Professional Documents
Culture Documents
VISTAN
PART EIGHT: REMEDIES FOR AN ADVERSE JUDGMENT
new trial or reconsideration shall be allowed. A pro forma motion for new trial or
reconsideration shall not toll the reglementary
Sec 1, Rule 52 (Motion for Reconsideration). period of appeal.
Period for Filing.
A party may file a motion for reconsideration of a MOTION
judgment or final resolution within fifteen (15) (1) In writing
days from notice thereof, with proof of service on (2) Stating the ground/s
the adverse party. (3) A written notice of which shall be served by
movant on adverse party
2
C2018 REVIEWER CIVIL PROCEDURE PROF. VISTAN
PART EIGHT: REMEDIES FOR AN ADVERSE JUDGMENT
finds that excessive damages have been awarded within the time herein provided excluding the
or that the judgment or final order is contrary to time during which the first motion had been
the evidence or law, it may amend such judgment pending.
or final order accordingly.
No party shall be allowed a second motion for
COURT OF APPEALS SHALL CONSIDER reconsideration of a judgment or final order.
EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT TC AND
a) May grant new trial Sec 2, Rule 52. Second motion for
b) Refuse a new trial reconsideration.
c) Make such order, with notice to both No second motion for reconsideration of a
parties, as to the taking of further judgment or final resolution by the same party
testimony either orally in court or by shall be entertained.
deposition
d) Render such other judgment as ought to GENERAL RULE: No second motion for
be rendered upon such terms as it may reconsideration shall be entertained
deem just
EXCEPTION: In cases before the SC
Ground: higher interest of justice granted by
v. Period of Resolution the Court en banc upon vote of at least 2/3 of
Sec 4, Rule 37. Resolution on Motion. its actual membership (Sec. 3, Rule 15,
A motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be Internal Rules of the SC)
resolved within thirty (30) days from the time it is
submitted for resolution. There is reconsideration “in the higher interest of
justice” when the assailed decision is not only
Sec 3, Rule 52. Resolution on Motion. legally erroneous, but is likewise patently unjust
In the Court of Appeals, a motion for and potentially capable of causing unwarranted
reconsideration shall be resolved within ninety and irremediable injury or damage to the parties;
(90) days from the date when the court declares it Can only be entertained before the ruling by
submitted for resolution. operation of law or by the Court’s declaration.
3
C2018 REVIEWER CIVIL PROCEDURE PROF. VISTAN
PART EIGHT: REMEDIES FOR AN ADVERSE JUDGMENT
stand for trial de novo; but the recorded (c) Eighteen (18) clearly legible copies of the
evidence taken upon the former trial, insofar as petition shall be filed, together with proof
the same is material and competent to establish of service on all adverse parties.
the issues, shall be used at the new trial without
retaking the same. The proceedings for disciplinary action against
members of the judiciary shall be governed by
Sec 8, Rule 37. Effect of order for partial the laws and Rules prescribed therefor, and those
new trial. against attorneys by Rules 139B, as amended.
When less than all of the issues are ordered
retried, the court may either enter a judgment or The applicable provision of the 1987 Constitution
final order as to the rest, or stay the enforcement are Sections 4, 5, 13, 14 and 15 of Article VIII.
of such judgment or final order until after the new [Feria]
trial.
Sec 4, Rule 56. Procedure.
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL TAKES The appeal shall be governed by and disposed of
PRECEDENCE OVER AN APPEAL FROM A in accordance with the applicable provisions of
the
DECISION
Constitution, laws, Rules 45, 48, sections 1, 2,
Where one party files a motion for new trial or
and 5 to 11 of Rule 51, 52 and this Rule.
reconsideration and the other party seeks to
perfect an appeal from the said decision, the
court should withhold action on the appeal until
after the motion for new trial or reconsideration 354 PNB v. Paneda
shall have been resolved. (Simsion v Belmonte) (February 14, 2007, Austria-Martinez, J.)
Facts: RTC ruled against PNB, and ordered it to
ix. Remedy when motion is denied pay its co-defendant in a third-party complaint
filed against the bank. PNB filed a Motion for
Sec 9, Rule 37. Remedy against order
New Trial and Reconsideration. CA dismissed the
denying a motion for new trial or
Motion for being pro forma.
reconsideration.
An order denying a motion for new trial or Held: SC ruled that the Motion for New Trial is
reconsideration is not appealed, the remedy pro forma, because no new evidence was
being an appeal from the judgment or final order. presented. But the Motion for Reconsideration
was not pro forma. Mere reiteration of arguments
REMEDY: Appeal from the judgment or final does not mean pro forma, because the purpose
order of MR is to make the court reconsider an
allegedly erroneous ruling. Court also listed down
RULES APPLICABLE
Sec 2, Rule 56. Rules Applicable. Doctrine: Mere reiteration of arguments does not
The procedure in original cases for certiorari, mean pro forma, because the purpose of MR is to
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and make the court reconsider an allegedly erroneous
habeas corpus shall be in accordance with the ruling.
applicable provisions of the Constitution, laws,
and Rules 46, 48, 49, 51, 52 and this Rule, subject Instances where Motion is pro forma:
to the following provisions: 1. it is a second MR;
(a) All references in said Rules to the Court of 2. it did not comply with the rule that the
Appeals shall be understood to also apply motion must specify the findings and
to the Supreme Court; conclusions alleged to be contrary to law
(b) The portions of said Rules dealing strictly and evidence;
with and specifically intended for appealed 3. it failed to substantiate the alleged errors;
cases in the Court of Appeals shall not be 4. it merely alleged that the decision was
applicable; and contrary to law;
4
C2018 REVIEWER CIVIL PROCEDURE PROF. VISTAN
PART EIGHT: REMEDIES FOR AN ADVERSE JUDGMENT
5. the adverse party was not given notice of the prospective defense of the defendant and it is
motion. sworn to by said defendant, neither a formal
verification nor a separate affidavit or merit is
355 Republic v. Asuncion necessary.
(Sept 15, 2006, Carpio, J.)
Facts: Petition for Review of the CA Decision Doctrine: The allegation contained in an affidavit
denying PET’s MR re the RTC order declaring of merit required to be attached to a motion to
PET’s MR pro forma, and the subsequent order lift an order of default or for a new trial need not
dismissing the notice of appeal. be embodied in a separate document but may
The SolGen files for an MR regarding a land incorporated in the petition itself.
registration case, but the CA denies the same,
ruling that the former is in fact asking for a new 358 Pantig v. Baltazar
trial. (December 3, 1990, Ponente)
Facts:
Held: The Court disagrees, as the ground in the
MR is not a ground for a motion for new trial. Held:
356 Yap v. Tañada Held: The Court held that Sec. 5, Rule 135 does
(July 18, 1988, Ponente) not contemplate amendments that are substantial
Facts: in nature. They merely cover formal changes or
such that will not affect the crux of the decision,
Held: like the correction of typographical or clerical
errors.
Doctrine:
Doctrine: Courts will violate due process if they
357 Capuz v. CA make substantial amendments in their decisions
(June 27, 1994, Quaison, J.) without affording the other party the right to
Facts: PET received (on the same day) an Order contest the new evidence presented in a motion
declaring him in default and a Decision holding for reconsideration.
him liable in case for sum of money filed by
PRESP. Instead of appealing, PET filed a verified 360 Acampado v. Sps Cosmilla
motion to lift the order of default, which the RTC (September 28, 2015, Perez, J.)
denied. PET filed a petition for certiorari under Facts: MR filed without notice to other party, and
Rule 65 contending that his verified motion without opportunity for other party to examine
should be considered as a motion for new trial. and meaningfully oppose the motion.
CA dismissed but the SC reversed and remanded
the case back to the RTC. Held: TC correct in denying MR for failure to
meet the requirements of the Rule. Adverse party
Held: SC reversed and remanded the case back had a right to resist the motion it might result in
to the RTC. When a motion to lift an order of the reversal of a previous favorable decision.
default contains the reasons for the failure to
answer as well as the facts constituting the Doctrine: A Motion for Reconsideration is a
5
C2018 REVIEWER CIVIL PROCEDURE PROF. VISTAN
PART EIGHT: REMEDIES FOR AN ADVERSE JUDGMENT
litigated motion, the admission of which affects Moreover, petitioner’s claim that the requirement
the right of the adverse party. did not apply to the MR since the RTC was acting
only in its appellate jurisdiction is without merit.
361 National Commercial Bank of Saudi The Rules of Court apply to ALL courts. And RTCs
Arabia v. CA are not precluded from conducting hearings,
(January 31, 2003, Carpio-Morales, J.) even in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
Facts: NCBSA filed a case against PBC for
Doctrine: Notice of hearing is mandatory. If not
recovery of the alleged double payment of the
religiously complied with, they render the motion
proceeds of a letter of credit. RTC ruled in favor
pro forma. As such the motion is a useless piece
of NCBSA. PBC filed and MR but the motion did
of paper that will not toll the running of the
not contain a notice of hearing. RTC did not act
prescriptive period.
on the MR for lack of notice and ordered the
striking of he same from the records. CA reversed
and directed RTC to resolve the PBC’s MR. 363 Gonzales v. People
(October 29, 2002, Ponente)
Held: The CA erred in ordering the MR because Facts:
1. the lack of notice was fatal
2. even if procedural rule is relaxed, the MR Held:
still will not prosper, it being a pro forma:
a mere reiteration of reasons and Doctrine:
arguments raised before the RTC for the
dismissal of NCBSA’a complaint, which 364 Obando v. CA
reasons and arguments has already been (October 5, 2001, Ynares-Santiago)
considered and resolved against it on the Facts: Felizardo and Eduardo were co-
merits by the RTC administrators in the probate proceedings.
Felizardo was subsequently removed as an
Doctrine: Requirement of notice of under administrator he was convicted of falsification of
Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 in connection with the said will. He filed 3 MRs, all of which were
Section 2, Rule 37 is mandatory. Absence of a denied. He then filed a Notice of Appeal but the
notice of hearing is fatal. But assuming that PBC probate court dismissed the same for filing out of
had presented exceptional reason for its failure to time.
comply with the notice requirement, the MR
would still be denied on the ground that it is pro Held: SC held that a 2nd MR is prohibited and
forma. that the running of the reglementary period for
the appeal.
362 Casalla v. People
(October 29, 2002, Quisumbing) Doctrine: ROC explicitly states that a 2nd MR
Facts: Casalla was convicted in the MTC for shall not be allowed. The period to appeal begins
violation of BP 22. RTC affirmed. Casalla’s MR in to run from denial of the 1st MR.
the RTC was denied for lack of notice of hearing.
2nd MR was likewise denied. CA dismissed the B. APPEAL
petition for review interposed by Casalla for
being filed out of time. Codal provisions to be discussed in PART IX
Held: CA did not err in dismissing the petition. 365 Heirs of Garcia v. Municipality of Iba,
Casalla’s appeal was filed out of time. The MR
Zambales
did not contain a notice of hearing, hence it is
(July 22, 2015, Ponente)
mere scrap of paper and did not interrupt the
Facts:
filing period for filing a petition before the CA.
The defect was not cured by the filing of the 2nd
Held:
MR, which is prohibited under the Rules.
6
C2018 REVIEWER CIVIL PROCEDURE PROF. VISTAN
PART EIGHT: REMEDIES FOR AN ADVERSE JUDGMENT
against him.
Doctrine:
Neypes, et al. filed a notice of appeal, which was the assailed RTC decision, and the Motion was
denied for supposedly being filed 8 days late. considered a mere scrap of paper for not having
Neypes, et al. then filed a petition for certiorari a proper notice of hearing.
and mandamus under Rule 65, arguing that upon
denial of the MR, they had a fresh 15- day period C. RELIEF FROM JUDGMENTS,
to file the notice of appeal.
ORDERS OR OTHER
PROCEEDINGS
Held: SC granted. i. Grounds
• Fraud;
Doctrine: To standardize the appeal periods • Accident;
provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair
• M istake; or
opportunity to appeal their cases, the Court
• Excusable negligence
deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15
days within which to file the notice of appeal in
the RTC, counted from receipt of the order M ISTAKE
dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for Refers to mistake of fact, not of law, which relates
reconsideration. to the case
This “fresh period rule” shall also apply to Rule
40 (appeals from MTC to RTC); Rule 42 (petitions FRAUD
for review from RTC to CA); Rule 43 (appeals Must be extrinsic or collateral, that is, the kind
from quasi-judicial agencies to CA) and Rule 45 which prevented the aggrieved party from having
(appeals by certiorari to SC). The new rule aims to a trial or presenting his case to the court, or was
regiment or make the appeal period uniform, to used to procure the judgment without fair
be counted from receipt of the order denying the submission of the controversy
motion for new trial, motion for reconsideration
(whether full or partial) or any final order or EXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE
resolution. One which ordinary diligence and prudence
could not have guarded against
371 Fajardo v. CA
(March 20, 2001, Puno) Must be generally imputable to the party not to
Facts: RESP sued PET for unpaid legal fees. RTC the counsel
ordered PET to pay. RESP filed a Motion for
Correction of Judgment. PET filed a Notice of ii. Petition for relief from judgment,
Appeal, but said notice was denied for being final order or other proceeding
premature due to the pendency of the Motion. Sec 1, Rule 38. Petition for relief from
RTC amended the original decision, still ordering judgment, order, or other proceedings.
PET to pay RESP. RESP prayed for and was
When a judgment or final order is entered, or any
granted writ of execution of judgment. PET filed
other proceeding is thereafter taken against a
a petition for certiorari before the CA, which
party in any court through fraud, accident,
affirmed the RTC.
mistake, or excusable negligence, he may file a
petition in such court and in the same case
Held: SC held that FAJARDO’s Notice of Appeal
praying that the judgment, order or proceeding
was timely filed. The 15-day period is counted
be set aside.
not from the receipt of a certain GLORIA
FAJARDO in PET’s address on Dec 15, 1997, but
WHEN TO FILE: When a judgment, final order is
from the receipt by FAJARDO’s counsel on
entered, or any other proceeding is taken against
January 19, 1998. Notice of Appeal was filed on
a party in any court through F.A.M.E
February 3, 1998.
WHERE TO FILE: In such court and in the same
Doctrine: Filing of said notice tolled the finality of
case
8
C2018 REVIEWER CIVIL PROCEDURE PROF. VISTAN
PART EIGHT: REMEDIES FOR AN ADVERSE JUDGMENT
9
C2018 REVIEWER CIVIL PROCEDURE PROF. VISTAN
PART EIGHT: REMEDIES FOR AN ADVERSE JUDGMENT
• Relief sought may be the staying of on time of the adverse judgment to enable him
immediate execution despite failure to to appeal therefrom is negligence which is not
pay or deposit the rents due to FAME excusable. Notice sent to counsel of record is
binding upon the client and the neglect or failure
NATURE OF ORDER of counsel to inform him of an adverse judgment
GRANTING/DENYING RELIEF UNDER resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not a
RULE 38 ground for setting aside a judgment valid and
• Denying relief: Final and appealable regular on its face.
• Granting relief: Interlocutory and not
immediately appealable. Certiorari lies if 373 Madarang v. Sps Morales
there is GAD. (July 22, 2015, Leonen, J.)
Facts: PETs failed to file its Notice of Appeal on
ix. Procedure when denial of appeal is time making the judgment on the foreclosure of
the mortgage final. They file a petition for relief
set aside
from judgment but TC and CA both hold that it
Sec 7, Rule 38. Procedure where the denial was filed beyond the reglementary period of 60
of an appeal is set aside. days from day petitioner learns of the judgment,
Where the denial of an appeal is set aside, the final order or proceeding, and within 6 months
lower court shall be required to give due course from finality of the judgment or order.
to the appeal and to elevate the record of the
appealed case as if a timely and proper appeal Held: Failure of PET’s counsel to file Notice of
had been made. Appeal was not excusable negligence (reason
relied upon was old age). CA correctly denied the
x. Courts where available petition for certiorari for failure to file an MR.
• Old rule: Petition for relief from judgment
of a municipal court may be filed in the Doctrine: Rule 38, Section 3 is clear that the 60-
RTC of the place where the original day period must be counted after petitioner
judgment was rendered. learns of the judgment or final order. The period
• Present rule: Such petition may be filed in counted from the finality of judgment or final
the same court which rendered the order is the six-month period. The double
judgment and in the same case. This is in period required is jurisdictional and should be
accordance with the uniform procedure strictly complied with. A petition for relief from
rule for municipal and regional trial judgment filed beyond the reglementary period
courts. is dismissed outright. The period must be taken
as ‘absolutely fixed, inextendible, never
372 Tuason v. CA interrupted and cannot be subjected to any
condition or contingency.
(April 10, 1996, Puno)
Facts: RTC granted the annulment filed by
Victoria against Emilio on the ground of
374 City of Dagupan v. Maramba
psychological incapacity. Emilio failed to appear (July 2, 2014, Ponente)
during the hearing, as well as to subsequently Facts: Maramba leased a parcel of land from City
appeal due to his lack of notice. Thus, the of Dagupan where a commercial fishing center
decision became final. Emilio filed a petition for was later built. The City demolished the
relief from the said judgment but the RTC denied improvement, prompting Maramba to file for
it. CA likewise denied his appeal. damages. The RTC awarded P11M in favor of
Maramba, though Maramba’s complaint was
Held: SC, agreeing with the lower courts, said fraught with handwritten intercalation that
that the negligence committed by Emilio was not resulted in jacking up the price to said award.
excusable under Rule 38. The City’s MR was denied for lack of notice of
hearing. Since the MR is now a mere scrap of
Doctrine: The failure of counsel to notify a party paper, the appeal period was not stalled by the
11
C2018 REVIEWER CIVIL PROCEDURE PROF. VISTAN
PART EIGHT: REMEDIES FOR AN ADVERSE JUDGMENT
filing of MR and the decision has attained finality. reason of which rights of aggrieved party have
The City blames its counsel, City Legal Counsel, probably been impaired. The test is: WON a
for the formal but fatal defect. It argues that the party has acted with ordinary prudence while
merit of City’s case nevertheless exhibits extrinsic transacting important business.
fraud for which R 38 Petition for Relief should be
granted in favor of the City. 376 Sps Regalado v. Regalado
(February 28, 2006, Ponente.)
Held: Petition for Relief should be granted. The Facts:
gross disparity between the award of actual
damages and the amount actually proved during Held:
the trial, the magnitude of the award, the nature
of the “mistake” made, and that such negligence Doctrine:
did not personally affect the legal officer of the
city all contributed to a conclusion that the
377 Purcon v. MRM Philippines
mistake or negligence committed by counsel
(September 26, 2008, Reyes, R.T., J)
bordered on extrinsic fraud.
Facts: Purcon was hired as a seaman but was
repatriated as he was diagnosed with hernia.
When the company physician declared him fit to
Doctrine: Mistake as used in Rule 38 means
resume to work, he went back to his ER but the
mistake of fact and not mistake of law. A wrong
latter said that
choice in legal strategy or mode of procedure will
there was no vacancy. He filed a complaint
not be considered a mistake for purposes of
before the NRLC for reimbursements and
granting a petition for relief from
damages. LA ruled in favor of his ER. He
judgment. Mistake as a ground also “does not
eventually filed a petition for relief from judgment
apply and was never intended to apply to a
under Rule 38 from the resolution of the SC
judicial error which the court might have
denying his petition for review.
committed in the trial [since] such error may be
corrected by means of an appeal.”
Held: Such petition is not those included in the
list of cases originally cognizable by the SC, the
375 Phil Phosphate Fertilizer Group v. CIR
phrase “any court” in Rule 38 pertains to MTCs
(June 28, 2005, Austria-Martinez, J. ) and RTCs, and that such petition raises questions
Facts: Philphos filed for tax refund but it only of facts so SC has no jurisdiction.
presented the summary schedule and not the
invoices. CTA denied the claim because allegedly Doctrine: If a petition for relief from judgment is
refund was not substantially proven. Company not among the remedies available in the
filed for MR to be allowed to present the CA, with more reason that this remedy cannot
evidence required by CTA because apparently its be availed of in the Supreme Court. This Court
previous similar cases did not require entertains only questions of law. A petition for
presentation of invoices. relief raises questions of facts on fraud, accident,
mistake, or excusable negligence, which are
Held: While the “invoices” do not count as beyond the concerns of this Court
“newly discovered evidence,” which may warrant
new trial, new trial is not barred because
Philphos’s situation may still be classified as
D. ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENTS,
“mistake or excusable negligence.” FINAL ORDERS AND
RESOLUTIONS
Doctrine:
i. Coverage, when filed with CA, when
Mistake – one which ordinary prudence could not
have guarded against.
with RTC
Excusable negligence – ordinary diligence and Sec 1, Rule 47. Coverage.
prudence could not have guarded against, by This Rule shall govern the annulment by the
12
C2018 REVIEWER CIVIL PROCEDURE PROF. VISTAN
PART EIGHT: REMEDIES FOR AN ADVERSE JUDGMENT
Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and - DEFINITION: Fraudulent act committed
resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts by the prevailing party outside of the trial
for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, of the case, whereby the defeated party
appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate was prevented from exhibiting fully his
remedies are no longer available through no fault side of the case by deception practiced
of the petitioner . on him by the prevailing party. [Alba v.
CA, c/o BOC]
Sec 10, Rule 47. Annulment of Judgments or - Extraneous evidence is admitted.
final orders of Municipal Trial Courts.
An action to annul a judgment or final order of a LACK OF JURISDICTION
Municipal Trial Court shall be filed in the Regional - COVERED: Lack of jurisdiction over the
Trial Court having jurisdiction over the former. It subject matter, or over defendant
shall be treated as an ordinary civil action and - Must show absolute lack of jurisdiction,
sections 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of this Rule shall be not mere abuse of judicial discretion
applicable thereto. o Grave abuse of discretion
supports a petition for certiorari,
CASES GOVERNED BY RULE 47 not an action for annulment
Rule 47 (annulment by the CA) applies when: - Only evidence on record can justify
(1) It is a judgment or final order and nullity.
resolution in a civil action;
(2) Rendered by the RTC; and iii. Period of Filing
(3) Ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, Sec 3, Rule 47. Period for filing action.
petition for relief or other appropriate If based on extrinsic fraud, the action must be
remedies are no longer available, filed within four (4) years from its discovery; and if
through no fault of the petitioner. [Sec. 1] based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred
by laches or estoppel.
ANNULM ENT O F JUDGM ENTS OR
ORDERS OF M TC PERIOD FOR FILING
- Filed with the RTC having jurisdiction EXTRINSIC FRAUD LACK OF
over the MTC; JURISDICTION
- Treated as an ordinary civil action; and 4 years from discovery Before barred by
- Applicable provisions: Secs. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, laches or estoppel
9 of Rule 47. [Sec. 10] NOTE: There must be [Tijam v. Sibanghoy,
a manifest showing c/o BOC]
ii. Grounds with petition that it was
Sec 2, Rule 47. Grounds for annulment. filed during the 4 year
The annulment may be based only on the period.
grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. iv. Forms and Contents
Sec 4, Rule 47. Filing and Contents of
Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was petition.
availed of, or could have been availed of, in a The action shall be commenced by filing a
motion for new trial or petition for relief. verified petition alleging therein with
particularity the facts and the law relied upon
GROUNDS FOR ANNULM ENT for annulment, as well as those supporting the
(1) Extrinsic fraud; petitioner's good and substantial cause of action
(2) Lack of jurisdiction; [Sec. 2] or defense, as the case may be.
(3) Denial of due process. [Jurisprudence,
BOC] The petition shall be filed in seven (7) clearly
legible copies, together with sufficient
copies corresponding to the number of
EXTRINSIC FRAUD
13
C2018 REVIEWER CIVIL PROCEDURE PROF. VISTAN
PART EIGHT: REMEDIES FOR AN ADVERSE JUDGMENT
14
C2018 REVIEWER CIVIL PROCEDURE PROF. VISTAN
PART EIGHT: REMEDIES FOR AN ADVERSE JUDGMENT
and render the same null and void, without in assailing the questioned judgments, and also
prejudice to the original action being refiled in failed to show that he could not have availed of
the proper court. However, where the judgment the ordinary and appropriate remedies under the
or final order or resolution is set aside on the Rules. (Lazaro could have moved to quash the
ground of extrinsic fraud, the court may on writs of execution. Instead, he merely alleged
motion order the trial court to try the case as if a that he approached RFBI’s counsel for
timely motion for new trial had been granted clarification and assistance – not one of the
therein. ordinary and appropriate remedies in the Rules.
Failure to explain why he failed to avail of
Sec 9, Rule 47. Relief Available. remedies still available to him at the time is fatal
The judgment of annulment may include the to his cause.)
award of damages, attorney's fees and other
relief. If the questioned judgment or final order or Doctrine: Before a party can avail of the reliefs
resolution had already been executed the court provided for by Rule 47, i.e., annulment of
may issue such orders of restitution or other relief judgments, final orders, and resolutions, it is a
as justice and equity may warrant under the condition sine qua non that one must have failed
circumstances. to move for new trial in, or appeal from, or file a
petition for relief against said issuances or take
BASED ON EXTRINSIC FRAUD other appropriate remedies thereon, through no
(1) Judgment set aside, considered null and fault attributable to him. If he failed to avail of
void; those cited remedies without sufficient
(2) Upon motion of the prevailing party on justification, he cannot resort to the action for
justifiable grounds, may be allowed to no annulment provided in Rule 47, for otherwise he
longer refile (TC who will be ordered to would benefit from his own inaction or
try the case anew). negligence.
378 Lazaro v. Rural Bank of Francisco Held: SC upheld the dismissal, saying that the
Balagtas requirement of appending relevant documents is
(August 15, 2003, Quisumbing, J.) so that the CA can make a finding of prima facie
Facts: The Rural Bank of Francisco Balagtas, Inc. merit of the petition. Absent this, the petition
(RFBI) sued Lazaro for failure to pay a loan may be dismissed.
obtained by the latter from the former. Lazaro
was held in default for failure to answer RFBI’s Doctrine: Petitioners are required to allege with
services of summons. Lazaro filed petition for particularity the facts and law relied upon for
annulment of judgment on the grounds of fraud annulment, and those supporting their cause of
and misrepresentation, alleging that the action or defense. This must be coupled with the
summonses were not served at his true address. original copy of the petition, the affidavits of their
witnesses, and other documents. The
Held: SC denied Lazaro’s petition. Lazaro failed requirement of these documents is designed to
to avail of the ordinary and appropriate remedies convince the CA of the substantive merit of their
15
C2018 REVIEWER CIVIL PROCEDURE PROF. VISTAN
PART EIGHT: REMEDIES FOR AN ADVERSE JUDGMENT
petition, and for CA to make a finding of prima essential is that he can prove his allegation that
facie merit. An action for annulment of judgment the judgment was obtained by the use of fraud
is an extraordinary remedy, and this must not be and collusion and that he would be adversely
granted indiscriminately. affected thereby.
381 Carillo v. CA
(September 26, 2006, Ponente)
Facts:
Held:
Doctrine: