Last time we talked about summary judgement
and judgement on the pleadings.
When we talk about summary judgement and
judgement on the pleadings, always remember
that when it is judgement on the pleadings, you
are limited only by what is alleged to the
pleadings. You will not consider any other
documents. And when you read the pleadings,
which is often the complaint and the answer, you
do not see any issue. There is no issue at all. And
that is why you want the court to render
judgement based on the pleadings because there
is no issue.
When you speak of summary judgement, when
you read the complaint and when you read the
answer, or the reply, it seems that there is an
issue. Kaya yung “it seems” na yun, is called an
ostensible issue.
Now, you want to show to the Court that that
ostensible issue is not really true; there is really
no issue at all; it is really fictitious. Then you have
to submit a Motion For Summary Judgement
attaching to it all the relevant documents such as
affidavits, depositions, and the like to show that
the ostensible issue is really not an issue at all.
DISCUSSION OF PROVISIONS:
When you speak of summary judgement, it can
be partial. Remember Sec. 5. There can be
several issues to the case, and one of the issues
actually does not exist. So what do you do? You
file a Motion For Summary Judgement.
EXAMPLE: Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3. For Issue 1,
you file a Motion For Summary Judgement,
because issue 1 does not exist at all. If the Court
grants the Motion For Summary Judgement, that
issue, whatever that issue is, will be an
established fact.
What if the Court grants a Motion For Partial
Summary Judgement, is that a final order?
- NO. It is an interlocutory order. And why
is it an interlocutory order? Look at your
Rule 35.
Section 4. Case not fully adjudicated on motion.
— If on motion under this Rule, judgment is not
rendered upon the whole case or for all the reliefs
sought and a trial is necessary, the court at the
hearing of the motion, by examining the pleadings
and the evidence before it and by interrogating
counsel shall ascertain what material facts exist
without substantial controversy and what are
actually and in good faith controverted. It shall
thereupon make an order specifying the facts that
appear without substantial controversy, including
the extent to which the amount of damages or
other relief is not in controversy, and directing
such further proceedings in the action as are just.
The facts so specified shall be deemed
established, and the trial shall be conducted on
the controverted facts accordingly.
So, see. Interlocutory palang yun. Which means,
the remedy, if the Motion For Partial Summary
Judgement was granted, is not appeal. Why?
Because the Court still has to do something.
What is the remedy when the Motion For Partial
Summary Judgement is denied?
- Go to Trial. However, when you feel that
there is, and it shows, that the Court
commit grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or in excess of
jurisdiction, you file a Motion For
Reconsideration, and when it is denied,
you go up on Certiorari under Rule 65.
Now, I go back to the first situation. Motion For
Partial Summary Judgement: GRANTED. Eh di
mo naman mapakita kung ano yung may grave
abuse of discretion, you go to Trial. And still, if you
go to Trial and you lost the case, what you are
going to do now is to appeal the entire decision,
and assign as one of the errors in your Appellant’s
Brief the ruling on the Motion For Partial
Summary Judgement.
CASES:
Calubaquib vs, Republic: The Court cannot motu
propio render or rule on a Motion For Summary
Judgement. Summary judgement must be
initiated by one of the parties. The Court cannot
on its own render summary judgement. Why?
Because that would be violative of the due
process clause. In determining the genuineness
of the issues, and hence, the propriety of the
rendering of the summary judgement, it is the
Court which is obliged to study whether or not it
is proper. But the Court cannot, on its own, render
summary judgement when no motion has been
filed by the parties. Why is that so? Notice that in
the Motion For Summary Judgement, the movant
is required to attach supporting documents,
depositions, and the likes. Bakit kailangang may
mag-move? Bakit di pwedeng motu propio?
Remember there is an ostensible issue. Kung
may ostensible issue yan, ibig-sabihin, as far as
the Court is concerned, may issue. Then it is
incumbent upon the other party to prove that the
issue is a sham. It is not the Court who is
supposed to prove it.
Auman vs. Estenzo: The Motion For Summary
Judgement rendered by Judge Estenzo is void. It
was void for the following reasons: (1) There was
no Motion For Summary Judgement, supporting
affidavits or depositions. And so the Court cannot,
on its own, render summary judgement. Diba nga
in a Motion For Summary Judgement, you have
to set at least 10 days before it is heard, precisely
to give the other party an opportunity to prepare
and submit counter-affidavits and counter-
depositions, if necessary.
Grand Farms, Inc. vs. CA: Banco Filipino is the
mortgagee. There was a corporation. The
petitioners actually borrowed money from Banco
Filipino. And by way of collateral, they executed a
real estate mortgage in favor of Banco Filipino.
Apparently, the petitioners failed to pay. Banco
Filipino foreclosed the REM, sold it at public
auction, and became the highest bidder. So what
did the mortgagors do? They filed a case to annul
the foreclosure sale on the theory that there was
no personal notice that was given to them. Banco
Filipino filed an answer. If you read the Answer, it
denied and said that there was notice sent. And
look what happened, what the plaintiffs do? They
filed for Request For Admission. This is an
example where you can use a Mode of Discovery.
You request for it in preparation; it is an
anticipatory move for you to prepare a Motion For
Summary Judgement. Kasi nakita niyo, dineny
lang. Siguro the way that Banco Filipino
answered the allegation that there was no notice
was general. So pag binasa mo nga naman yung
complaint and answer, talagang may issue. So
what did the plaintiffs do? It availed of the Modes
of Discovery and filed a Request For Admission.
And the Request for Admission is whether or not
Banco Filipino sent a notice to the owners of the
property. Yun lang ang tanong. Anong sagot ng
Banco Filipino? Ang sabi nila may publication and
public notice. Eh hindi naman yun yung tanong.
Ang tanong, may personal notice ba? Of course,
there was no answer- the answer was basic. So
because of the failure to answer that question,
what did the plaintiffs do? They now filed a Motion
For Summary Judgement, attaching therewith,
the answer in the Request For Admission, clearly
saying that there was no issue at all, because
Banco Filipino, by not answering the question at
all, obviously there was no issue, because as
stated in the contract, it is an indispensable
requirement for the Bank to have first notify the
plaintiffs of its intended foreclosure. Kaya
nawalang bisa yung foreclosure. Notice that they
did not have to go to trial. And that is the reason
why when you say summary judgement, it is
considered as accelerated judgement.
Inaaccelerate na yung judgement, hindi na
nagtatrial. Of course, if you are the Judge, and
you are in doubt, you would rather go to trial and
render judgement based on the evidence
presented.
Kalilid Wood Industries Corp. vs. IAC: De Jesus
and Salonga were officers of a corporation. They
executed two promissory notes in favor of the
Bank. Later on, the loans were not being paid, the
Bank sent demand letters, Kalilid disowned the
indebtedness under the two promissory notes.
Notice, however, that the Answer of Kalilid was
not verified. And then the Bank filed a Motion For
Summary Judgement. It was denied, because
according to Kalilid, the two were not authorized
to contract the debts and execute the promissory
notes. Because, in the denial, it was not made
under oath, The Bank filed a MFSJ, and the Court
granted it. Why? If the claim is founded on an
actionable document, you are required to deny its
due execution and authenticy under oath, failing
which will result to technical admission. Hence,
there was an admission. It was correct for a MFSJ
to be filed. But the problem is the amount of
indebtedness. Eto yung may statement of
accounts, right? But according to the Court,
granting that they have authority, the question
then is how much? The Trial Court said, since the
statement of account was likewise not denied,
then the amount should be that as stated in the
statement of account, which is wrong. Why?
Because the statements of account were not
prepared by the defendants. They had no
participation whatsoever, and therefore, it is not
incumbent upon them to deny the due execution
and authenticity of the statement of account.
Bitanga: The MFSJ was granted. The SC held
that the party must prove that he is entitled to
such judgement as a matter of law, and that there
is no genuine issue that is presented on the
complaint. In here, since the issue was proven to
be a sham, as the defendant did not deny the
receipt of demand. What he was denying was on
how the demand was served. So obviously, there
was no issue because he never denied his
indebtedness.
YKR: When is an issue considered genuine?
When it requires presentation of evidence. This is
the issue in this case. A genuine issue of fact is
an issue which require presentation of evidence
as distinguished from one which is sham,
fictitious, and false, because when the facts
pleaded do not require the presentation of
evidence, or that they are undisputed, then there
is no genuine issue at all.
When you file for a MFSJ, because you proceed
from the premise that there is an issue, you will
want to prove that that issue is false, it is now
necessary for you to get out of the pleadings and
submit additional documents to prove that the
issue generated by the pleadings is actually not
an issue. Hindi katulad ng JOTP, pagbasa mo pa
lamang, there is nothing that will require you to
present evidence because there is no issue at all.
RULE 36: JUDGEMENT, FINAL ORDER, AND
ENTRY THEREOF
Just by reading the title, you can tell that we are
talking about final judgements, not interlocutory
orders. Therefore, Rule 36 refers to final
judgements, final orders, and final resolutions.
Section 1. Rendition of judgments and final
orders. — A judgment or final order determining
the merits of the case shall be in writing
personally and directly prepared by the judge,
stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law
on which it is based, signed by him, and filed with
the clerk of the court.
What are the parts of a judgement?
- Body and dispositive portion
Constitutional provision regarding judgements: It
must state the fact and the law from which it is
based.
- If this is not followed, file an MR. If denied,
file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.
- If it is unconstitutional, it is void. If it is
void, it will never attain finality.
There are different kinds of judgements.
a. Judgement on Consent:
b. Judgement by Confession: When one of
the defendants had admitted, for
example, a debt due, then judgement by
confession can be had.
c. Judgement by Compromise: When the
Court, by reciprocal concession, have
agreed to not proceed to Trial, and based
on their agreement that such case will be
terminated.
Judgement must conform with the pleadings. In
fact, the judgement must only decide on the
issues raised.
TRUE OR FALSE: The judgement is void when
issues not raised by the pleadings were ruled
upon by the Court.
- FALSE. Because the parties, when they
proceeded into Trial, adduce evidence
not stated in the pre-trial. So as long as
the parties tried an issue not stated in the
trial, then it is perfectly alright for the
Court to render judgement on these
issues.
PROMULGATION: When the Judge already
signed the judgement and delivered to the Clerk
of Court for release or for distribution.
- When this is done, technically, the Judge
can no longer change his judgement.
- But prior to such, everything is a draft.
Hence, it can still be changed.
Section 2. Entry of judgments and final orders. —
If no appeal or motion for new trial or
reconsideration is filed within the time provided in
these Rules, the judgment or final order shall
forthwith be entered by the clerk in the book of
entries of judgments. The date of finality of the
judgment or final order shall be deemed to be the
date of its entry. The record shall contain the
dispositive part of the judgment or final order and
shall be signed by the clerk, within a certificate
that such judgment or final order has become final
and executory.
EXAMPLE: Plaintiff received the judgement on
March 1. Defendant received the judgement on
March 5. The judgement will become final and
executory upon the lapse of 15 days.
- When will the judgement become final
and executory?
o Assuming that none of the
parties filed an Appeal, it is on
March 21.
o March 16: Final only as to the
plaintiff.
o March 21 is also the date of entry,
by operation of law.
When a judgement has already attained finality,
there is this Book of Judgement where you put
the judgements that has already attained finality.
Ang nakapasok lang dito, yung mga judgements
na final and executory. Sometimes, it takes time
before the Clerk or Staff can make the entry.
Before 1997, the entry is actually the mechanical
act of entering it in the Book of Judgement. Eh
ang tagal nun sa dami ng kaso. So ang ginawa
ngayon nung 1997, the date of entry is actually
the date of finality. The date of entry is, by
operation of law, and not dependent on the
mechanical act of the person who is going to
enter it. What is the significance of that? The
significance is most obvious when we discuss
Rule 38, which is Petition For Relief From
Judgement. Why? Because under Petition For
Relief From Judgement, diba there are 3 dates?
60 days from the time you learn the judgement
but not more than 6 months from the entry of
judgement. So yung entry, hindi yung kalian
inenter dun sa Book of Judgemnt. Tatanungin mo
lang kung kalian nagging final and executory
yung judgement. That is the period from which
you will count your 6 months.
What is the rule? A judgement is final when the
Judge or the Court will not do anything anymore.
It does not, however, follow that the judgement,
which is final, is final and executory. A judgement
that is final becomes final and executory when it
already attains finality.
What do you mean by “when it attains finality”?
- It is when the period to appeal has
already lapsed, and … not only in so far
as the parties are concerned, but also
with respect to the Court. And the date of
finality is, by operation of law, is the date
of entry of judgement.
Judgement becomes final and executory, from
RTC to CA, if no MR, MNT or Appeal is filed by
any of the parties. But what if it was appealed to
the CA? Of course, it is a final judgement being
appealed, but it is not yet final and executory. CA
renders judgement, and it is subject to further
appeal to the SC for pure questions of law. And
when that period to appeal has already lapsed,
then the CA judgement becomes final and
executory. Same principle.
Section 3. Judgment for or against one or more
of several parties. — Judgment may be given for
or against one or more of several plaintiffs and for
or against one or more of several defendants.
When justice so demands, the court may require
the parties on each side to file adversary
pleadings as between themselves and determine
their ultimate rights and obligations.
Section 4. Several judgments. — In an action
against several defendants, the court may, when
a several judgment is proper, render judgment
against one or more of them, leaving the action to
proceed against the others. (4)
Section 5. Separate judgments. — When more
than one claim for relief is presented in an action,
the court, at any stage, upon a determination of
the issues material to a particular claim and all
counterclaims arising out of the transaction or
occurrence which is the subject matter of the
claim, may render a separate judgment disposing
of such claim. The judgment shall terminate the
action with respect to the claim so disposed of
and the action shall proceed as to the remaining
claims. In case a separate judgment is rendered
the court by order may stay its enforcement until
the rendition of a subsequent judgment or
judgments and may prescribe such conditions as
may be necessary to secure the benefit thereof to
the party in whose favor the judgment is rendered.
Is several judgement the same as separate
judgement? Tell me if it is several or separate
judgement. I filed a case against 5 solidary
debtors. Can I have 5 several judgements against
1 solidary debtor?
- (Several judgement does not mean that
you have several defendants.) A several
judgement cannot be proper when you
 have solidary debtors. They are being
sued on the same cause of action.
Several judgement is proper happens,
remember, you can have judgement on
one, and proceed to the others. When
can you have a several judgement on
several debtors when it is founded on the
same cause of action. Diba matatandaan
niyo, if a complaint is filed, and there are
several defendants, and they are being
sued on the same cause of action, and
one files an answer, and the others did
not, those who did not file, the answer of
the one who filed an answer will inure to
the benefit of the non-answering
defendants because the plaintiff cannot
file a Motion To Declare The Other
Defendants In Default.
Give me an example of a separate judgement.
- Jom is married to Rochelle, husband and
wife. Rochelle filed a complaint, Petition
For Nullity of Marriage against Jom. And
based on the pleadings, there are 4
issues. (1) Nullity of Marriage; (2)
Custody; (3) Support; (4) Property.
Remember in Persons, there can be no
compromise agreement as to the status
of marriage. But, you can have a
compromise agreement as to custody, as
to how much support will be given, and
as to the distribution, dissolution of
property. These 3 issues were made to
subject to a compromise agreement. And
that compromise agreement was
submitted to the Court, and asked the
Court to approve the same, and render
partial judgement thereon. SO you now
have, in one case, a partial judgement on
those 3 issues, leaving behind the issue
of marriage. That is an example of
separate judgement.
Lacurom vs. Judge Tienzo: What is a
Memorandum Decision? Let’s say the MTC, in a
very simple collection case, rendered a decision
adverse to the defendant.So the defendant now
appeals to the RTC. So the RTC, acting as an
appellate court, wants to affirm the decision of the
MTC. It can do so by issuing a Memorandum
Decision. How does a Memorandum Decision
look like? The Memorandum Decision would
either (1) copy verbatim the decision rendered by
the MTC; or (2) Judge makes a preparatory
statement, and attach and made an integral part
of the decision, the decision of the inferior court.
What is not allowed is for the Judge to just say
“affirm”. Maglagay ka naman ng basehan.
Remember the constitutional provision that
requires that the decision must state the facts and
the law with wich the decision is based. And a
Memorandum Decision can be applied in simple
cases only.
Barrazona vs. RTC: Since interlocutory orders
are not final judgements, not final decisions,
technically, the Judge need not state the facts
and the law in which the interlocutory order was
based. But in this case, the SC said, that the
Court should not issue a perfunctory dismissal or
order saying “denied for lack of merit”. Why?
Because it is very important for the losing movant
to file for a Motion For Reconsideration. But how
can he file and MR if he does not know the reason
on which the denial was based. Hence, the
Judges are still called upon to state the reason
why they dismissed the motion.
Sumbilla vs. Matrix Finance Corp.: The
judgement in this case has already attained
finality. And by virtue of the doctrine of
immutability of judgement, technically, no court
can change it anymore. But in this case, the SC
said that it can change its decision even when it
already attained finality. It is because the doctrine
is not a hard and fast rule. There are exceptions.
When life, liberty will be affected, because the fine
in this case was 18k more than the combined face
values of the checks, which is not allowed,
because what is the penalty? 1 year or twice the
face value of the check. In this case, it was more
than 11 times the face value of the check. That is
why even if the judgement has already attained
finality, the judgement was allowed to be modified.
Gentle rule: Once the judgement has already
attained finality, not even the Supreme Court can
change it, and that is what we call the doctrine of
immutability of judgement. Upon the finality of
judgement, the Court loses jurisdiction to amend,
alter, or modify the same, even at the risk of,
sometimes, there are erroneous conclusions of
fact and law. Kailangan may katapusan,
Exceptions: (1) When it concerns matters
involving the life, liberty, or property; (2)
Existence of compelling reasons; (3) Merits of the
case; (4) Cause is not totally attributable to the
fault or negligence of the party favored by the
suspension of the rules; (5) Lack of any showing
that such is frivolous and dilatory; (6) No party will
be unjustly prejudiced. Specially in nunc pro tunc
judgements.
Delfino vs Anasao: The Court made a clarificatory
judgement because the Court deemed it unjust if
the two hectares of land will be included in the
judgement.
Club Filipino, Inc. vs. Bautista: When you file an
MR against a final judgement, you can only do it
once. You can file an MR once before the MTC, if
it is not covered by the Rules on Summary
Procedure and Small Claims. If there is a
judgement before the RTC, you can seek an MR
before such final judgement, but you can only file
it once. Same rule with respect to a CA decision.
But with respect to the SC, as it is the Court of
last resort, you can file a second MR with leave of
Court. Because it is subject to the discretion of
the Court, the period for it to be a final judgement
will not be tolled. If no MR was filed by the other
party, then there will be entry of judgement, and
the decision becomes final and executory. Notice
that in the second MR, it did not toll the issuance
of an entry of judgement. If the SC grants the
second MR, and the decision was reversed, all
that will happen is that the entry will be recalled.
Why is everybody scared of an entry of
judgement? Because once there is an entry of
judgement, that means that it is now subject to
execution as a matter of right.
NTC vs. Alphaomega Integrated Corp.: There
was a decision rendered by a tribunal. And there
was patently a mistake in the computation. But no
one filed an MR. And by virtue of Section 17.1 of
the Artbitral Rules, any decision without an MR
nor Motion For Correction will be the final award.
However, during the execution, it was noted that
there were corrections. So they sought a Motion
To Correct Clerical Errors. But this error can no
longer be corrected even if it refers to
mathematical computation by virtue of the rules
of the CIBC.
DBP vs. Guarina Agricultural and Realty
Development Corp.: The doctrine of the law of the
case does not apply for the ex parte issuance of
a writ of possession was an independent and
separate case and it did not proceed from nor
emanate from the case.
Sara Lee Philippines vs. Macatlang: The
confession of judgement will not be upheld. The
company cannot bargain to pay an amount lower
because there was already a judgement stating
the amount to be paid, even if with the waiver of
the employees.
RULE 37: NEW TRIALS AND
RECONSIDERATIONS
Rule 37 speaks of two post-judgement remedies:
MR and MNT
These are post-judgement remedies, which
means it is filed after the judgement has been
rendered.
Motion For Reconsideration: Not a motion for
reconsideration of the denial of a, let’s say, a
Motion to Dismiss. That is not what is
contemplated in Rule 37. Why? Because this kind
of MR is an MR directed against an interlocutory
order. The MR mentioned in Rule 37 is an MR
directed against a final judgement.
Section 1. Grounds of and period for filing motion
for new trial or reconsideration. — Within the
period for taking an appeal, the aggrieved party
may move the trial court to set aside the judgment
or final order and grant a new trial for one or more
of the following causes materially affecting the
substantial rights of said party:
(a) 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 rights;
or
(b) 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.
Within the same period, the aggrieved party may
also move for reconsideration upon the grounds
that the damages awarded are excessive, that
the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision
or final order, or that the decision or final order is
contrary to law.
Section 1 actually speaks of 3 things. The first
one is a MNT, the grounds of which are two. The
first one is based on FAME, and by reason of
which such aggrieved party’s right has probably
been impaired. Second ground is newly
discovered evidence, and the reason why it is
called “newly discovered” is because at the time
of the trial, that piece of evidence could have not
been discovered despite diligence or inquiry, and
that newly discovered evidence would probably
alter the result of the decision.
The second post judgement remedy is an MR.
There are two grounds. Either the damages
granted is excessive, and has already become
unconscionable, or that based on the evidence
presented, it is insufficient or it is contrary to law
or jurisprudence.
EXAMPLE: A (plaintiff) and B (defendant). There
was a judgement, and B lost the case. B can take
his appeal. And an appeal is taken by B if B files
his Notice of Appeal within the reglementary
period. And he can file a Notice of Appeal within
15 days if it is an ordinary civil action. But his
appeal can be taken within a period of 30 days if
the case involves multiple appeals, which would
require him to submit a Notice of Appeal and a
Record on Appeal, duly filed and approved by the
Court. I will discuss this later. But what is
important is that you know what the period to
appeal is.
Collection case, a simple collection case. The
period to appeal is 15 days.
What is the case which would involve multiple
appeals?
- Special proceedings which you have not
taken up
- Eminent domain;
- Judicial foreclosure of mortgage;
- Partition.
EXAMPLE: In partition, the first judgement is an
order of partition. When I filed an action againt my
brothers and sisters, because I want our co-
owned properties to be partitioned, the very first
issue that will have to be resolved is whether or
not there exist a co-ownership. If there is a co-
ownership, then the Court will issue and Order of
Partition. That order is the first final order, which
can be the subject of an appeal. You do not file
only a Notice of Appeal, but you will also file a
Record on Appeal. The Order of Partition now will
be appealed to the CA, and the case will proceed
as to the actual partition, with prejudice as to the
appeal pending.
What is important for purposes of our discussion
now is the period to appeal within which you can
file a Motion For New Trial and a Motion For
Reconsideration. It will really depend. If for
example, if it is a case that involves multiple
appeals, then the period to file an MR or MNT is
30 days. If it does not involve multiple appeals,
then the period is 15 days.
EXAMPLE:
A: Received March 1; last period to appeal on
March 16
B: Received March 5; last day to appeal on March
20
When B files a Notice of Appeal on March 10, by
filing this N/A, can A still file on March 15 his own
MR?
- YES. Because the appeal has not yet
been perfected. That is why A can still file
an MR, and the Court can still act on it,
because the MR is still filed on time.
Imagine, if by the mere filing of a N/A, the appeal
of both parties have been perfected, diba under
naman yun sa other party?
“Appeal has been perfected”: The period to
appeal by both of the parties has already lapsed.
So kung hindi pa nagla-lapse, hindi pa perfected.
Hence, he can still file an MR or MNT.
Imagine if the rule is otherwise, then the other
party cannot avail of any other post-judgement
remedies, notwithstanding the fact that his period
to appeal has not yet lapsed. Worse, the Court is
deprived of jurisdiction already because a N/A
has already been filed. Mali naman yon.
It is important because in real life, the plaintiff and
defendant do not receive the judgement on the
same time.
Always remember this! MNT and MR are motions,
and as such, you must comply with the rule on
motions (Secs. 4 and 5, Rule 15). If you do not
comply, it will not toll the running of the period.
Notice, in MNT, you have heard the words “fraud,
accident, mistake, excusable negligence”. When
was the first time you heard the word FAME?
Motion to Set Aside Order of Default, Motion For
New Trial. Fraud must be based on extrinsic fraud.
Accident, mistake, then your excusable
negligence, which means it must not be gross and
not based on the negligence of the lawyer,
because negligence of the lawyer will bind the
client.
Next, you will submit your affidavit of merit. Notice,
when your ground for MNT, MR, when you
mention FAME, kakambal nyan is an affidavit of
merit. Why do you need to have an affidavit of
merit? Because you have to show that you have
meritorious defenses. Affidavit of merit, according
to one of the cases assigned to you, is not part of
your MR. Why? Because you were already able
to litigate on your meritorious defenses. And the
only reason why you are asking for
reconsideration is either (1) the damages
assessed against you is too unconscionable and
excessive; or (2) evidence or decision does not
conform to the evidence presented.
Can you file a second MR?
- NO.
Can you file a second MNT?
- YES.
Section 2. Contents of motion for new trial or
reconsideration and notice thereof. — The motion
shall be made in writing stating the ground or
grounds therefor, a written notice of which shall
be served by the movant on the adverse party.
A motion for new trial shall be proved in the
manner provided for proof of motion. A motion for
the cause mentioned in paragraph (a) of the
preceding section shall be supported by affidavits
of merits which may be rebutted by affidavits. A
motion for the cause mentioned in paragraph (b)
shall be supported by affidavits of the witnesses
by whom such evidence is expected to be given,
or by duly authenticated documents which are
proposed to be introduced in evidence.
A motion for reconsideration shall point out a
specifically 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 to the provisions of law
alleged to be contrary to such findings or
conclusions.
A pro forma motion for new trial or
reconsideration shall not toll the reglementary
period of appeal. (2a)
When you talk about affidavit of merits, which is
required for a MNT on the first ground, it should
state (1) the nature or character of the FAME; (2)
Must state the meritorious defenses or the valid
causes of action evidence should be presented
for you to be able to convince the Court to grant
your MNT.
If there are no affidavits of merits attached to the
MNT, then it will be denied. However, an affidavit
of merit is not required if the Court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter.
What do you mean by pro forma?
- Pro forma motions for reconsideration, as
stated by the Rules, is when you repeat
and repeat only the grounds that had
already been passed upon and resolved
by the Court. In other words, you did not
raise any new matter.
But in one of the cases assigned, that was not the
definition of pro forma. According to the SC, “it is
expected for you to repeat or restate the issues
that have been raised.” And pro forma is defined
as those that would result to your motions being
mere scrap of paper.
BA Finance vs. Pineda: A MR is not pro forma
especially if it is filed against an interlocutory
order. Why is it not considered as pro forma even
if you have to repeat it? Because, precisely, you
are asking the Court to take a second look,
because if not, and you can establish that the
Court committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction, then a denial of
your MR will constrain you to file a Rule 65
Petition. In fact, a MR, as a general rule, is
required to be filed because you are asking the
Court to correct their selves first. But an MR, as a
general rule, is not required in final judgements.
There is no law requiring that an MR be filed
against a final judgement. Except that there are
certain laws that would require the submission of
an MR first before you can appeal a final
judgement. One of such is under AmM-02-11-10-
SC, in judgements rendered on petitions for
nullity, annulment, and legal separation. You are
required, mandatory, to file an MR against that
final judgement.
If an MR or MNT against that final judgement has
been denied, what is your remedy?
- You appeal the final judgement, You do
not appeal the order denying the MR or
MNT.
And what is the period to file the appeal?
- You are given a fresh period of 15 days
from the receipt of the order of denial, to
file you Notice of Appeal, and this is
pursuant to the Neypes ruling.
If your MR against a final judgement was granted,
can the other party also file an MR? SITUATION.
Plaintiff vs. Defendant. Defendant lost. Defendant
files an MR. Granted. The judgement was
reversed. Can plaintiff file an MR?
- YES. It is not considered as second MR.
The second MR that is not allowed is the
second MR after the same motion.
Section 3. Action upon motion for new trial or
reconsideration. — The trial court may set aside
the judgment or final order and grant a new trial,
upon such terms as may be just, or may deny the
motion. If the court finds that excessive damages
have been awarded or that the judgment or final
order is contrary to the evidence or law, it may
amend such judgment or final order accordingly.
Section 4. Resolution of motion. — A motion for
new trial or reconsideration shall be resolved
within thirty (30) days from the time it is submitted
for resolution. (n)
Section 5. Second motion for new trial. — A
motion for new trial shall include all grounds then
available and those not so included shall be
deemed waived. A second motion for new trial,
based on a ground not existing nor available
when the first motion was made, may be filed
within the time herein provided excluding the time
during which the first motion had been pending.
No party shall be allowed a second motion for
reconsideration of a judgment or final order
Can you file a second MR?
- NO. But in SC, yes, but with leave of
Court.
Section 6. Effect of granting of motion for new
trial. — If a new trial is granted in accordance with
the provisions of this Rules the original judgment
or final order shall be vacated, and the action
shall stand for trial de novo; but the recorded
evidence taken upon the former trial, insofar as
the same is material and competent to establish
the issues, shall be used at the new trial without
retaking the same.
What is trial de novo?
- There will be trial. You can recall your
witnesses. You can present your newly
discovered evidence, which may alter the
judgement of the Court. But definitely, all
the pieces of evidence already admitted,
both testimonial and documentary, would
stay. Hindi siya nagstart from 0. But you
have the right to recall it if necessary.
When an MR has been granted, there will be no
trial. Why? Because the ground is just based on
the evidence already presented.
Section 7. Partial new trial or reconsideration. —
If the grounds for a motion under this Rule appear
to the court to affect the issues as to only a part,
or less than an of the matter in controversy, or
only one, or less than all, of the parties to it, the
court may order a new trial or grant
reconsideration as to such issues if severable
without interfering with the judgment or final order
upon the rest. (6a)
Section 8. Effect of order for partial new trial. —
When less than all of the issues are ordered
retried, the court may either enter a judgment or
final order as to the rest, or stay the enforcement
of such judgment or final order until after the new
trial.
Section 9. Remedy against order denying a
motion for new trial or reconsideration. — An
order denying a motion for new trial or
reconsideration is not appealed, the remedy
being an appeal from the judgment or final order.
Abe Industries, Inc. v. CA: When you talk about
parties, the other party is not deprived to avail of
his post-judgement remedies if the other party
has taken his appeal. Because, technically, the
appeal has not yet been perfected. When the
appeal has been perfected, then that means all
the appeal periods of all the parties has already
expired, and therefore, the Court can no longer
entertain any MR.
Mendoza v. Bautista: Is an affidavit of merit
required in an MR? NO. Why? Because the Rules
provide that the attachment of an affidavit of merit
is to an MNT. Why MNT only? Because in MR,
your meritorious defenses has already been tried
and decided upon.
EXAMPLE: Ang title ng motion mo is MR, and the
body is grounded based on FAME, and you did
not attach your affidavit of merit. If you are the
Judge, will you grant or deny it?
Trial the same as Motion For New Trial?
- MNT: Governed by Rule 37; Filed against
a final judgement.
- MTRT: No basis in the Rules of Court, but
based on equity, subject to the discretion
of the Court. There is no judgement yet.
Tadeja v. People: The missing transcripts were
attached to support the MR filed before the CA.
Did they change the decision? NO. Because the
missing transcripts would not have altered the
decision at all.
SJS Officers v. Lim: When you merely reiterate
the ground relied upon in the MR, it will be denied.
When a motion is deemed pro forma, it should not
stop the running of the period. Based on
jurisprudence, the only way that it will not stop the
running of the period is when it is not compliant
with Secs. 4 and 5 of Rule 15.

- DENY. Because the body should prevail

over the caption.

Llantero v. CA: In this case, an MR was filed, but

he merely copied the caption. And it appeared in
that particular case, there were many cases
against him. It was filed with the same court, but
with a different docket number. The SC said,
technically, an MR does not exist in
contemplation of law, because you filed it in Civil
Case No.123, you filed it with Civil Case No. 456
because you copied the caption of Civil Case No.
456 to Civil Case No. 123. When you file before a
Court, it is not incumbent upon the Clerk to make
sure that the MR is filed for the proper case. If it
is the wrong number, then it cannot be filed. As
far as the law is concerned, you did not file your
MR on time.

PCIB v. Ortiz: The only problem in this case is

attributable to the lawyer. It is because the lawyer
does not have a system of receiving pleadings.
When you have your own law office, you should
devise a system where you can assure the proper
receipt of pleadings, notices, and judgements.

Republic v. Asuncion: Is a Motion To Reopen