relaxing procedural rules and granting the motions for extension. The
rules of court governing practice and procedure were formulated in order to
promote just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action or proceeding
without sacrificing substantial justice and equity considerations.
DBP vs CA
FACTS: Environmental Aquitics executed a mortgage with DBP over 2 fishing
boats and a parcel of land to secure a 1.7M debt to DBP. They were unable to pay
and thus the property were foreclosed. It was bought by DBP through an auction.
Plaintiff Mario Matute who was assigned the rights to redeem the property made
known his desire to redeem the property. There was contention as to the amount
of redemption. RTC ruled in favor of Mario Matute. DBP appealed, however, he
failed to file the necessary appellants brief and asked for all in all 5 motions for
extension. CA dismissed for failure to file appellants brief
ISSUE: Should the CA give due course to the appeal?
HELD: YES. Otherwise the government would stand to lose millions if the appeal
is not given due course.
Granting an extension, including duration thereof, lies within the sound
discretion of the court, to be exercised in accordance with the attendant
circumstances of each case. Here the case was vested with public interest and
thus the appeal must be given due course.
It bears stressing that a distinction should be made between the failure to file a
notice of appeal within the reglementary period and the failure to file a brief
within the period granted by the appellate court. The former results in the failure
of the appellate court to acquire jurisdiction over the appealed decision resulting
in its becoming final and executory upon failure of the appellant to move for
reconsideration. Meanwhile, the latter simply results in the abandonment of the
appeal which could lead to its dismissal upon failure to move for reconsideration ,
in which case the appealed decision would also become final and executory but

|Page 45 of 75

prior thereto, the appellate court shall have obtained jurisdiction of the appealed
decision.
Rule 46
Certiorari with CA certification against forum shopping must be made
by petitioner himself
Santos vs CA
FACTS: Petitioners Santos, Arce and Pastrana were employees of PEPSI. Due to
poor performance of its Metro Manila sales, they were dismissed in order to
restructure and streamline certain physical and sales distribution systems. They
later found out that new positions with similar functions were created. They filed
a claim against PEPSI, alleging that the new positions belied the justification of
redundancy. The NLRC ruled in favor of PEPSI, and the CA dismissed the action
for failure to comply with the requirements under Sec 3, Rule 46. The verification
and certification of non-forum shopping were executed merely by petitioners
counsel and not by the petitioners.
HELD: It is true that insofar as verification is concerned, we have held that there
is substantial compliance if the same is executed by an attorney. However, the
same does not apply as regards the certification of non-forum shopping. The
certification of non-forum shopping must be made by petitioner himself and not
by his counsel because it is the petitioner himself who is in the best position to
know whether he has previously commenced any similar action involving the
same issues in any other tribunal or agency.
Rule 51, Sec 1(e)
Strict Rule failure to file appellants brief on times is ground for dismissal
Sajot vs CA
FACTS: RTC convicted the petitioner (Sajot) and Antonio Tobias, for estafa.
Antonio Tobias filed an appeal with the CA while petitioner filed a notice of
appeal, where the trial court elevated the records to the CA. Petitioner failed to
file Appellants brief after 3 motion for extension. He confronted his lawyer and
demanded why he wasnt able to file the brief. He then sought the services of a
different lawyer and stated that his failure to file the brief was due to the gross
ignorance of his previous lawyer. The CA dismissed the appeal
ISSUE: Whether the CA gravely abused discretion in dismissing petitioners
appeal for failure to file appellants brief?
HELD: The dismissal was proper. Petitioner was guilty of neglect. He was
aware of his conviction and of the requirement of filing an appellants brief. His
excuse that he relied on the services of his counsel and the he was busy is flimsy.
While litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is a truism that every case must
be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly
and speed administration.
Form of Decision (Rule 51, Sec 5)
|Page 46 of 75

Form of Decision: Memorandum Decision
Memorandum decision:
o is one rendered by an appellate court which incorporates by reference the
findings of fact and conclusion of law contained in the decision of the lower
court.
o Shall clearly and distinctly state the finding of fact and the conclusions of
law on which it is based
o May be contained in the decision or final resolution itself or adopted from
those set forth in the decision, order, resolution appealed from.
Francisco vs Permskul
FACTS: Franciso leased his apartment in Makati to Permskul for a period of one
year at 3K/ month. Pursuant to the lease contract, Permskul deposited with the
petitioner the amount of 9K to answer for unpaid rentals or any damage to the
leased premises except when caused by reasonable wear and tear. Permskul
vacated the property and asked for the deposit. Petitioner contends that Permskul
still owed him expenses such as electricity and water bills. Permskul filed a case
to the MTC. Francisco was ordered to pay the balance of the deposit. RTC
rendered a decision with a memorandum decision. Francisco questions the
constitutionality of the law allowing memorandum decisions.
ISSUE: Whether the memorandum decision was valid?
HELD: Sec 40 of BP 129 allowing memorandum decisions is not unconstitutional.
The law does not define the memorandum decision and simply suggests that the
court may adopt by reference the findings of fact and the conclusions of law
stated in the decision, order or resolution on appeal before it. No particular form
prescribed; the conditions for its use are not indicated.
The distinctive features of the memorandum decisions are:
1. It is rendered by an appellate court
2. It incorporates by reference findings of fact or the conclusions of law
contained in the decision, order, or ruling under review.
Most likely, the purpose is to affirm the decision, although it is possible that a
different conclusion of law may be arrived by the higher court. At any rate, the
reason for allowing incorporation by reference is to avoid cumbersome
reproduction of the decision of the lower court.
The memorandum decision to be valid cannot incorporate the findings of fact and
the conclusions of law of the lower only by remote reference. For incorporation to
be allowed, it must provide direct access to the facts and the law being adopted,
which must be contained in a statement attached to the said decision. The
memorandum decisions authorized under Sec 40 BP 129 should actually embody
the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the lower court in an annex attached
to and made an indispensable part of the decision. Here, there was substantial
compliance of Sec 40 because of the direct availability and actual review of the
|Page 47 of 75

decision of Judge Balita (MTC) incorporated by reference in the memorandum
decision of Judge de la Rama (RTC).
Rule 51, Sec. 8
Issue not raised on appeal cannot be dealt with by the CA; final against nonappealing party
Comments by Justice Regalado:
o The basic procedural rule is that only errors claimed and assigned by a party
will be considered by the court, except errors affecting its jurisdiction over the
subject matter and errors affecting the validity of the judgment appealed from
or the proceedings therein.
o Even if the error complained of by a party is not expressly stated in his
assignment of errors but the same is closely related to or dependent on an
assigned error and properly argued in his brief, such error may now be
considered by the court.
o The procedure in the SC being generally the same as the CA, it has been held
that the latter can review matters, even if they are not assigned as errors on
appeal, if it finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just
decision of the case
o The appellate court is also authorized to consider a plain error, although it
was specifically assigned by the appellant.
PNB v. Rabat (2000)
FACTS: Spouses Francisco and Merced Rabat (Rabats) applied for a loan with
PNB. Rabats signed a Credit Agreement and executed a Real Estate Mortgage
over twelve (12) parcels of land. Rabats failed to pay their outstanding balance on
due date. After due notice and publication, the mortgaged parcels of land were
sold at a public auction, where PNB was the highest bidder. Upon failure of the
RABATs to comply with the demand to settle their remaining outstanding
obligation, PNB filed a complaint for a sum of money before the Manila RTC. RTC
ruled that the two auction sales were void in view of the gross inadequacy of the
price. Only PNB appealed from the judgment to the Court of Appeals. The CA
affirmed the RTC.
ISSUE: Can the CA review the issue of lack f personal notice, which was not
raised on appeal?
HELD: NO. Even if the error complained of by a party is not expressly stated in
his assignment of errors but the same is closely related to or dependent on an
assigned error and properly argued in his brief, such error may now be
considered by the court. These changes are of jurisprudential origin. PNB, the
sole appellant, never raised the issue of lack of personal notice to the
Rabats. Neither is such issue closely related to or dependent on PNB's assigned
error on appeal nor is it an exception to Section 8 of Rule 51. Needless to stress,
the Court of Appeals erred in resolving PNBs appeal on the basis of an issue
which was not raised on appeal and whose resolution thereon by the trial court
|Page 48 of 75

has long become firm and final against the party adversely affected by the
resolution.
Only errors assigned shall be considered by appellate court in deciding
the case exception, matters closely related to error assigned.
Catholic Bishop of Balanga v. CA (1996)
FACTS: The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Balanga executed an Escritura De
Donacion donating the subject property to Ana de los Reyes. De los Reyes,
before her death, gave the subject property to her nephew, Amando de Leon. De
Leons possession of the subject property was never disturbed by anybody until
the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Balanga filed a complaint against him 49 years
after the donation. The lower court ruled against de Leon. The CA ultimately
ruled that under the doctrine of laches, the consequence of the Archbishop's
inaction for 49 years is that it has lost its rights to the subject property.
ISSUE: Did the CA err in applying the doctrine of laches when de Leon did not
assign the same as an error on appeal?
HELD: NO. The appellate court is accorded a broad discretionary power to waive
the lack of proper assignment of errors and to consider errors not assigned. The
Court of Appeals may, with no less authority, reverse the decision of the trial
court on the basis of grounds other than those raised as errors on appeal. We
have applied this as a matter of exception, in the following instances:
1. Affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter
2. Plain and clerical errors within contemplation of law
3. Necessary at arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case
or to serve the interest of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice.
4. Raised in the trial court and are matters of record having some bearing on
the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower
court ignored
5. Closely related to an error assigned
6. The determination of a question properly assigned, is dependent
In this case - the just, fair and complete resolution of the present case
necessitates the consideration and the application of the doctrine of laches,
which is not the same as but is undoubtedly closely related to, the issue of
prescription.
Rule 51
In re: Joaquin Borromeo (1995)
Joaquin T. Borromeo, is not a lawyer but has apparently read some law books, and
ostensibly come to possess some superficial awareness of a few substantive legal
principles and procedural rules. Borromeo has, for some sixteen (16) years now,
from 1978 to the present, been instituting and prosecuting legal proceedings in
various courts. Borromeo's ill-advised incursions into lawyering were generated
by obtaining loans or credit accommodations with three (3) banks: Traders Royal
Bank (TRB), United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), Security Bank & Trust Co.
(SBTC). He failed to pay these obligations, and when demands were made for
|Page 49 of 75

him to do so, laid down his own terms for their satisfaction. He sued, as well, the
public prosecutors, the Judges of the Trial Courts, and the Justices of the Court of
Appeals and the Supreme Court who at one time or another, rendered a
judgment, resolution or order adverse to him.
The facts and issues involved in the proceeding at bench make necessary a
restatement of the principles governing finality of judgments and of the
paramount need to put an end to litigation at some point.
Reason for courts; Judicial Hierarchy
The judicial system in this jurisdiction allows for several levels of litigation, i.e.,
the presentation of evidence by the parties a trial or hearing in the first
instance as well as a review of the judgments of lower courts by higher
tribunals.
Paramount Need to end Litigation at Some Point
It is withal of the essence of the judicial function that at some point, litigation
must end. Hence, after the procedures and processes for lawsuits have been
undergone, and the modes of review set by law have been exhausted, or
terminated, no further ventilation of the same subject matter is allowed.
Judgments of Supreme Court Not Reviewable
The sound, salutary and self-evident principle prevailing in this as in most
jurisdictions, is that judgments of the highest tribunal of the land may not be
reviewed by any other agency, branch, department, or official of Government.
Once the Supreme Court has spoken, there the matter must rest.
Final and Executory Judgments of Lower Courts Not Reviewable Even by
Supreme Court
In respect of courts below the SC, the ordinary remedies available under law to a
party who is adversely affected by their decisions or orders are a motion for new
trial (or reconsideration) under Rule 37, and an appeal to the CA or the SC.
Exceptionally, a review of a ruling or act of a court on the ground that it was
rendered without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion, may be had through the SCA of certiorari or prohibition pursuant to
Rule 65
However, should judgments of lower courts which may normally be subject to
review by higher tribunals become final and executory before, or without,
exhaustion of all recourse of appeal, they, too, become inviolable, impervious to
modification. They may no longer be reviewed, or in any way modified directly or
indirectly, by a higher court, not even the SC, much less by any other official,
branch or department of the Government.
Rule 52
No motion for extension of time to file motion for reconsideration
Sec. of Agrarian Reform v. Tropical Homes (2001)
|Page 50 of 75

FACTS: Carlos Iigo and Tropical Homes, Inc. entered into a Joint Venture
Agreement for the development of the property into a residential area, which was
later known as the "Better Living Subdivision.The Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR), through its Davao City office, notified Tropical that its property
would be covered by the CARP. Tropical filed a petition with the PARAD for the
cancellation of the Certificate of Land Ownership Award given to farmerbeneficiaries. The PARAD ruled in favor of Tropical. The DARAB reversed the
ruling of the PARAD. Tropical filed a petition for review on certiorari with the
Court of Appeals and an Urgent Motion for the Issuance of a TRO. The CA
granted the same. The Secretary of Agrarian Reform, et al., instead of filing an
MR, filed a Motion for Extension of Time praying for an additional fifteen (15)
days to file their MR. The two consolidated petitions for review on certiorari, filed
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seek the reversal of the Decision of the CA.
ISSUE: Can there be a motion for extension of time to file a motion for
reconsideration?
HELD: NO. The fifteen (15) day reglementary period for appealing or for filing a
motion for reconsideration cannot be extended. It was argued that the Legal
Assistance Division of the DAR Provincial Office in Davao City is undermanned
because a substantial number of its staff is on official leave. Surely, this is an
understandable excuse, albeit a non-legal one.
The ruling in Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Japson has been in force for fifteen
(15) years. Not having perfected their appeal in the manner and within the period
fixed by law, the decision of the Court of Appeals had become final and executory.
Such a failure carries with it the result that no court can exercise appellate
jurisdiction to review the case.
Rule 53
Motion for new trial may be filed after motion for reconsideration, but
within 15 days
Tiongco v. Deguma (1999)
FACTS: Atty. Jose B. Tiongco filed a Complaint for "damages arising from
fraudulent conspiracy, public scandal, with preliminary injunction" against Atty.
Marciana Q. Deguma, Atty. Napoleon G. Pagtanac, IMDC Major Carmelo M.
Tiongco, Jr., and Estrella Tiongco Yared with the Iloilo RTC. Pagtanac, Estrella
Tiongco, and Deguma filed their answers with counterclaim. The trial court
dismissed Tiongcos complaint but granted the counterclaim by the defendants.
Tiongco appealled to the Court of Appeals. The CA affirmed the trial court's
award of moral and exemplary damages. Tiongco moved for reconsideration and
filed a petition for new trial. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration for
lack of merit and the petition for a new trial for having been filed out of time.
ISSUE: Can a motion for new trial be filed after filing a motion for
reconsideration?
HELD: YES.

|Page 51 of 75

In Bernardo v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that a motion for a new trial may
be filed after judgment but within the period for perfecting appeal.
Now, a motion for reconsideration, seasonably filed in the Court of Appeals will
not necessarily preclude a motion for a new trial as long as it was also filed on
time. Further, a denial of a motion for reconsideration entitles the party who filed
said motion another fifteen (15) days to appeal by certiorari the same period
within which a motion for a new trial may be filed.
Rule 56, Sec. 2 The Rules Applicable
Rule 46
Certiorari filed with CA; petition must be accompanied by duplicate
original or certified true copy of assailed orders
Republic v. Carmel Development, Inc. (2002)
FACTS: Carmel Development, Inc. filed with the Caloocan City RTC a Complaint
for recovery of possession with preliminary injunction against the Department of
Education, Culture and Sports and the Caloocan City School Board. The trial
court declared that no action shall be taken on the Manifestation with Motion to
Dismiss filed on April 30, 1998 by the Department of Education and the School
Board considering that the defendants have already been declared in default and
have lost their standing in court. The Department of Education filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Orders dated April 27, 29 and 30, 1998 and to Lift Order
of Default. It was granted. The Department of Education moved for the dismissal
of the case for the alleged violation by the Plaintiff of the Supreme Court
Administrative Circular No. 04-94. It was denied. The Department of Education
filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA. The CA dismissed the
Department of Educations petition for certiorari.
ISSUE: Did the CA err in dismissing the petition on the ground that it was not
accompanied by certified true copies of the assailed decision and resolution but
only duplicate originals?
HELD: YES.
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 3-96 defines duplicate originals in
this wise:
i. The duplicate original copy shall be understood to be that copy of the
decision, judgment, resolution or order which is intended for and
furnished to a party in the case or proceeding in the court or
adjudicative body which rendered and issued the same.
ii. The duplicate original copy must be duly signed or initialed by the
authorities or the corresponding officer or representative of the issuing
entity, or shall at least bear the dry seal thereof or any other official
indication of the authenticity and completeness of such copy.
There is substantial compliance with the requirement that the petition be
accompanied by duplicate originals of the orders being assailed since the Order
dated June 15, 1998 is what is being primarily assailed in the petition, while the
Order dated August 17, 1998 was merely the denial of the motion to reconsider
|Page 52 of 75

the same. A liberal construction of the Rules may be invoked in this instance to
achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible.
Lonoy v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform (2008)
FACTS: Spouses Gregorio Nanaman (Gregorio) and Hilaria Tabuclin (Hilaria)
were the owners of a parcel of agricultural land. When Gregorio died in 1945,
Hilaria administered the subject property with Virgilio. Hilaria and Virgilio
executed a Deed of Sale over the subject property in favor of Jose C. Deleste
(Deleste). The subject property was included in the list of assets of the joint
estate. However, Noel could not take possession of the subject property since it
was already in Delestes possession. Thus, Noel filed before the Court of First
Instance (CFI), Branch II, Lanao del Norte, an action against Deleste for the
reversion of title over the subject property to the Estate. Deleste passed away
sometime in 1992. The Heirs of Deleste filed a petition with the DARAB seeking
to nullify private respondents Emancipation Patents, which was denied. The
Heirs of Deleste thereafter filed a Petition for Review with the CA challenging the
DARAB decision. During the pendency of the action, the Heirs of Lonoy filed a
petition for prohibition.
ISSUE: Did the CA err in dismissing the petition without considering the merits
thereof (on the basis of the failure to attach to the Petition the duplicate originals
or certified true copies of some of the annexes)?
HELD: YES. Section 3 of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court directs that all petitions
originally filed before the Court of Appeals shall be accompanied by a clearly
legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, resolution
or ruling subject thereof.
Similarly, under Rule 65, governing the remedies of certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus, petitions for the same need to be accompanied only by duplicate
originals or certified true copies of the questioned judgment, order or resolution.
Other relevant documents and pleadings attached to such petitions may be mere
machine copies thereof.

|Page 53 of 75

Judgment
Rule 120
(Sections 6 and 7)
Sec. 6. Promulgation of judgment.
The judgment is promulgated by reading it in the presence of:
o the accused and
o any judge of the court in which it was rendered.
EXCEPT:
If the conviction is for a light offense the judgment may be pronounced in
the presence of his counsel or representative.
When the judge is absent or outside the province or citythe judgment may
be promulgated by the clerk of court.
If the accused is confined or detained in another province or citythe
judgment may be promulgated by the executive judge of the Regional Trial
Court having jurisdiction over the place of confinement or detention upon
request of the court which rendered the judgment.
o The court promulgating the judgment shall have authority to accept the
notice of appeal and to approve the bail bond pending appeal;
provided, that if the decision of the trial court convicting the
accused changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to
bailable, the application for bail can only be filed and
resolved by the appellate court.
The proper clerk of court shall give notice to:
o the accused personally or through his bondsman or warden and
o counsel
requiring him to be present at the promulgation of the decision.
If the accused was tried in absentia because he jumped bail or escaped

from prison, the notice to him shall be served at his last known address.
In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of

promulgation of judgment despite notice, the promulgation shall be
made:
o by recording the judgment in the criminal docket and
o serving him a copy thereof at his last known address or thru his
counsel.
If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to

appear was without justifiable cause, he shall:
o lose the remedies available in these rules against the judgment and
o the court shall order his arrest.

|Page 54 of 75

o
Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment, however, the

accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of
these remedies. He shall state the reasons for his absence at the
scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his absence was for a
justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within
fifteen (15) days from notice. (6a)
Promulgation of judgment
1.
clerk of court shall require accused to be present at the promulgation of the decision by giving notice
to
o
o
counsel and
either
1)
the accused, personally or served at his last known address, if he was tried in absentia, or
2) through his bondsman or warden
2.
in the presence of either
o
o
3.
in conviction for a light offense, accuseds counsel or representative (Note that the accused must
be present at the arraignment even if the charge is for a light offense)
read by either
o
o
o
4.
the accused and counsel (Rule 115, Sec. 1 [c])
any judge of the court in which it was rendered, or

the clerk of court, if the judge is absent or outside the province or city, or
the executive judge of the RTC having jurisdiction over the place of confinement or detention upon
request of the court which rendered the judgment, if the accused is confined or detained in
another province or city
In case the accused fails to appear at promulgation despite notice

o
promulgation shall be made by recording the judgment in the criminal docket and serving him a
copy thereof
1) at his last known address or
2) thru his counsel.
if the judgment is for conviction and non-appearance was without justifiable cause
1) accused shall lose the remedies available in these rules against the judgment and
2) the court shall order his arrest.
3) Within 15 days from promulgation of judgment, the accused
a)
b)
c)
d)
5.
may surrender
file a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies.
state the reasons for his absence
if he proves that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said
remedies within 15 days from notice.
The court promulgating the judgment

o
o
shall have authority to accept the notice of appeal and to approve the bail bond pending appeal
if the decision of the trial court convicting the accused changed the nature of the offense from nonbailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be filed and resolved by the appellate court.
Invalid promulgation in absentia

Pascua v CA, 348 SCRA 197 (2000)
Promulgation is an official proclamation or announcement of the decision of

the Court
In criminal cases, promulgation happens:
|Page 55 of 75

o Until after the COC receives is and

o Enters it in the criminal court docket.
There was an invalid promulgation in absentia because although the counsel
of the accused was notified (as the accused jumped bail), the solemn and
operative act of recording was not done.
The defense was able to show a certifications from COC of the RTC of Pasig
that their office has not been furnished of the decision of the case
Promulgation in absentia, elements for validity:
1. a judgment be recorded in the criminal docket
2. that a copy thereof was served upon the accused or his counsel
Court took judicial notice of the certification that there was no record in the
criminal docket yet; in the absence of compliance, no valid promulgation.
Recording serves as notice to all persons
The accuseds belated receipt of the copy of the decision does not cure the
failure to record, as the rules provide that BOTH requisites must concur.
Sec. 7. Modification of judgment.

A judgment of conviction may, upon motion of the accused, be modified or set aside
before
it becomes final or
before appeal is perfected.
A judgment becomes final:
after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or
when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or
when the accused has:
waived in writing his right to appeal, or
has applied for probation. (7a)
Except: where the death penalty is imposed
New Trial or Reconsideration
Rule 121
(Sections 1-6)
MNT or MfR in Criminal Cases
Either on motion of accused, or the court
motu proprio with consent of the accused
Grounds for MNT errors of law or
irregularities committed during the trial,
or newly discovered evidence
Ground for MfR error of law or fact
Filed any time before judgment of
MNT or MfR in Civil Cases

Must be upon motion of a party, cant be
motu proprio
Grounds for MNT FAME, or newly
discovered evidence
Grounds for MfR Excessive damages,
insufficient evidence, or decision is
contrary to law
Filed within the period for taking an

|Page 56 of 75

conviction becomes final
When granted, the original judgment is

always set aside or vacated and a new
judgment rendered
appeal
Should include all the grounds then
available and those not so included shall
be deemed waived.
There may be partial grant
2nd MfR not allowed; 2nd MNT may be
allowed on evidence not available before
Sec. 1. New trial or reconsideration

Requisites for new trial or reconsideration:
Can be filed anytime before a judgment of conviction becomes final, either
1. on motion of the accused or
2. motu propio, but with the consent of the accused
In new trial, there is another hearing. In reconsideration, no hearing is required.

de Leon: Note that the rule is silent as to the capacity of the prosecution to file a
MfR or MNT.
Order granting or denying MNT is not appealabale or not reviewable by certiorari

(special civil action) IS NOT APPLICABLE IN CRIMINAL CASES
People v CA, Sonalan, 92 SCRA 607 (1979)
This rule is not applicable to criminal cases, because, unlike in civil cases, you
cannot resort to Rule 37 and appeal the judgment of acquittal, otherwise, it
will violation the constitutional proscription against double jeopardy; OSG
shouldve filed the proper appeal or petition to the CA.
The case was no longer reviewable by certiorari because the order was issued
by the court acting within its jurisdiction; a resolution granting the MNT
already became final and thus appealable; certiorari cannot be used as a
substitute for lost appeal
Judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable due to double jeopardy
People v CA, 423 SCRA 605
6. If petitioner can demonstrate that the LC blatantly abused its authority to a
point so grave as to deprive it of its very power to dispense justice AVAIL
PETITION for CERTIORARI
7. BUT, if the petitioners regardless of its nomenclature, merely calls for an
ordinary review of the finding of the court a quo, the constitutional right
against double jeopardy would be violated. Such recourse is tantamount to
converting the petition for Certiorari into an appeal. This is contrary to the
Constitution, ROC and prevailing jurisprudence on double jeopardy.
8. FINALITY OF ACQUITTAL DOCTRINE
o The State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to
make repeated attempt to convict an individual for alleged offense,
thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal, and
compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as
|Page 57 of 75

well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent, he may be

found guilty.
Pursuant to this doctrine, you cannot even file an MR to a judgment of
acquittal.
In the absence of a finding of a mistrial, i.e., the criminal trial was a sham, a
judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable.
Whether it happens at the trial court of the Court of Appeals
People v CA, 423 SCRA 605 (the CA acquitted the accused)
People v Velasco, 340 SCRA 207 (the RTC acquitted Mayor Galvez)
FACTS: Mayor Galvez of San Ildefonso, Bulacan, and his body guard,
Godofredi Diego was charged for the murder of Alex Vinculado and the
frustrated murder of the latters twin brother, Levi Vinculado and uncle,
Miguel. In addition, they were charged of illegal possession of firearms. Diego
was convicted for all 4 charges, while Mayor Galvez was acquitted due to
insufficiency of evidence. The Government now questions the acquittal of
Mayor Galvez by Judge Velasco, claiming there was GADALEJ, because the
judge deliberately and wrongfully disregarded certain facts and evidence,
which if judicially considered wouldve proven the guilt of Mayor Galvez.
ISSUE: Whether Mayor Galvez acquittal is already final and unappealable?
GOVERNMENT STAND: Appeals of acquittal (as in US v WILSON) are

possible provided that the accused will not be subjected to a second trial.
There is no double jeopardy because the appeal is just a continuation of the
trial, not a trial de novo, as it will not result to another trial but will only
examine the evidence adduced in the LC to pass final judgment on the
culpability of the accused. They say that double jeopardy will only result after
the judgment of the court of last resort.
HELD: PETITION DISMISSED. Mayor Galvez acquittal is already final and

unappealable. An otherwise rule will violate the constitutional right against
double jeopardy. The alleged error in appreciation of evidence places the case as
an improper object of and therefore non-reviewable by certiorari.
Requisites of Double Jeopardy:
(a) a valid complaint or information (sufficient in form and substance);
(b) before a competent court before which the same is filed (court has jurisdiction);
(c) the defendant had pleaded to the charge; and,
(d) the defendant was acquitted, or convicted, or the case against him dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express consent.
Double jeopardy guarantee focused on three (3) related protections:
o against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal;
o against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and,
o against multiple punishments for the same offense.
The underlying rule on the absolute nature of acquittals is part of the paramount
importance criminal justice system attaches to the protection of the innocent against
wrongful conviction.
The remand to a trial court of a judgment of acquittal brought before the SC on
certiorari cannot be held unless there is a finding of mistrial, as in Galman v
Sandiganbayan (SC then held that: The sham trial was but a mock trial where the
authoritarian president ordered respondents Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan to rig
|Page 58 of 75

the trial, and closely monitored the entire proceedings to assure the predetermined
final outcome of acquittal and absolution as innocent of all the respondent-accused).
This exception only applies when the criminal trial is a sham because the prosecution
representing the sovereign people was denied due process.
If the accused sought the dismissal at his own instance, it wouldve fallen under the
exception, but records show that respondent trial judge based his finding of acquittal,
no matter how erroneous it might seem to petitioner, upon the evidence presented by
both parties. The judgment here was no less than a factual resolution of the case.
Thus, to the extent that the post-verdict acquittal in Wilson was based on a ruling of
law and not on a resolution of facts, Wilson is not, to reiterate, pertinent to nor
persuasive in the case at bar. The same observation holds true for US v Scott--that it
was the defendant who secured the dismissal of the charges against him without any
submission to either judge or jury as to his guilt or innocence, but on a ground totally
outside evidentiary considerations, i.e., pre-indictment delay, definitely forecloses the
applicability, if not relevance, of Scott to the instant case. (Read the main case for the
lengthy discussion of American jurisprudence and Constitutional Deliberations
regarding double jeopardy and the exceptions)
Effect of violation of due process (Certiorari will lie if theres GADALEJ due to
violation of DP)
People v Sandiganbayan, 376 SCRA 74
The case was dismissed due to a demurrer to evidence (insufficiency of
evidence); the PPL files a petition for certiorari claiming GADALEJ/abusive
acquittal; SC HELD that the review of the resolution showed that the
Sandiganbayan painstakingly and exhaustively passed upon, considered
and evaluated the evidence, both documentary and testimonial adduced by
the prosecution. It likewise cited factual and legal bases for its conclusion.
GR: Dismissal of a crime made with the express consent of the accused or
upon his motion bars a plea of double jeopardy.
EXCEPT:
1) If the court grants a demurrer to evidence, such order amounts to an
acquittal and any further prosecution will violate presumption
against DJ.
2) If there has been a denial of the right to speedy trial
Right Against Double Jeopardy: is of such magnitude that an appeal based
on a misappreciation of evidence by the TC will not lie. DJ, in general, will
not attach except if the TC aced with GADALEJ due to a violation of DUE
PROCESS. IF
Philippine Savings Bank v Bermoy, 471 SCRA 94
RTC dismissed the case due to demurrer to evidence; MR denied; PSBank
filed a petition for certiorari to the CA, but was denied; MR was denied,
hence this petition to the SC.
SC HELD: CA was correct in upholding the RTC decision because an
otherwise ruling will violate the right of the accused against DJ. If the
|Page 59 of 75

dismissal is due to demurrer to evidence, such dismissal amounts to an
acquittal and cannot be subject to an appeal or an MR.
A review of the sufficiency of evidence and of the propriety of acquittal lies outside
the function of certiorari.
People v Bans, 239 SCRA 48
o The case was dismissed due to demurrer to evidence because the search
warrant for illegal firearms and ammunitions were illegally issue.
o A review lies outside the function of certiorari as it intrudes into the
prerogative of Rule 45, where an alleged error in judgment may be
subjected for review. A review of a judgment of acquittal in a petition for
certiorari would place the accused in DJ.
o This case involves an error of judgment not of jurisdiction; it did not affect
the intrinsic validity of the decision. This error cannot be rectified by an
appeal of prosecution no matter how obvious the crime may be, other there
will be a violation of the right of the accused against DJ.
People v CA, 431 SCRA 610
FACTS: There were charges of smuggling and transporting of timber

without the necessary permits against the accused. The case was
promulgated in absentia because the RTC found their excuse (being ill)
for being absent in court during promulgation was an unjustifiable
cause. The case was elevated to the CA. CA said that there must be a repromulgation against 2 accused and the acquittal of the 3 rd accused because
the prosecution failed to prove the latters guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The
PPL files a petition for certiorari against the CA claiming GADALEJ.
HELD: YES. The CA committed GADALEJ because it should not have granted
the respondent-accuseds petition for certiorari for the issues raised were
errors of judgment, not errors of jurisdiction; the proper remedy should have
been rule 45 or an appeal.
Determination of Sufficiency of Evidence is within the sound discretion of
the RTC; the RTC, in this case, adjudged guilt based on facts and law (PD
705). They had plain, speedy, adequate remedy of appeal when their MR was
denied. However, instead of appealing, the erroneously filed a petition for
certiorari.
The CA arrogated upon itself the authority to review the alleged errors in the
RTC judgment in a certiorari proceedings. CA decision of acquittal is NULL
and VOID.
Sec. 2. Grounds for a new trial. The court shall grant a new trial on any of the
following grounds:

|Page 60 of 75

(a) That errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of
the accused have been committed during the trial;
(b) That new and material evidence has been discovered which the accused
could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial and
which if introduced and admitted would probably change the judgment.
Sec. 3. Ground for reconsideration. The court shall grant reconsideration on the
ground of errors of law or fact in the judgment, which requires no further proceedings.
(3a)
Sec. 4. Form of motion and notice to the prosecutor.
Form of MNT or MfR
1. in writing
2. state the grounds on which it is based
3. Notice of the motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be given to the
prosecutor
4. If based on a newly-discovered evidence, the motion must be supported by
o
o
affidavits of witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be given

or
duly authenticated copies of documents which are proposed to be
introduced in evidence.
Sec. 5. Hearing on motion. Where MNT calls for resolution of any question of
fact, the court may hear evidence thereon by affidavits or otherwise. (5a)
Sec. 6. Effects of granting a new trial or reconsideration.
(a) When a new trial is granted on the ground of errors of law or irregularities
committed during the trial,
all the proceedings and evidence affected thereby shall be set aside and taken
anew.
The court may, in the interest of justice, allow the introduction of additional
evidence.
(b) When a new trial is granted on the ground of newly-discovered evidence,
the evidence already adduced shall stand and
the newly-discovered and such other evidence as the court may, in the interest of
justice, allow to be introduced shall be taken and considered together with the
evidence already in the record.
(c) In all cases, when the court grants new trial or reconsideration, the original
judgment shall be set aside or vacated and a new judgment rendered accordingly.

|Page 61 of 75

Appeal
Rule 122
(Sections 1-13)
Sec. 1. Who may appeal.
Any party may appeal from a judgment or final order,
unless the accused will be placed in double jeopardy. (2a)
Sec. 2. Where to appeal.
(a) To the Regional Trial Court, in cases decided by the Metropolitan Trial Court,
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court;
(b) To the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court in the proper cases provided by
law, in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court; and
(c) To the Supreme Court, in cases decided by the Court of Appeals. (1a)
Sec. 3. How appeal taken.
(a) The appeal to the Regional Trial Court, or to the Court of Appeals in cases decided
by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, shall be taken by
filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order
appealed from and by serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party.
(b) The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in
the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review under Rule 42.
(c) The appeal to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed by the
Regional Trial Court is reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, or where a lesser
penalty is imposed but for offenses committed on the same occasion or which arose out
of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense for which the penalty
of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is imposed, shall be by filing a notice
of appeal in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.
The only instances when an appeal to the SC is by notice of appeal:
1. the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, or

2. where a lesser penalty is imposed but for offenses committed on the same
occasion or which arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the
more serious offense for which the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or
life imprisonment is imposed
(d) No notice of appeal is necessary in cases where the death penalty is imposed by the
Regional Trial Court. The same shall be automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court
as provided in section 10 of this Rule.
Except as provided in the last paragraph of section 13, Rule 124, all other appeals to
the Supreme Court shall be by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. (3a)
(Sec 13, Rule 124) Whenever the CA find that the penalty of death,
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment should be imposed it shall:

|Page 62 of 75

1. render judgment imposing the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment warranted
2. refrain from entering the judgment
3. certify the case and elevate the entire record thereof to the SC for review
*de Leon: note that the CA must elevate the case even if there was no appeal
by the accused from its decision.
Sec 3(a) and 3(c)
Offenses committed on the same occasion, etc.
People v Pajo, 348 SCRA 429 (2000)
The father, Jose Pajo and his live-in partner, Imeld Liquigan, were charged
of 3 counts of rape and 2 counts of acts of lasciviousness against the 2
minor daughters of the former. Liquigan was deemed an accomplice as she
held the legs of the daughter while the father raped his daughters. RTC
ruled: guilty to all counts. The rape case, being then punishable by death,
was automatically deemed elevated to the SC. Because the ruling on the
acts of lasciviousness was not duly appealed, the judgment with respect to
these charges were deemed final and executory. Only the rape charges are
deemed to automatically elevated to the SC (now the CA).
Due to the lifting of the DP law in 2006, all cases now punished LI or RP,
are elevated to the CA not to the SC.
People v Saley, 291 SCRA 715 (1998)
Ann Saley was indicted to 11 separate information for ESTAFA and 5
information for illegal receruitment. She pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The cases were all consolidated. RTC ruled that Saley was guilty in all
counts. Saley appealed straight to the SC.
ISSUE: Can she appeal straight to the SC?
HELD: YES! Because large scale illegal recruitment was then punishable by
death.
Prior to the amendment of the rules, now Sec 3d and Sec 10 of Rule 122, you
can appeal straight to the SC:
1. If the case has a penalty of dealth, LI or RP or
2. a lesser offense were committed on the came occasion or arising out of the
same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense for which the
penalty of death, LI and RP is imposed.
Sec. 4. Service of notice of appeal.
If personal service of the copy of the notice of appeal cannot be made upon the adverse
party or his counsel,
service may be done by registered mail or by substituted service

pursuant to sections 7 and 8 of Rule 13. (4a)

|Page 63 of 75

Sec. 5. Waiver of notice. The appellee may waive his right to a notice that an appeal
has been taken. The appellate court may, in its discretion, entertain an appeal
notwithstanding failure to give such notice if the interests of justice so require. (5a)
Sec. 6. When appeal to be taken. An appeal must be taken within fifteen (15)
days from promulgation of the judgment or from notice of the final order
appealed from.
This period for perfecting an appeal shall be suspended from the time
a motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed until notice of the order
overruling the motion has been served upon the accused or his counsel at
which time the balance of the period begins to run. (6a)
Appeal must be taken within 15 days from promulgation of judgment

People v Tamani, 55 SCRA 153 (1974)
Tamani was found guilty or murder and attempted murder. Tamani then
filed a NOA, but the SOLGEN filed an MTD because the NOA was file out of
time. Tamani was insisting that the point of reckoning of the 15day period
to file an appeal is the date of RECEIPT of the NOTICE of judgment.
However, the court held that the point of reckoning was from the date of
the PROMULGATION of judgment. When their MR was denied, they only
had 1 day not 11 days to appeal. Alarmingly, it was filed 58 days late, thus
warranting its outright denial.
Sec. 7. Transcribing and filing notes of stenographic reporter upon appeal.

When notice of appeals is filed by the accused, the trial court shall direct the
stenographic reporter to transcribe his notes of the proceedings.
When filed by the People of the Philippines, the trial court shall direct the
stenographic reporter to transcribe such portion of his notes of the proceedings as
the court, upon motion, shall specify in writing.
The stenographic reporter shall certify to the correctness of the notes and the
transcript thereof, which shall consist of the original and four copies, and shall file
said original and four copies with the clerk without unnecessary delay.
If death penalty is imposed, the stenographic reporter shall, within thirty (30) days
from promulgation of the sentence, file with the clerk the original and four copies of
the duly certified transcript of his notes of the proceedings.
No extension of time for filing of said transcript of stenographic notes shall be
granted except by the Supreme Court and only upon justifiable grounds. (7a)
Sec. 8. Transmission of papers to appellate court upon appeal.
Within five (5) days from the filing of the notice of appeal, the clerk of court with
whom the notice of appeal was filed must transmit to the clerk of court of the
appellate court the complete record of the case, together with said notice.

|Page 64 of 75

The original and three copies of the transcript of stenographic notes, together with
the records, shall also be transmitted to the clerk of the appellate court without
undue delay. The other copy of the transcript shall remain in the lower court. (8a)
Sec. 9. Appeal to the Regional Trial Courts.

(a) Within five (5) days from perfection of the appeal, the clerk of court shall transmit
the original record to the appropriate Regional Trial Court.
(b) Upon receipt of the complete record of the case, transcripts and exhibits, the clerk
of court of the Regional Trial Court shall notify the parties of such fact.
(c) Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of said notice, the parties may submit
memoranda or briefs, or may be required by the Regional Trial Court to do so. After the
submission of such memoranda or briefs, or upon the expiration of the period to file the
same, the Regional Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of the entire record of
the case and of such memoranda or briefs as may have been filed. (9a)
Sec. 10. Transmission of records in case of death penalty. In all cases where the
death penalty is imposed by the trial court, the records shall be forwarded to the
Supreme Court for automatic review and judgment within five (5) days after the
fifteenth (15) day following the promulgation of the judgment or notice of denial of a
motion for new trial or reconsideration. The transcript shall also be forwarded within
ten (10) days after the filing thereof by the stenographic reporter. (10a)
Sec. 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused.
(a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not
appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable
to the latter.
(b) The appeal of the offended party from the civil aspect shall not affect the criminal
aspect of the judgment or order appealed from.
(c) Upon perfection of the appeal, the execution of the judgment or final order appealed
from shall be stayed as to the appealing party. (11a)
o
An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those
who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is
favorable and applicable to the latter.
Effect of appeal by any several accusedbenefits those who did not appeal
People v Cafgu Baltar, 347 SCRA 579 (2000)
Baltar, Villanueva, et al were CAFGU members found guilty of murder by

the RTC of Roxas. Only Villanueva appealed the judgment claiming he was
only the look-out and did not participate in the killing of Celino Jr. He
further claimed of the failure of the prosecution to establish the generic
aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength, evident
premeditation and abuse of their public office not was the qualifying
circumstance of treachery proven as well.
HELD: YES! The aggravating and qualifying circumstances were not duly
proven by the prosecution, thus the accused should be made liable for
HOMICIDE, not murder. Because the ruling in the appeal of Villanueva was
|Page 65 of 75

favorable to his co-accused, the lowered penalty will also benefit his coaccused, even if they did not appeal the judgment.
Sec. 12. Withdrawal of appeal. Notwithstanding perfection of the appeal, the

Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, as the case may be, may allow
the appellant to withdraw his appeal before the record has been forwarded by the
clerk of court to the proper appellate court as provided in section 8, in which case the
judgment shall become final.
The Regional Trial Court may also, in its discretion, allow the appellant from the
judgment of a Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial
Court, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court to withdraw his appeal, provided:
a motion to that effect is filed before rendition of the judgment in the case on
appeal, in which case the judgment of the court of origin shall become final
and
the case shall be remanded to the latter court for execution of the judgment.
(12a)
Sec. 13. Appointment of counsel de oficio for accused on appeal. It shall be the
duty of the clerk of court of the trial court, upon filing of a notice of appeal to ascertain
from the appellant, if confined in prison, whether he desires the Regional Trial Court,
Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court to appoint a counsel de oficio to defend him and
to transmit with the record on a form to be prepared by the clerk of court of the
appellate court, a certificate of compliance with this duty and of the response of the
appellate to his inquiry. (13a)
Procedure in the Municipal Trial Courts

Rule 123
Sec. 1. Uniform Procedure. The procedure to be observed in the Metropolitan Trial
Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall be the same as
in the Regional Trial Courts, except where a particular provision applies only to either
of said courts and in criminal cases governed by the Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure. (1a)
Procedure in the Court of Appeals

Rule 124
(Sections 1-18)
|Page 66 of 75

Sec. 1. Title of the case. In all criminal cases appealed to the Court of Appeals, the
party appealing the case shall be called the "appellant" and the adverse party the
"appellee," but the title of the case shall remain as it was in the court of origin. (1a)
Sec. 2. Appointment of counsel de oficio for the accused. If it appears from the
record of the case as transmitted that:
(a) the accused is confined in prison,
(b) is without counsel de parte on appeal, or
(c) has signed the notice of appeal himself, ask the clerk of court of the Court of
Appeals shall designate a counsel de oficio.
An appellant who is not confined in prison may, upon request, be assigned a counsel de
oficio within ten (10) days from receipt of the notice to file brief and he establishes his
right thereto. (2a)
Sec. 3. When brief for appellant to be filed. Within thirty (30) days from receipt by
the appellant or his counsel of the notice from the clerk of court of the Court of Appeals
that the evidence, oral and documentary, is already attached to the record, the
appellant shall file:
seven (7) copies of his brief with the clerk of court which shall be accompanied
by:
o proof of service of two (2) copies thereof upon the appellee.(3a)
Sec. 4. When brief for appellee to be filed; reply brief of the appellant. Within
thirty (30) days from receipt of the brief of the appellant, the appellee shall file:
seven (7) copies of the brief of the appellee with the clerk of court which shall be
accompanied by:
o proof of service of two (2) copies thereof upon the appellant.
Within twenty (20) days from receipt of the brief of the appellee, the appellant may
file a reply brief traversing matters raised in the former but not covered in the brief of
the appellant. (4a)
Sec. 5. Extension of time for filing briefs.
GR: Extension of time for the filing of briefs will not be allowed
except:
o for good and sufficient cause and
o only if the motion for extension is filed before the expiration of the time
sought to be extended.
Sec. 6. Form of briefs. Briefs shall either be printed, encoded or typewritten in
double space on legal size good quality unglazed paper, 330 mm. in length by 216 mm.
in width. (6a)

|Page 67 of 75

Sec. 7. Contents of brief. The briefs in criminal cases shall have the same contents
as provided in sections 13 and 14 of Rule 44. A certified true copy of the decision or
final order appealed from shall be appended to the brief of the appellant. (7a)
Sec. 8. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute.
The Court of Appeals may,
upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio and
with notice to the appellant in either case,
o dismiss the appeal if the appellant:
fails to file his brief within the time prescribed by this Rule, except
where the appellant is represented by a counsel de oficio.
escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail or flees to a foreign
country during the pendency of the appeal. (8a)
Abandonment of Appeal
People v Acol, 232 SCRA 406 (1994)
FACTS: Acol et al boarded the passenger jeepney of Tan and robbed him and his
passenger of their belongings. After the accused alighted, the driver and
passengers went to Fort Bonifacio to report the incident. The CAPCOM team
tracked and later found the accused possessing the belongings of the passenger,
(wearing the jacket of a passenger) and having an unlicensed firearm. They were
found guilty of the changes, but prior to the promulgation. Acol escaped from
prison during trial.
ISSUE: Are they entitled to appeal?
HELD: NO. Escaping from prison can be considered an abandonment of appeal
because upon fleeing from prison, this wouldve obviated his chance to appeal.
Direct provision of Sec. 8 of Rule 124 (par2).
People v Balanag, 236 CRA 474 (1994)
FACTS: Federico, Roberto, and Tito Balang were charged of Robbery with
Homicide. Only Tito and Federico were apprehended. They were both arraigned
and they pleaded guilty, while Roberto remained at large. During trial, Tito
absconded. RTC ruled: Tito and Federico are guilty. Both now appeals.
ISSUE: Is Tito entitled to appeal?
HELD: NO! Both grounds under Sec 8 of Rule 124 exists: (1) failure to prosecute
appeal by failing to timely file an appellants brief; (2) accused absconded during
trial, which is inconsistent with submitting oneself to the jurisdiction of the court
(In simple terms, how can you ask mercy from the Court, if you dont recognize
its jurisdiction over you?)
Rule 124, Sec 8 in relation to Rule 125, Sec 1
Filing of fake bailbondsdeemed to have escaped from confinement
People v del Rosario, 348 SCRA 603 (2000)

|Page 68 of 75

Under the 2nd paragraph of section 8, the escape from prison, confinement,
the act of jumping bail, or fleeing to a foreign country of the appellant
results in the outright dismissal of his appeal. The reason for this rule is
that by his acts, appellant loses his standing in court; and unless he
surrenders or submits or submits to the jurisdiction of the court, he is
deems to have waived any right to seek relief from the court.
Filing of fake bailbond is not just considered as jumping of bail, but
considered to have escaped from confinement. Appellants having mocked
and trumped the judicial process by filing a fake bailbonds, they must be
considered to have waived their right to further review of the decisions of
the TC and CA.
Such action is inconsistent with an appeal because in effect you are not
really submitting yourself to the jurisdiction of the court.
Sec. 9. Prompt disposition of appeals.

Appeals of accused who are under detention shall be given precedence in their
disposition over other appeals.
The Court of Appeals shall hear and decide the appeal at the earliest practicable
time with due regard to the rights of the parties.
The accused need not be present in court during the hearing of the appeal. (9a)
Sec. 10. Judgment not to be reversed or modified except for substantial error.
No judgment shall be reversed or modified
unless the Court of Appeals, after
o an examination of the record and
o of the evidence adduced by the parties,
is of the opinion that error was committed which injuriously affected the substantial
rights of the appellant.
Sec.
11. Scope of judgment. The Court of Appeals may,

reverse,
affirm or
modify the judgment and
increase or reduce the penalty imposed by the trial court,
remand the case to the Regional Trial Court for
o new trial or
o retrial, or
o dismiss the case.
Rule 124, Sec 11

Scope of Judgment
Jose v CA, 70 SCRA 257 (1976):
Under Sec 11 of Rule 124, the authority of the CA over an appealed case is
broad and ample enough to embrace situations. This can be gleaned upon
from the fact that while Sec 13 of Rule 124 and Sec 2 of Rule 121 provide
for a specific ground for an MNT (errors of law or irregularities during
trial, NDE), Sec 11 of Rule 124 does not make any specification, thereby
|Page 69 of 75

leaving to the sound discretion of the court what would constitute

meritorious circumstances warranting a new trial.
In this case, Jose claims to be an undercover agent of the PC assigned to
perform intelligence work on subversive activities. Hence, he could not
reveal his identity lest he run the risk of being subject to reprisals among
dissidents. The permit he carried (for firearms and ammunitions) could not
also be revealed for this would expose his intelligent work activities.
However, because Jose had to face 5 years of imprisonment due to his
conviction, the competent authorities made it possible to produce the
necessary evidence to warrant his acquittal.
These circumstances are exceptional enough to warrant a new trial if only
to afford Jose an opportunity to establish his innocence. SC remanded the
case for a new trial to allow Jose to present his evidence.
Appeals throw the whole case open for review

*(even errors not assigned can be reviewed by the CA; CA can even increase or reduce
the penalties)
People v Medina, 300 SCRA 98 (1998):
error in the penalty was not raised in the appeal, but the SC corrected the
penalty; in this case, the penalty was reduced.
Sec. 12. Power to receive evidence. The CA shall have the power to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
try cases
conduct hearings
receive evidence and
perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases
o
o
o
falling within its original jurisdiction

involving claims for damages arising from provisional remedies, or
where the CA grants a new trial based only on the ground of newlydiscovered evidence
*Sec 12 amended on: October 15, 2004 under AM 00-5-03-SC.

Sec. 13. Quorum of the court; certification or appeal of cases to Supreme Court.
Three (3) Justices of the Court of Appeals shall constitute a quorum for the
sessions of a division.
The unanimous vote of the three (3) Justices of a division shall be necessary for
the pronouncement of a judgment or final resolution, which shall be reached in
consultation before the writing of the opinion by a member of the division.
In the event that the three (3) Justices can not reach a unanimous vote, the
Presiding Justice shall direct the raffle committee of the Court to designate two
(2) additional Justices to sit temporarily with them, forming a special division of

|Page 70 of 75

five (5) members and the concurrence of a majority of such division shall be
necessary for the pronouncement of a judgment or final resolution.
The designation of such additional Justices shall be made strictly by raffle and
rotation among all other Justices of the Court of Appeals.
Whenever the Court of Appeals find that the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua,
or life imprisonment should be imposed in a case, the court, after discussion of
the evidence and the law involved, shall render judgment imposing the penalty of
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment as the circumstance warrant.
However, it shall refrain from entering the judgment and forthwith certify the
case and elevate the entire record thereof to the Supreme Court for review. (13a)
*see rule 51 Sec 3 as reference
Rule 122, Sec 3

Rule 124, Sec 13
New Rules on Appeal
People v Mateo:
In cases punished by [death]/RP/LI, you no longer file an appeal to the SC, you
now file an INTERMEDIATE REVIEW to the CA.
By virtue of the amendment:
o When the penalty is lower than RP or LI, file a petition for review on
certiorari under R45 to the SC.
o BUT, if the penalty is RP, LI or lesser penalty, you dont file a petition
for review on certiorari, but you file NOA to the CA (you can now file an
appeal, akin to R41, which is an ordinary appeal, to appeal the decisions of
the CA to the SC).
*there is no automatic review in cases punished by RP or LI
When a private complainant may appeal in the civil aspect of the case
Manantan v CA, 350 SCRA 387
ISSUES:
(1) Did the acquittal of petitioner foreclose any further inquiry by the Court of
Appeals as to his negligence or reckless imprudence?
(2) Did the appellate court commit a reversible error in failing to apply the
Manchester doctrine to CA-G.R. CV No. 19240?
HELD:
(1)
Petitioners claim that the decision of the appellate court awarding
indemnity placed him in double jeopardy is misplaced. When a person is
charged with an offense and the case is terminated either by acquittal or
conviction or in any other manner without the consent of the accused, the
latter cannot again be charged with the same or identical offense.
For double jeopardy to exist, the following elements must be established:
(a) a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second;
(b) the first jeopardy must have terminated; and
|Page 71 of 75

(c) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as the first.
In the instant case, petitioner had once been placed in jeopardy by the filing
of Criminal Case No. 066 and the jeopardy was terminated by his discharge.
The judgment of acquittal became immediately final. Note, however, that
what was elevated to the Court of Appeals by private respondents was the
civil aspect of Criminal Case No. 066. Petitioner was not charged anew in CAG.R. CV No. 19240 with a second criminal offense identical to the first
offense. The records clearly show that no second criminal offense was being
imputed to petitioner on appeal. In modifying the lower courts judgment, the
appellate court did not modify the judgment of acquittal. Nor did it order the
filing of a second criminal case against petitioner for the same offense.
Obviously, therefore, there was no second jeopardy to speak of.
Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different effects on the civil
liability of the accused. First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is
not the author of the act or omission complained of. This instance closes the
door to civil liability, for a person who has been found to be not the
perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and can never be held liable for
such act or omission. There being no delict, civil liability ex delicto is out of
the question, and the civil action, if any, which may be instituted must be
based on grounds other than the delict complained of. This is the situation
contemplated in Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. The second instance is an
acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this case,
even if the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily established, he is
not exempt from civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of
evidence only. This is the situation contemplated in Article 29 of the Civil
Code, where the civil action for damages is for the same act or omission.
Although the two actions have different purposes, the matters discussed in
the civil case are similar to those discussed in the criminal case. However, the
judgment in the criminal proceeding cannot be read in evidence in the civil
action to establish any fact there determined, even though both actions
involve the same act or omission.The reason for this rule is that the parties
are not the same and secondarily, different rules of evidence are applicable.
Hence, notwithstanding herein petitioners acquittal, the Court of Appeals in
determining whether Article 29 applied, was not precluded from looking into
the question of petitioners negligence or reckless imprudence.
(2)
At the time of the filing of the information in 1983, the implied institution
of civil actions with criminal actions was governed by Rule 111, Section 1 of
the 1964 Rules of Court.It was not required that the damages sought by the
offended party be stated in the complaint or information. With the adoption of
the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the amendment of Rule 111,
Section 1 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure by a resolution of this Court
dated July 7, 1988, it is now required that: When the offended party seeks to
enforce civil liability against the accused by way of moral, nominal, temperate
or exemplary damages, the filing fees for such civil action as provided in these
Rules shall constitute a first lien on the judgment except in an award for
|Page 72 of 75

actual damages. In cases wherein the amount of damages, other than actual,
is alleged in the complaint or information, the corresponding filing fees shall
be paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court for trial.The
foregoing were the applicable provisions of the Rules of Criminal Procedure at
the time private respondents appealed the civil aspect of Criminal Case No.
066 to the court a quo in 1989. Being in the nature of a curative statute, the
amendment applies retroactively and affects pending actions as in this case.
Thus, where the civil action is impliedly instituted together with the criminal
action, the actual damages claimed by the offended parties, as in this case, are
not included in the computation of the filing fees. Filing fees are to be paid
only if other items of damages such as moral, nominal, temperate, or
exemplary damages are alleged in the complaint or information, or if they are
not so alleged, shall constitute a first lien on the judgment. Recall that the
information in Criminal Case No. 066 contained no specific allegations of
damages. Considering that the Rules of Criminal Procedure effectively
guarantee that the filing fees for the award of damages are a first lien on the
judgment, the effect of the enforcement of said lien must retroact to the
institution of the criminal action. The filing fees are deemed paid from the
filing of the criminal complaint or information.
On Rule 122 Sec 3 and Rule 124 Sect 13.
AM 00-5-03-SC, Effective October 15, 2004
GR: appeal to the SC by petition for review on Certiorari via R45
EXCEPT: if the CA imposes RP, LI or a lesser penalty, it shall enter/render judgment.
Judgment may be appealed to the SC by filing a NOA to the CA.
Sec. 14. Motion for new trial. At any time after the appeal from the lower
court has been perfected and before the judgment of the Court of Appeals
convicting the appellant becomes final, the latter may move for a new trial on
the ground of newly-discovered evidence material to his defense. The motion
shall conform with the provisions of section 4, Rule 121. (14a)
cf Rule 121, Sec. 4
Requisites for MNT before the CA
1. after the appeal from the lower court has been perfected and before the
conviction by the CA becomes final
2. upon motion of the accused
3. on the ground of newly-discovered evidence material to his defense
de Leon: Note that the CA may not grant new trial motu proprio even if
with consent of the accused, unlike in the lower courts.
*Before the amendment, the MNT is limited to NDE. Now, theres no limit. The
CA is free to hear any case.
Sec. 15. Where new trial conducted. When a new trial is granted, the CA may
conduct the hearing and receive evidence or
|Page 73 of 75

refer the trial to the court of origin.
Sec. 16. Reconsideration.
MR, shall be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision or final order of
the Court of Appeals with copies thereof served upon the adverse party, setting forth
the grounds in support thereof.
The mittimus shall be stayed during the pendency of the motion for reconsideration.
No party shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment
or final order. (16a)
*Hearing not always required

*Grant of MRCA renders an amended decision
Sec. 17. Judgment transmitted and filed in trial court. When the entry of
judgment of the Court of Appeals is issued, a certified true copy of the judgment shall
be attached to the original record which shall be remanded to the clerk of the court
from which the appeal was taken. (17a)
Sec. 18. Application of certain rules in civil procedure to criminal cases. The
provisions of Rules 42, 44 to 46 and 48 to 56 relating to procedure in the Court of
Appeals and in the Supreme Court in original and appealed civil cases shall be applied
to criminal cases insofar as they are applicable and not inconsistent with the provision
of this Rule. (18a)
44, forms
filing of briefs, under R41
except under Sec 10: you file a memoranda within a non-extendible period of
30D when filing for a petition for CPM, quo warranto and habeas corpus;
failure of appellant to file a memorandum within the period therefore may be
a ground for dismissal of the appeal.
Procedure in the Supreme Court
Rule 125
(Sections 1-3)
Sec. 1. Uniform Procedure. Unless otherwise provided by the Constitution or by

law, the procedure in the Supreme Court in original and in appealed cases shall be the
same as in the Court of Appeals. (1a)
Sec. 2. Review of decisions of the Court of Appeals. The procedure for the
review by the Supreme Court of decisions in criminal cases rendered by the Court of
Appeals shall be the same as in civil cases. (2a)

|Page 74 of 75

Sec. 3. Decision if opinion is equally divided. When the Supreme Court en
banc is equally divided in opinion or the necessary majority cannot be had on whether
to acquit the appellant, the case shall again be deliberated upon and if no decision is
reached after re-deliberation, the judgment of conviction of lower court shall be
reversed and the accused acquitted. (3a)

|Page 75 of 75

Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

Justice Magdangal de Leon

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

Rule 65 Petition for

Nunez vs. GSIS Family Bank (475 SCRA 305)

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

Rule 65 Petition for

Categorizing petition to be both under Rule 65 and Rule 45

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

Merits an outright dismissal

Only questions of law may be raised

Ordinarily, the determination of whether an appeal involves only questions

In a motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action, the issue if passed

LIPANA. MORALES. NOGRALES. PEREZ. ROSALES. UY. VARON.

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

Dismissing a complaint based on failure to state a cause of action

SCs Choice: dismiss for being the wrong remedy or remand to CA

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

LIPANA. MORALES. NOGRALES. PEREZ. ROSALES. UY. VARON.

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

Does not matter if partys title is questionable; complete determination of rights

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

LIPANA. MORALES. NOGRALES. PEREZ. ROSALES. UY. VARON.

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

DISTINCTION BETWEEN ERROR OF JURISDICTION AND ERROR OF

LIPANA. MORALES. NOGRALES. PEREZ. ROSALES. UY. VARON.

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

Banco Filipino vs. Court of Appeals

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

LIPANA. MORALES. NOGRALES. PEREZ. ROSALES. UY. VARON.

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

LIPANA. MORALES. NOGRALES. PEREZ. ROSALES. UY. VARON.

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

LIPANA. MORALES. NOGRALES. PEREZ. ROSALES. UY. VARON.

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

LIPANA. MORALES. NOGRALES. PEREZ. ROSALES. UY. VARON.

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

WHEN AND WHERE PETITION FILED (SEC. 4, AS AMENDED)

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

LIPANA. MORALES. NOGRALES. PEREZ. ROSALES. UY. VARON.

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

The costs awarded in such proceedings in favor of the petitioner shall be

If the case is elevated to a higher court by either party, public respondents

ORDER TO COMMENT (SEC.6)

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

o Require the parties to submit memoranda

LIPANA. MORALES. NOGRALES. PEREZ. ROSALES. UY. VARON.

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

Grounds and nature ( 1 & 2)

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

LIPANA. MORALES. NOGRALES. PEREZ. ROSALES. UY. VARON.

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

Time for filing ( 3)

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

LIPANA. MORALES. NOGRALES. PEREZ. ROSALES. UY. VARON.

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)