Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 782 , September 05, 1997
1. Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, Chairman of the Committee, suggested that x x x there may be instances where it is very plain that the evidence is
insufficient, but there are also instances where the court is in doubt x x x x it
is the court that will now determine whether a demurrer should be filed or
not after getting the opinion of both sides x x x x If the accused asks for
leave of court and the court supports it, it is good; but x x x if it finds the
motion dilatory, then it denies it. But x x x there should be no waiver if the
demurrer is with leave of court, because there may be a situation where the
court itself may want to dismiss the case x x x x If leave is denied, and the
accused still files the demurrer, then there is waiver (underscoring supplied).
The Committee finally approved the following propositions of the Chief
Justice: (a) The court on its initiative can dismiss the case after giving prior
notice to the prosecution; (b) The accused can file a demurrer only if he is
granted prior leave of court; (c) If the motion for leave or the demurrer is
denied, the accused can present his evidence, and there is no waiver; and,
(d) If the accused files a demurrer without leave, his right to present
evidence is waived.
2. In fine, under the new rule on demurrer to evidence the accused has the
right to file a demurrer to evidence after the prosecution has rested its case.
If the accused obtained prior leave of court before filing his demurrer, he can
still present evidence if his demurrer is denied. However, if he demurs
without prior leave of court, or after his motion for leave is denied, he waives
his right to present evidence and submits the case for decision on the basis
of the evidence for the prosecution. This power to grant leave to the accused
to file a demurrer is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. The
purpose is to determine whether the accused in filing his demurrer is merely
stalling the proceedings.
3. In the case at bar, petitioner admits that in the hearing of 20 May 1994 the
trial court denied her motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence. In such
case, the only right petitioner has under Sec. 15, Rule 119, of the Rules of
Court after having been denied leave to submit a demurrer is to adduce
evidence in her defense. However, even without express leave of the trial
court, nay, after her motion for leave was denied, petitioner insisted on filing
a demurrer instead of presenting evidence in her defense.
4. Judicial action to grant prior leave to file demurrer to evidence is
discretionary upon the trial court. But to allow the accused to present
evidence after he was denied prior leave to file demurrer is not discretionary.
Once prior leave is denied and the accused still files his demurrer to
evidence or motion to dismiss, the court no longer has discretion to allow the
accused to present evidence. The only recourse left for the court is to decide
the case on the basis of the evidence presented by the prosecution. And,
unless there is grave abuse thereof amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, which is not present in the instant case, the trial courts denial of
aspect, for if the evidence so far presented is not insufficient to prove the
crime beyond reasonable doubt, then the same evidence is likewise not
insufficient to establish civil liability by mere preponderance of evidence.
Mendezona vs. Ozamiz, 376 SCRA 482 , February 06, 2002
1. Actions; New Trial; Newly Discovered Evidence; Requisites.We shall first rule on the issue of whether to consider the testimony of Judge
Durias as newly discovered evidence. A motion for new trial upon the ground
of newly discovered evidence is properly granted only where there is
concurrence of the following requisites, namely: (a) the evidence had been
discovered after trial; (b) the evidence could not have been discovered and
produced during trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; and (c)
the evidence is material and not merely corroborative, cumulative or
impeaching and is of such weight that if admitted, would probably alter the
result. All three (3) requisites must characterize the evidence sought to be
introduced at the new trial.
2. Appeals; If there is a showing that the appellate courts findings of facts
complained of are totally devoid of support in the record or that they are so
glaringly erroneous as to constitute grave abuse of discretion, the Supreme
Court must discard such erroneous findings of facts.Factual findings of the appellate court are generally conclusive on this Court
which is not a trier of facts. It is not the function of the Supreme Court to
analyze or weigh evidence all over again. However, this rule is not without
exception. If there is a showing that the appellate courts findings of facts
complained of are totally devoid of support in the record or that they are so
glaringly erroneous as to constitute grave abuse of discretion, this Court
must discard such erroneous findings of facts. We find that the exception
applies in the case at bench.
Mesina vs. Meer, 383 SCRA 625 , July 02, 2002
1. Actions; Judgments; Relief from Judgment; Relief from judgment is an
equitable remedy and is allowed only under exceptional circumstances and
only if fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence is present.Relief from judgment is an equitable remedy and is allowed only under
exceptional circumstances and only if fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
negligence is present. Where the defendant has other available or adequate
remedy such as a motion for new trial or appeal from the adverse decision,
he cannot avail himself of this remedy.
2. Actions; Judgments; Relief from Judgment; The petition for relief must be
filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, and
should be filed with the same court which rendered the decision.Under the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition for relief must
be filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment,
finding of the MeTC, and the Court of Appeals sustained this reversal,
petitioners made no effort to bring this issue for consideration. This Court will
not allow petitioners, in guise of equity, to benefit from their own negligence.
6. Actions; Judgments; Relief from Judgment; Attorneys; It is a settled rule that
relief will 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 a mistaken mode of procedure; In exceptional cases, when the
mistake of counsel is so palpable that it amounts to gross negligence, the
Supreme Court affords a party a second opportunity to vindicate his right.Finally, it is a settled rule that relief will 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 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 mistaken mode of procedure by counsel. Petitioners, however,
place the blame on their counsel and invoke honest mistake of law. They
contend that they lack legal education, hence, were not aware of the
required period for filing an appeal. In exceptional cases, when the mistake
of counsel is so palpable that it amounts to gross negligence, this Court
affords a party a second opportunity to vindicate his right. But this
opportunity is unavailing in the instant case, especially since petitioners
have squandered the various opportunities available to them at the different
stages of this case. Public interest demands an end to every litigation and a
belated effort to reopen a case that has already attained finality will serve no
purpose other than to delay the administration of justice.
Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, 336 SCRA 475 , July 27, 2000
1. Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Summary Judgments; Words and Phrases.A summary judgment is one granted upon motion by a party for an
expeditious settlement of the case, there appearing from the pleadings,
depositions, admissions, and affidavits that there are no important questions
or issues of fact posed (except as to the amount of damages) and therefore,
the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
2. Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Summary Judgments; Upon a motion for
summary judgment, the sole function of the court is to determine whether or
not there is an issue of fact to be tried, and any doubt as to the existence of
an issue of fact must be resolved against the movantcourts are quite
critical of the papers presented by the moving party but not of the papers in
opposition thereto; If the defense relied upon by the defendant is legally
sufficient and does not appear patently sham, the motion for summary
judgment should be denied.The aforecited rule does not vest in the trial court jurisdiction to summarily
try the issues on depositions and affidavits but gives it limited authority to
render summary judgment only when there is no genuine issue of material
fact at bar. Upon a motion for summary judgment, the sole function of the
aside, and not more than six [6] months after such judgment or final order
was entered, or such proceeding was taken). And the rule is that the
reglementary period is reckoned from the time the partys counsel receives
notice of the decision for notice to counsel of the decision is notice to the
party for purposes of Section 3 of Rule 38.
2. Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Relief from Judgment; Failure of a partys
counsel to notify him on time of the adverse judgment to enable him to
appeal therefrom is negligence which is not excusable.This Court has consistently held that the failure of a partys counsel to notify
him on time of the adverse judgment to enable him to appeal therefrom is
negligence, which is not excusable. However, notice sent to counsel of
record is binding upon the client and the neglect or failure of counsel to
inform him of an adverse judgment resulting in the loss of his right to appeal
is not a ground for setting aside a judgment valid and regular on its face.
3. Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Relief from Judgment; Relief will not be
granted to a party who seeks avoidance from the effects of the judgment
when the loss of remedy at law was due to his own negligence.We are not persuaded by the YEES claim that they were denied due process
inasmuch as they were not denied their day in court. In fact, they were able
to prosecute their action and actively participated through counsel in the
proceedings before the lower court. Their failure to file an appeal from the
decision rendering it final and executory is not a denial of due process. They
may have lost their right to appeal but they were not denied their day in
court. The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process; it is
merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in
accordance with the provisions of the law. In the same manner, the YEES
failure to file their petition for relief within the period provided for under the
Rules is not tantamount to a denial of due process. x x x Relief will not be
granted to a party who seeks avoidance from the effects of the judgment
when the loss of remedy at law was due to his own negligence; otherwise the
petition for relief can be used to revive the right to appeal which had been
lost though inexcusable negligence.