You are on page 1of 2

ST. PETER MEMORIAL PARK, INC. vs. HON. JOSE C. CAMPOS, JR.

and/or CFI OF
RIZAL, REGINO CLEOFAS, and LUCIA DE LA CRUZ
BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS & MORTGAGE BANK vs. HON. JOSE CAMPOS,
REGINO CLEOFAS and LUCIA DE LA CRUZ
No. L-38280. March 21, 1975; No. L-39905 March 21, 1975
Natur ORIGINAL PETITION in the Supreme Court.
e:
Ponen FERNANDEZ, J.
te:
Facts: Regino Cleofas and Lucia de la Cruz filed suit against St. Peter, Banco
Filipino and others. In their complaint, the spouses prayed that they be
declared the rightful owners of Lot No. 719 of the Piedad Estate, that the
mortgages in favor of Banco Filipino and the NIDC be declared null and
void; and that the Memorial Park be ordered to pay plaintiffs damages.
Lower court rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiffs. The Memorial
Park and Banco Filipino, filed their joint motion for reconsideration of the
decision and later for a new trial. Trial court denied new trial.
The motion for new trial is based on newly discovered evidence. It alleges
that there were discrepancies on the lot being contested and that it should
have been Lot No. 640 and not Lot No. 719 based on the decision given.
Memorial Park filed before this Court a petition for certiorari and
prohibition with preliminary injunction, seeking annulment of the courts
order denying new trial, because the same was issued in grave abuse of
discretion.
Banco Filipino, for its part, filed in this Court a petition for certiorari and
mandamus with preliminary injunction against the trial judge and the
spouses Cleofas and Dela Cruz, to annul the trial courts order dismissing
its own appeal.
Issue: 1. Whether certiorari is the proper remedy even if ordinary appeal is
available to St. Peter
2. Whether the Judge commit grave abuse of discretion and/or excess of
jurisdiction when he denied the motion for new trial
Held: YES to both. Petition is granted
Ratio: 1. The general rule is that the extra-ordinary writ of certiorari is not proper
when ordinary appeal is available. The writ is granted in cases where it is
shown that appeal would be inadequate, slow, insufficient and will not
promptly relieve petitioner from the injurious effects of the order
complained of.
2. This rule for the granting of a motion for new trial, as all other rules of
procedure, should be liberally construed to assist the parties in obtaining a
just and speedy determination of their rights. Court litigations are
primarily for the search of truth, and a liberal interpretation of the rules by
which both parties are given the fullest opportunity to adduce proofs is the
best way to find out such truth. The dispensation of justice and vindication
of legitimate grievances should not be barred by technicalities.
We do not by any means intend to prejudge the effect of such evidence on
the outcome of the case. We are confining ourselves to the conclusion that
the evidence intended to be submitted, would probably alter the result.
We hold that respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in
denying the motion for new trial, having disregarded in a capricious and
arbitrary manner, the newly discovered evidence

You might also like