Appellate

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

LIPANA. MORALES. NOGRALES. PEREZ. ROSALES. UY. VARON. |Page 1 of 58
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

Se a Powe r Shi ppi ng Ent e r pr i s e s 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
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
De l s an Tr ans por t Li ne s 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 Comput e r Col l e ge vs . Nac i no
- 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:

Rule 45 Petition for review on
certiorari
(appeal by certiorari)
Rule 65 Petition for certiorari (special
civil action of certiorari)
Involves correction of errors of judgment Involves errors of jurisdiction
Mode of appeal Special civil action
Petition based on question of law
Petition raises issues as to w/n the lower
court acted w/o jurisdiction or in excess of
jurisdiction or with GADALEJ
Involves review of the judgment award or
final order on the merits
Directed against an interlocutory order of
the court where there is no appeal or any
other plain, speedy and adequate remedy
Must be made within the reglementary
period
Filed not later than 60 days from notice of
judgment, order or resolution appealed
from
Stays the judgment or order appealed from Unless a writ of preliminary injunction or

TRO is issued, does not stay the challenged
proceeding
Petitioner and respondent are original
parties to the action, lower court or quasi-
judicial agency not impleaded
Parties are the aggrieved party against the
lower court, quasi-judicial bodies and
prevailing party
MR not required
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 is in the exercise of appellate
jurisdiction and power of review
Court exercises original jurisdiction

Nune z vs . GSIS Fami l y 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

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:

certiorari
Rule 65 Petition for certiorari (special
civil action of certiorari)

o 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.
o 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
Ybane z 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
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.

Chi na Road and Br i dge Cor p. vs . CA (348 SCRA 401)

Question of law Question of fact
Doubt or controversy as to what the
law is on a certain state of facts
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.

- 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
Lat or r e vs . Lat or r e

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 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
Sal andanan vs . Me nde z
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?
- 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.

As i an Cons t r uc t i on & De vt Cor p vs . Tul abut
- 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)
! 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)
! 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
non-compliance 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


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 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 employer-employee 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 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
b.) When court with jurisdiction and rendered decision, but decision not correct, committed error of judgment -
decision valid even if wrong; remedy!APPEAL

Banco Filipino vs. Court of Appeals
certiorari
Rule 65 Petition for
certiorari (special civil action of
certiorari)
Petition based on question of law
Petition raises issues as to w/n the
lower court acted w/o jurisdiction or
in excess of jurisdiction or with
GADALEJ
Involves review of the judgment award or
final order on the merits
Directed against an interlocutory order
of the court where there is no appeal
or any other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy
Must be made within the reglementary
period
Filed not later than 60 days from
notice of judgment, order or resolution
appealed from
Stays the judgment or order appealed from
Unless a writ of preliminary injunction
or TRO is issued, does not stay the
challenged proceeding
Petitioner and respondent are original
parties to the action, lower court or quasi-
judicial agency not impleaded
Parties are the aggrieved party against
the lower court, quasi-judicial bodies
and prevailing party
MR not required
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 is in the exercise of appellate
jurisdiction and power of review
Court exercises original jurisdiction


NO APPEAL, NOR PLAIN, SPEEDY, AND ADEQUATE REMEDY
General rule: if appeal available, no certiorari
Fajardo vs. Bautista
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 appeal is satisfactorily shown to be an
inadequate remedy under the circumstances.
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 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.

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
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.


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:
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.

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.

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
o 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.

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 re-filing 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 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.
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, quasi-judicial 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
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.


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 1
st
and 2
nd
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 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
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 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, 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))

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)

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:
i. 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.

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.

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.


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.
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.

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 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)
- 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 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

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.


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 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
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 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.

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 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)
Form of Decision: Memorandum Decision
Me mor andum de c i s i on:
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 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 non-appealing 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 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 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)
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 farmer-beneficiaries. 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.

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
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.



Judgment
Rule 120
(Sections 6 and 7)

Sec. 6. Pr omul gat i on of j udgme nt .
" 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 city!the judgment may be promulgated by the
clerk of court.
" If the accused is confined or detained in another province or city!the 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.
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 counsel and
o 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 the accused and counsel (Rule 115, Sec. 1 [c])
o 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)
3. read by either
o any judge of the court in which it was rendered, or
o the clerk of court, if the judge is absent or outside the province or city, or
o 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
4. 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.
o 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) may surrender
b) file a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies.
c) state the reasons for his absence
d) 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.
5. The court promulgating the judgment
o shall have authority to accept the notice of appeal and to approve the bail bond pending appeal
o 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.

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:
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. Modi f i c at i on of j udgme nt .
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 MNT or MfR in Civil Cases
Either on motion of accused, or the court motu proprio
with consent of the accused
Must be upon motion of a party, cant be motu proprio
Grounds for MNT errors of law or irregularities
committed during the trial, or newly discovered evidence
Grounds for MNT FAME, or newly discovered
evidence
Ground for MfR error of law or fact Grounds for MfR Excessive damages, insufficient
evidence, or decision is contrary to law
Filed any time before judgment of conviction becomes
final
Filed within the period for taking an appeal
Should include all the grounds then available and those
not so included shall be deemed waived.
When granted, the original judgment is always set aside
or vacated and a new judgment rendered
There may be partial grant
2
nd
MfR not allowed; 2
nd
MNT may be allowed on
evidence not available before

Sec. 1. Ne w t r i al or r e c ons i de r at i on
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 well as
enhancing the possibility that even though innocent, he may be found guilty.
o 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.
" Re qui s i t e s of Doubl e Je opardy:
(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 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 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 re-promulgation 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. Gr ounds f or a ne w t r i al . The court shall grant a new trial on any of the following grounds:

(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. Gr ound f or r e c ons i de r at i on. 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. For m of mot i on and not i c e t o t he pr os e c ut or .
" 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 affidavits of witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be given or
o duly authenticated copies of documents which are proposed to be introduced in evidence.

Sec. 5. He ar i ng on mot i on. Where MNT calls for resolution of any question of fact, the court may hear
evidence thereon by affidavits or otherwise. (5a)

Sec. 6. Ef f e c t s of gr ant i ng a ne w t ri al or r e c ons i de r at i on.

(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.

Appeal
Rule 122
(Sections 1-13)
Sec. 1. Who may appe al .
Any party may appeal from a judgment or final order,
" unless the accused will be placed in double jeopardy. (2a)

Sec. 2. Whe r e t o appe al .
(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 appe al t ake n.
(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:
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. Se r vi c e of not i c e of appe al .
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)

Sec. 5. Wai ve r of not i c e . 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. Whe n appe al t o be t ake n. 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. Tr ans c r i bi ng and f i l i ng not e s of s t e nogr aphi c r e por t e r upon appe al .
" 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. Tr ans mi s s i on of pape r s t o appe l l at e c our t upon appe al .
" 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.
" 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. Appe al t o t he Re gi onal Tr i al Cour t s .
(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. Tr ans mi s s i on of r e c or ds i n c as e of de at h pe nal t y. 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. Ef f e c t of appe al by any of s e ve r al ac c us e d.
(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 favorable to his co-accused, the lowered penalty will also
benefit his co-accused, even if they did not appeal the judgment.

Sec. 12. Wi t hdr awal of appe al . 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. Appoi nt me nt of c ouns e l de of i c i o f or ac c us e d on appe al . 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. Uni f or m Pr oc e dur e . 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)

Sec. 1. Ti t l e of t he c as e . 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. Appoi nt me nt of c ouns e l de of i c i o f or t he ac c us e d. 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. Whe n br i e f f or appe l l ant t o be f i l e d. 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. Whe n br i e f f or appe l l e e t o be f i l e d; r e pl y br i e f of t he appe l l ant . 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. Ext e ns i on of t i me f or f i l i ng br i e f s .
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. For m of br i e f s . 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)

Sec. 7. Cont e nt s of br i e f . 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. Di s mi s s al of appe al f or abandonme nt or f ai l ur e t o pr os e c ut e .

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)
" Under the 2
nd
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. Pr ompt di s pos i t i on of appe al s .
" 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. Judgme nt not t o be r e ve r s e d or modi f i e d e xc e pt f or s ubs t ant i al e r r or .
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. Sc ope of j udgme nt . 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 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. Powe r t o r e c e i ve e vi de nc e . The CA shall have the power to:
1. try cases
2. conduct hearings
3. receive evidence and
4. perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases
o falling within its original jurisdiction
o involving claims for damages arising from provisional remedies, or
o where the CA grants a new trial based only on the ground of newly-discovered evidence

*Sec 12 amended on: October 15, 2004 under AM 00-5-03-SC.

Sec. 13. Quor um of t he c our t ; c e r t i f i c at i on or appe al of c as e s t o Supr e me Cour t .
" 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 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
(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 CA-G.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 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. Mot i on f or ne w t r i al . 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 t ri al c onduc t ed. When a new trial is granted, the CA may
! conduct the hearing and receive evidence or
! refer the trial to the court of origin.


Sec. 16. Re c ons i de r at i on.
" 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 MR!CA renders an amended decision

Sec. 17. Judgme nt t r ans mi t t e d and f i l e d i n t r i al c our t . 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. Appl i c at i on of c e r t ai n r ul e s i n c i vi l pr oc e dur e t o c r i mi nal c as e s . 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. Uni f or m Pr oc e dur e . 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. Re vi e w of de c i s i ons of t he Cour t of Appe al s . 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)

Sec. 3. De c i s i on i f opi ni on i s e qual l y di vi de d. 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)

Appellate

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Appellate

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Appellate Practice AY 2010-2011 (Post Midterms)

Justice Magdangal de Leon

S-ar putea să vă placă și