CASE FACTS
Aklan College v.  Respondents filed for illegal
Enero, GR 178309, dismissal against petitioner school
January 27, 2009  LA ruled that respondents were
illegally dismissed. NLRC reversed,
however ordering petitioner school
to pay 13th month pay, SIL, etc to
respondents
 Both the parties’ MR were denied
 Petitioner filed Rule 65 certiorari
petition before CA insofar as
payment of SIL, 13th month etc was
required despite finding of valid
dismissal. Respondents did not file
 CA held that for failure of
respondents to question NLRC
findings, decision became final and
executory as to them, the issue is
now limited to propriety of monetary
award
 CA denied petition yet increasing the
amount of award
 Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition for
review before SC, arguing that CA
should not have increased the
monetary award/benefits in favor of
respondents when respondents did
not file an appeal from NLRC’s
decision
COURT’S RULING
 CA committed no reversible error
when it increased the amounts of
award. “A just, fair, and complete
resolution of the case necessarily
entails the correct computation of
these benefits. To avoid dispensing
piecemeal justice, the full period of
employment of respondents was
rightfully considered by CA” although
respondents failed to file an
appeal questioning/raising the issue
on computation.
 [Note: Doctrine refers to appeals, petitions for
review]
 “The appealing party is legally required to indicate
in his brief an assignment of errors, and only those
assigned and shall be considered by the appellate
court in deciding the case. However, this is not
without qualification, for the appellate court is
accorded broad discretionary power to waive the
lack of proper assignment of errors and to consider
errors not assigned. The CA may reverse the
decision of the lower tribunal on the basis of
grounds other than those raised as errors on
appeal in the following instances:
(1) Grounds not assigned as errors but affecting
jurisdiction over subject matter;
(2) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but
are evidently plain or clerical errors within
contemplation of law;
(3) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal
but consideration of which is necessary in
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) Matters not specifically assigned as errors on
appeal but 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) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but
closely related to an error assigned;
(6) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but
upon which the determination of a question
properly assigned, is dependent.
Ermitano v. Paglas,  SC issued a decision deleting the
GR No. 174436, award of atty’s fees and litigation
November 11, 2013 expenses to respondent and
ordering her to pay unpaid rentals to
petitioner
 Petitioner filed an MR arguing that
she is likewise entitled to 12%
interest per annum
 Respondent says SC has no
jurisdiction since issue on interest
was never raised in the petition
Sumipat v. Banga,  Case for annulment of deed of
GR 155810, August absolute transfer and/or quitclaim
13, 2004 executed by X transferring properties
to his mistress and illegitimate
children. The wife appears to have
signed the deed.
 X died. Wife and second family
jointly administered the properties.
Wife later learned that title to
properties already transferred to
mistress and children
 Wife filed for annulment of the deed
 Trial court ruled for the mistress etc
since wife failed to question due
execution of deed, even admitting
that she signed it
 CA reversed, holding that since wife
was illiterate, it was the second
family’s burden to prove that she
understood the deed signed. Deed
partially annulled insofar as wife’s
 Petitioner raised the issue in the
lower courts but failed to assign such
issue specifically as an error in the
petitions before CA and SC
 SC granted the award of interest
although the issue was not raised in
petition
 Court ruled that properties not validly
transferred because from the
testimony, wife’s consent was not
merely vitiated by mistake but there
was actually total absence of consent
(among other reasons). Hence, deed
is not merely voidable but actually
null and void ab initio.
 However, while wife directly assailed
validity of deed in complaint, she did
not specifically raise its absolute
nullity as an issue
 Nevertheless, SC
 “[T]his Court has held time and time again that an
appellate court has a broad discretionary power in
waiving the lack of assignment of errors in specific
instances, one of which is when matters are not
assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of
which is necessary in arriving at a just decision and
complete resolution of the case or to serve the
interests of justice or to avoid dispensing
piecemeal justice.”
 “Even granting that petitioner did not specifically
pray for the award of interest, this Court has
likewise held that even without the prayer for a
specific remedy, proper relief may be granted by
the court if the facts alleged in the complaint and
the evidence introduced so warrant.”
 “From the substantive and procedural standpoints,
the objective to write finis to a protracted litigation
and avoid multiplicity of suits are worth pursuing at
all times. We have applied this tenet, albeit as a
matter of exception, in the following instances:
xxxx (3) matters not assigned as errors but
consideration of which is necessary in arriving at a
just decision and complete resolution of the case or
to serve the interest of justice or to avoid
dispensing piecemeal justice xxxx”
 conjugal share in the properties
concerned
 Second family filed the present
appeal/petition
Lagunzad v. CA, GR  Province filed a case for eminent
L-52007, September domain with the CFI
24, 1987  Petitioner sought to appeal the
computation of just compensation
with CA
 Petitioner’s counsel filed for
extension for 30 days to file appeal
while petitioner himself requested
for 60 days. CA granted both
 Filing was delayed due to a strong
typhoon which damaged counsel’s
office and files
 CA denied his appeal since it was
filed late
 Petitioner filed an MR yet it was
denied for being late
Heirs of Cordero v.  RTC issued (1) an Order which
Sia, GR 195381, granted withdrawal of petitioners’
February 18, 2013 counsel and holding that the notice
of appeal filed by the said counsel
on the same day may no longer be
given due course; and (2) Order
denying petitioners’ MR.
 Petitioner filed petition for review
under Rule 45 instead of a Rule 65
petition and violated the hierarchy of
courts by not filing with the CA
 No indication of malice on his part or
of a desire to delay the proceedings
and transgress rules on procedure,
mere honest mistake or
miscalculation worsened by a
fortuitous occurrence
 Instead of remanding case to the
lower court, SC decided on merits of
the case as well – on the issue of the
just compensation computation
 Procedural rule relaxed for the
furtherance of justice
 Notice of Appeal was timely filed
 Court remanded the case to RTC to
take cognizance of the Notice of
Appeal
 [Note: very short Reso only]
 “Having, therefore, disposed of the procedural
issue, we shall now consider the merits of the case.
Instead of remanding this case to the lower court
for approval of the appeal, and consigning in limbo
the payment of the petitioner’s just compensation
for his land taken by the Province of Leyte, we see
the necessity of deciding this on the merits to
avoid ‘undue burden on the parties and needless
delays only to obtain the same judgment that could
very well be laid down through this petition.’ In
Velasco v. Court of Appeals, we broadened our
inquiry into the case and decided the same on the
merits rather than merely resolving the procedural
question raised, to better serve the interests of
justice. We have sufficient basis to end the
controversy between the parties in the present
case even if we have to dispense with some
procedural rules for the basic rights for the parties
will, in so way, be impaired.”
 “[T]his Court has the power to relax the rules or to
except a case from their operation when
compelling reasons warrant it, or when the
purpose of justice requires it, and what constitutes
as good and sufficient cause that will merit
suspension of the rules is discretionary upon this
Court. In fact, the 1997 Rules of Procedure
explicitly provides that “[t]hese Rules shall be
liberally construed in order to promote their
objective of securing a just, speedy, and
inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding.” Pursuant to this doctrine of liberality
and in the exercise of this Court’s equity
jurisdiction, it may disregard procedural lapses so

Villareal v. People,  Fraternity hazing case
GR 151258,  CA dismissed case against some of
December 1, 2014 the accused based on right to
speedy trial. Rule 65 petition was
filed
 Court corrected typographical error in
the penalty even if not raised as an
issue in the petition
that a case may be resolved on its merits based on
the evidence presented by the parties.”
 “While this issue was not raised by any of the
parties before us, this Court deems it proper to
discuss the matter ex proprio motu in the interest
of justice.”