L125 2014/03/15B p.

1
Civ Pro Mar. 15, 2014
RULE 37
[Motion for New Trial/Motion for Reconsideration; continued from L1252014/03/15]
Could not have been discovered standard/criterion
PAL v. Salcedo: Could not have been discovered because internal; change in
heart (of the witness) only reason for discovery of evidence
People v. Amparado: Could not have been discovered because the accused did
not return to the scene of the crime for fear of his life (because he committed
self-defense and was afraid that relations of the decedent would come after him)
justified as reason for could not have been discovered
o VAA: Court took judicial notice of human nature.
People v. Helmuth: Could not have been discovered even if the accused knew the
witness if the witness is at large and therefore could not be found.
People v. Del Mundo: Even if not newly-discovered evidence, if a second report
casts substantial doubt on a first report that was key evidence in the conviction
of the accused, new trial can be granted. (VAA: in effect, overriding concern was
really just right to life of the accused; overlooked a key procedural
requirement)
o VAA: This does not pass the would probably alter criterion also;
virginity is not an element of rape, it is enough if the penis touches the
labia
Would probably alter standard
Cuenca v. CA: Two problems:
o Could have been discovered affidavit was by the brother
o Would probably alter result effective theory that the accused had no
intent (because it was the brother who pulled the strings) will not
exculpate because both should be liable; Trust Receipts law is malum
prohibitum
RULE 38
Relief from Judgments, Orders, or Other Proceedings
Fukuzumi v. Sanritsu
Impliedly clarifies problem with discrepancy between body and caption of Rule
38, 2:
o If a party was prevented from taking of appeal due to FAME, remedy is
Rule 38, 2 (body)
o But if a party took an appeal (perfected) but it was denied, remedy is Rule
65
Grounds (FAME)
Mistake = Mistake of fact (Agan v. Heirs of Nueva), not mistake of law (e.g. that
the party believed that the RTC decision was erroneous so she thought an appeal
was unnecessary)
o Misinterpretation of the law is not a ground VAA: How can this ever be a
ground for vacating a judgment? Its the fault of the party!
o VAA: Mistake means its not attributable to you; otherwise it would be
negligence (which can either be excusable or inexcusable)

L125 2014/03/15B p. 2

Effects (6) if granted

Court shall proceed to then proceed to hear and determine as if a timely motion
for a new trial or reconsideration had been granted by it.
o VAA: Therefore, Rule 38 allows a partial petition for relief
o See also Agan v. Heirs of Nueva, where the parties sought only a part of
the judgment of the RTC to be set aside, implying that Rule 38 can be
partial
3 Requirements for Petition
1. Verified
2. Twin periods: Filed within 60 days of notice of JOP and within 6 months after JOP
was entered
3. Affidavit showing (1) FAME, and (2) good and substantial COAs and defenses
(affidavit of merits)
5: Preliminary injunction
VAA: Damages answered for by the bond should apply even to damages in the
judgment itself (since bond is also answerable if the party who filed it loses in the
trial on the merits, see 5)
VAA: Rule 38 is really analogous to New Trial; only difference is in periods for
filing
Injunction shall not operate to discharge or extinguish any lieneven
if R38 is granted and the JOP is set aside, the judgment lien will not be
extinguished (R: It is still possible for the losing party in the vacated judgment to
lose on the merits in the new trial)
Cerezo v. Tuazon: Options in default
1. Motion to set aside (i.e. MR of an interlocutory order) interlocutory order
2. Motion for new trial or reconsideration (i.e. R. 37) w/n 15 days (reglamentary
period)
3. Appeal w/n 15 days (VAA: but illusory! Only evidence in judgment by default is
evidence presented ex parte presumably by the winning party)
4. Petition for certiorari w/n 60 days
5. Petition for relief twin periods
6. Petition for annulment of judgment (R. 47) barred only by estoppel/laches
Legarda v. CA
VAA: lack of due process (as ground for annulment of proceedings) = deprived
of day in court
[Equitable estoppel: as between two innocent parties, the one who made the
loss possible should bear the loss but this does not go into due process]
Extrinsic fraud: Court very narrowly viewed extrinsic fraud as WON the party
was barred from participating in the proceedings, or WON the party sold out by
the counsel
o VAA: But extrinsic fraud is a technical term that includes gross
negligence