POST JUDGMENT

REMEDIES
Rule 37, Rules of Court
Rule 37 pertains to the filing of a
motion for a new trial or of a motion
for reconsideration of a judgement
or final order that has decided a
case on its merits.
What to allege in the M.R.
It is not sufficient to mention the ground relied upon. It is
necessary for the motion for reconsideration to
specifically point out the findings or conclusions of the
judgment or final order which are not supported by the
evidence or which are contrary to law, making express
reference to the testimonial or documentary evidence or
the provision of the law alleged to be contrary to such
findings or conclusion. (Sec. 2, Rule 37)
Pro forma motion
A pro forma motion is one which does not
satisfy the requirements of the rules and will
be treated as a motion intended to delay
the proceedings (Marikina Development
Corporation vs. Flojo 251 SCRA 87, 93)
 “Fresh Period” rule; 

Neypes rule (469 SCRA 633)
◦ SEC. 6. When appeal to be taken. — 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.
◦ In Neypes, the Court modified the rule in civil cases on the counting of
the 15-day period within which to appeal. The Court categorically set
a fresh period of 15 days from a denial of a motion for reconsideration
within which to appeal
Partial Reconsideration
The court may grant a
reconsideration as to such issues if
severable without interfering with
the judgment or final order upon the
rest (Sec. 7, Rule 37)
 “Single Motion” rule
◦ No party shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration
of a judgment or final order (Sec. 5, Rule 37)

◦ A second motion for reconsideration is prohibited and can

only be allowed on extraordinary persuasive reasons and only
after an express leave shall have first been obtained (Roasters
Philippines, Inc. vs. Gaviola, G.R. No. 191874, September 2,
2015)
 Motion for new trial
A motion for new trial under Rule 37 of the Rules of Court is a
remedy separate and distinct from an appeal. New trial is a
remedy that seeks to temper the severity of a judgement or
prevent the failures of justice.

It’s grant or denial of a new trial is, generally speaking,

addressed to the sound discretion of the court which cannot
be interfered with a clear abuse thereof is shown.
 Grounds for new trial
◦ Fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence which
ordinary prudence could not have guarded against and by
reason of which such aggrieved party has probably been
impaired in his right; or

◦ Newly discovered evidence which he could not, with

reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the
trial, and which if presented would probably alter the result.
 Fraud
Fraud, as a ground for new trial, must be extrinsic or collateral.
 
Fraud is regarded as extrinsic where it prevents a party from
having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or
where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment
itself but to the manner in which it is produced. The overriding
consideration when extrinsic fraud is alleged is that fraudulent
scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from having
his day in court. The fraud, therefore, is one that affects and
goes into the jurisdiction of the court.
 Examples of extrinsic fraud
Extrinsic may refer to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in the
litigation which is committed outside of the trial of the case, which as
intended to keep the unsuccessful party away from the courts s when
there is a false promise of compromise, or when one is kept in
ignorance of the suit, as, for example, where the plaintiff deliberately
caused with the process server’s connivance the serve of summons on
defendant at the wrong address. This excludes the presentation at the
trial of a supposed forged document, or a false and perjured
testimony, which constitute intrinsic fraud.
Accident
To fall within the contemplation of this Rule,
must be something which ordinary prudence
could not have guarded against and by
reason of which the party applying has
probably been impaired in his rights.
 Mistake
The “mistake” that is allowable in Rule
37 is one which ordinary prudence
could not have guarded against.
Generally, it pertains to a mistake of
fact.
 Vikings Industrial Corporation vs. Court of
Appeals (G.R. 143794, July 13, 2004)

The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner’s claim of having

committed an “honest mistake” in not filing an answer to
respondent’s petition for prohibition and declaratory relief
because of its belief that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over
it was held to be in a “mistake of law” which cannot be a ground
for new trial.

“Litigation is a not a trial and error proceeding. A party who

moves for a new trial on the ground of honest mistake must show
that ordinary prudence could not have guarded against it. A new
trial is not a refuge for the obstinate…”
 Negligence
Negligence to be excusable must also be one which ordinary diligence
and prudence could not have guarded against and by reason of which
the rights of an aggrieved party have probably been impaired.
Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue (G.R. No. 141973. June 28, 2005) instructs that the test of
excusable negligence is whether a party has acted with ordinary
prudence while transacting important business. In this case, it cannot
be said that petitioner did not act with ordinary prudence in claiming its
refund with the CTA, in light of its previous cases with the CTA which did
not require invoices and the non-mandatory nature of CTA Circular No.
1-95.
 Note:
In a long line of cases, it has been held that new
trial is not warranted by simple negligence of
counsel. To hold otherwise and grant a new trial will
never put an end to any litigation “as there is a new
counsel to be hired every time it is shown that the
prior one had not been sufficiently diligent,
experienced or learned.”


Rumbaua vs. Rumbaua (G.R. No. 166738, August 14, 2009)


“Blunders and mistakes in the conduct of the proceedings in the

trial court as a result of the ignorance, inexperience or incomplete
of counsel do not qualify as a ground for new trial. If such were to
be admitted as valid reasons for re-opening cases. There would
never be an end to litigation so long as a new counsel could be
employed to allege and show that the prior counsel had not been
sufficiently diligent, experience or learned. This will put a premium
on the willful and intentional commission or errors by counsel, with a
view to securing new trials in the event of conviction, or an adverse
decision, as in the instant case.”
 Newly-discovered evidence
The term “newly-discovered evidence” has a specific definition under the law.
Under the rules of Court, the requisites for newly discovered evidence are: (a)
the evidence was discovered after trial; (b) such evidence could not have
been discovered and produced at the trial with reasonable diligence; and (c)
it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching, and (d) it is
such weight that, if admitted, will probably change the judgment.

Moreover, newly discovered evidence as a basis of a motion for new trial

should be supported by affidavits of the witness by whom such evidence is
expected to be give, or by duly authenticated documents which are
proposed to be introduced in evidence.
 Affidavit of merit


A motion for new trial based on fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable

negligence shall be supported by affidavits of merits which may be
rebutted by affidavits

An affidavit of merit showing the facts constituting the valid cause of

action or defense which the movant may prove in case a new trial is
granted is required, because a new trial would serve no purpose and
would just waste the time of the court as well the parties if the
complaint is after all groundless or the defense is nil or ineffective.
Draft the necessary pleading

Joseph and Mary are husband and wife but have long been estranged. They have a
piece of property where the former stays as it was the latter who left the conjugal house. Mary
filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage with a Prayer for the Issuance of a Permanent
Protection Order. In her Petition, Mary, the petitioner, claimed that her address is the conjugal
house. You were retained by Joseph to file an Answer.
An Answer was prepared. After the preparation of this Answer, the petitioner called the
respondent, saying that she wanted to reconcile with him. The respondent, in the hope of a
reconciliation, asked that the Answer not be filed anymore. In the meantime, a hearing on the
propriety of the issuance of a Permanent Protection Order was set by the court. Respondent did
not appear since he and petitioner have already commenced dating again. It turned out that the
petitioner appeared and testified. A Permanent Protection Order was issued against the
respondent. The Order stated in part, “ the respondent is prohibited from threatening to commit
personally or through another, acts of violence against the petitioner; he is prohibited from
harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating in any form with the
petitioner, either directly or indirectly; respondent is excluded from the residence of the petitioner,
and the respondent is required to stay away from the petitioner, the offended party, within twenty
kilometers from her residence and place of her employment”.