napLiriep CIVIL, PROCEDURE BOOK which even Jeor would work injustice, ply. would not be feasil the former procedure shall api " Propased Amendments tothe 1997 Rules ore oto and also alL.pending proceedings, ‘ocaled ormodified- accordingly a) (2019 Amendments) RULE 36 Judaments, Final Orders and Entry Thereot Secon 1 Rendon of gen Inigo at cn olor — 4 Judge stating ler anddsinely the lac ete which it is based, signed by him, and flea a ook of the court. (la) W him, and filed with the clerk of Philippines Contractors, Ine. v. Mrs. Leica B ” 4170026, June 20, 2013), Magsatn, 6. uit hale i ae the petitioner aed to peer is complaint. Thus, neiter the ytiionsr sor the recto at tle to now the partial fats that hal prompted te seal dismissal Had the petitone perhaps fae apna sesetaie trial date? Had i failed to take approprie ans fe the acne prosecution fitscomplantfor en uneasmabllength ft’ Ha 1c failed to comply with the ruls or any order ofthe ral cour? The “aismissal order” docs a. We have in the past admonished trial cours against issuing dismissal orders x x x. A tral court should always specify the ‘reasons for a complaints dismissal so that on appedl he reviewing court can readily determine the prima facie justificasion for the dismissal. A decision that does not clearly and distiney state the facts and the law on which itis based eves the paren the dark and is especially prejudicial to the losing party who unable to point the assigned error in seeking a review by a higher tribunal. (Vicos Industrial Corp. v. Court of Appeals, C.R. No. 88709, February 11, 1992, 206 SCRA 127, cited in the case af Shimizu Philippinespure CIVIL PROCEDURE BOOK 1 ous sa Contractors Ine. . Mrs Leticia B. Magsalin, G-R. No. 170036, June 20, 2012) ner thatthe dismissal of Ci hun ages withthe petitioner thatthe dmg of can atl denial of due process, Hlementany process demands that the parties to a litigation be given due proses demands i was decid, as well 8 an explanation inrmation on on (he eaone that Td fo the conclusions of the aa ac Sect stice Society, OR. No, 159967, Apri 2 Sout (lar Sel J rl Corp. turd ef 2004, 428 SCRA 283, ies Judge Belflor, June 15,1994, 289 Si ae Natal Labo lations Comision 3 Pat ae 300). Wher be reasne ate absent ein ach Fe 9) sons dismieal order) has absolutely nothing asthe Dect nu nut, (Air France w- Carracoso, Na re ee Oe 1965, 18 SCRA 155, 157, citing Edards v. McCoy, 22 Phil. 598, 601 [1912]; and Yangco v. Court of First Taceic onta ea 29 Pl. 188, 19111905). ‘Aludge is to make complete findings of fact. ‘The Supreme Court issued Administrative Circular No. 1 dated January 23, 1988 which required al judge tomake “complete findings ‘of facts in their decisions, serutinize closely the legal aspects of the ‘casein the light ofthe evidence presented, and avoid the tendency to [generalize and to form conclusions without detailing the facts from ‘which such conclusions are deduced.” (See Tan v. Ramirez, 640 Phil. 370, 288 [2010] Constitutional obligation ‘The judges are constitutionally mandated that a judgment or final order determining the merits of the case shall be prepared by ‘him Gudge), stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. Here is the provision: Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinetly the facts and the law on which itis based. o pation fr rei or maton or eoniderotion of decision ofthe cart shal be refuted due cout dened tuithout stating the leal basis therefor. ones ie Mtl tats herr. ARTICLE Vt now ral ae, pee nc a reg te ig GR Ne oe Corer, a Facts: On Apri 30, 2002, the gu a pita at Con el el es Mata Ces ty ck need order: sie Mrs. Leticia Naka ort, the RTC dissed the OnvER For failure of (petitions) to For 1 1 prone, the cae i herby ‘50 ORDERED. Ie Whether or not the dsmisal ereisalid Ruling: The Dismissal Orders Void ‘The nullity of the dss or simply states its coneusio thatthe ease sald te terse for non prosequtu, legal enlas faetson which thine sce om Hae he Dismissals of acon fr alure of the plain w prosecute i authored under Scien Rule PoC fe heen {Cour Aplin examination dumibl ore once uunqualitd order and ay such indeed ein sdcesal ea, preutic. Dismissals of ection andr Scion 3) hich dot txprocly sate whether they ae with or wit pris soe held to be with prejuie Wallan Cour of Appeals ‘No 85396 May, 1958, SCRA Te) AS a prejudicial diminal, the Dacember 16 2003 dismissal ordor is also deemed tobe a judgment on the rerits so thatthe petitioners explant in Ci Case No C2 488 can no longer be reel on the principle of rex adioin. Procedural, when 1 complaint is dismissed for flare to prosecute and’ the dismisaal is unqulifed, the dsnisal har the effet of an adjuzaton on the mers. (Peninsula Construction, Ine Bima, No #408, March, 191, 194 ‘SCRA 667,671, citing Osare. Judge Goacen, 242 Phil 82 {198 sd rn Oat of op HEPA 26 ‘and Vallangea v. Court of Appeals, supra ot 1. Caterer Court of Appeals, GR. a. 8245, Janaary 25, 1991183 SCRA 4431; o0ealao Cruz v. Court of Appeal (Seond Division, $17 Phil 572 (2008)en IO I REE IE eerie ee a er a he Scr a orice A eee IO AA SO ca eee Fe aie hr genianer iet rane ie at ie Yeintet ad the smi apn, Fe at ee ce ped ee, Gemma ik The seitoner sortie (ala 2 at et al he aot me sonra wane & nn of te sigan re i pas caregeees Banc oi eae tet nag Er tanec ot sarrurdopudetemieisd msteee htt eras crete cman rrr terra on ay ores Sa ee enn, Cort ea tan SET prado teal De he a oma pest St srSeeaemeies ae rer eng Tnre pemer poner Seen perpen ery aptes Seqite arn oe aes i tc oore ahs pat te aad Setar anaes oaeemaen [Solr hraar lone pmtfnare raceme ace PF apenrnee Popo ppp od Selene Sone et sirieare cio eae ae eet ee ee ee eee taal lio Pg Po gry eon Ss fas ok Br hg onan de Sa ae Or oo ores ‘Ne rm oe eh ath Aerie of ih me Se ie wert eter tate iF prensa es Hain A fal prea the rt 1 Mo stir OURO somtimes at got © MATEY Fie titans of te Come Wt Kigoae LO NEVTAED nd HAI, Seah tr rah Heual tne: heme 4 Seat ng, Coe Clee eo Doce 1 tana SO, w08 SONY sh he sonar + sega eae = tere HOMES CED ha tne some eh cmrnaress ane Aas bg it Satine t LOT hare, mh at tone ag EM Gy (ree th he at ares ont ea aca pe et fa SF bone The tans a oe tbo te, ete sale a ey Seder ond Hol be ane, St Sn nda 1 sted ye sah let a ine mc judo ef agar 0 # se sess (Sa, #595 econ fa ed 0 990 matte te ha te ge Ser tal ot oa yh Sen ak of print, Acti, he co ta os ne te many HAN eat fa i he Se Net ig memes ign Sats Sat he we he ero ‘au satorshi. wt iy sn nae elit mgr coee ee {fhe illenton x tom -nrtes memaone sonnei sth ned ketene hon at ony Fee ‘he Righewt Cone the Sy ech etn pre ‘ise miedo a das trons # Be Pts Roo Bevetgment Corsrain 6 8 ISS: Sommter id Section t Kadignent foe atin one” more of portion, — bacipuet wary ie gives to of wpa one’ of fre of smarking Ine 9° sre of seca atone Wher tire st Seman shes ey aque fhe mein on sac seo Me whomronry Sada be lnntaraan Pharmentone ih Serine "ey imate ie ariel BY Secrian Smet pudigmentic— (6 a seis mph ares Aotirsdansts, Cet sort sins. tie sever jan prorger, newton jvdxgnent apse ome oF are of Sem Noweotand ther getson m rnaed eine te others: V Sem § Sgr omen — Min re te: Si fie wath ie pease an seh he cme a ‘gee. ¢ deren of amas ater 0 4 sete ‘aio ae ai saetencio ato of he romeo ‘arencrames ie hr asic anton he i Govier 6 coger jugs Sd fate cate: Son0 IMpuirizn CIV PROCEDURE BOOK 1 a cpa elt inte a i scr ne alps of and he nn a sco = enforcement until the eat oe oe er the ena Seer my eno ues sd ay re en ee cere judgment shall ter isposed of rendered. (5a) Section 6 Judgment against entity without juridical personality, — When judgment is rendered against two or fhore persons sued as an entity without juridical personality, the judgment shall set out their individual or proper names, if known. (6a) Mustration:‘The judgmentis rendered against Leni, Peni, and Mari ‘They are sued under the business name of “Lugaw Partnership.” In this situation, che judgment shall set out (determine) their individual (characteristic) or proper (accurate) names, if ascertainable, RULE 37 New Trial or Reconsiderations fet a ‘been obtained. (irazona v, Phil Be Teco Sag ne ae 683, 687 (2008) citing Ortigas and Company ine ee 90 Section 1. Grounds of and perid for fling matin fo ial or reconsiderat — Within the peri King an appeal, the aggtioved party may mvs Se my akong a2 aside the judgment or inal order and grants tone or more ofthe followin substantial rights of said purty. (a) Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence wh ordinary prudence couldnt have guarded ssn ood by Feason of which such aggrieved party hat pokes bore impaired in his rights; or - cae (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 \warded are excossive, that the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final order, or that the decision or final order is contrary to law. (1) Within what period to file « motion for new trial or reconsideration? Answer: Within the period fr taking an appeal. the aggrieved party ‘may move the trial court to set aside the judgment or final order. aose “SIMPLIFIED CIVIL PROCEDURE BOOK + oo he evidence ‘xcs that i te desion ot Sal order is contrary to law. Grounds for new tral: Grant a new trial for one or more materially (o) Fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence (FAME) ie en culd not have guarded agains and by eae rare Peck agived party has probably been impaired nhtsor : Nenly dincovered evidence, which he could not, wit reassess have dcovered and produced a the tral nd hic presened would probly ater the eu of the following causes ‘Motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent in Rule 68. ‘A motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent to the filing of petition for cetiorari-Rule 65, Exceptions: necessary to prevent irreparable damages and (a) when it injury toa party, (6) whore the trial judge capriciously and whimsically exercised his judgment; (6) where there may be danger of a failure of justice; (@) where an appeal would be slow, inadequate, and insuflicient; (6) where the issue raised is one purely of law; where public interest is involved; and ) in case of urgency. (Garrido v. Tortogo, GR. No. 156358, August 17, 2011, cited inthe case of Nemia Castro v. Rosalyn Guevarra and Jamir Guevarra, G.R. No, 192787, April 26, 2012). ‘The vory purpose of a motion for reconsideration: "he very purpose of «motion fr reconsideration isto point out ‘he Sndings and conclusions ofthe decalon whieh tthe aeons New rag LE view are not supported bylaw is very often confined tthe ange Th movant, therefore ‘aplication on thewame aay remedy would nat be a pene {rior some ther remedy fay eet Tents sine qua nan forthe Sligota Peon ee Conon aanston pte i it Pe Mo fluo a a t. No. (3, vee E tet Se a ir du cor Oaerni th tio tt doe 18S Sa Exceptions to the filing ofa motion forreconsi¢eration: ‘This rule admits well defined exeptious asollows: Concededly, the settled rueis that a motion for reconsideration is condition sine qua non forthe fling of a petition for cortionon Its purpose is to grant an opportunity for the court to correct any actual or perceived error attributed toithy the re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances ofthe case Te rule's, however, circumscribed by well-defined exceptions, such as (2) where the order isa patent nullity, as where the court & quo has no jurisdiction; (©) where the questions raised in the eeriorari proceedings Ihave been duly raised and passed upon y the loner our, or are tbe ‘same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court (6) where there isan urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government oof the petiner or the subject matter ofthe Action is perishable; (@) where, under the circumstances, & motion for reconsideration would be useless; (©) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relios SIMPLIFIED CIVILPROCEDURE BOOK (0 where, ina criminal case, relief from an order of arrest ig urgent and the gran‘ing of such rliefby the trial court is improbabl (@) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for (h) where the proceeding were ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to objet; and (where the issue risedis one purely oflaw or where public interest is invalved. (Siok Ping Tang v. Subic Bay Distribution, Ine, GR No, 162578, Dreember 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 457, 469-470. See Siso Republic v. Pantranco North Express et al, G.R. No. 178593, February 15, 2012, 666 SCRA 199, 205.206. See also Domdom v. Sandiganbayan, GR. Nos, 182982-88, February 24, 2010, 613 SCRA 28, 652589 citing Tan v. Court of Appeals, 241 Phil. 570, 576-578 11997). “Settled is the rule that a party Is barred from assalling the correctness of a judgment not appealed from by hit ‘Since PDB's Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and for New Trial was filed late and the 15-day period within whicl ‘appeal expired without PDB filing the requisite notice of appeal, it follows that it right to appeal has been foreclosed; it may no longer question the trial cour’s Decision in any other manner. “Settled is the rule that a party is barred from assailing the correctness of a judgment not appealed from by him." (Heirs of Juan Oelarit v, Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 9664, June 17, 1994, 233 SCRA 239, 249). ra sueuaslin Happy aie dt tees ep tacked neta ete Cannge Bs WF ER Sh ts a ee ee ng fo ippal shen Fe hes Grete nares esr immer a ren te upset hn ap oe icmafapeas pee since kc ane ive gnad and have xt Seeded os ena oor cee ‘espect to matters of claim and of defense.” (Amarante v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 49698, May 3, 1994, 232 SCRA 104, 109-110). Runa New Talo Rar os final and executory, itis the hd eu iti themida hu tt feet PL Si, 50 oy, tal Lat issue as a matter of right x x x (a) when the j, aie Se udget has Decne er Gaied hist the judgment debtor has ‘renounced Peal; or) wien ta ase iat naa ed pa Poramount Insurance Crp 2010, 10 SCRASTY, 854. ctedintheca fGen iene ae ‘and Jose Dela Cruz v. Planters Deve ok GR he ioe ond Deepen Bank Na fot, What is a new trial? Now tralia remedy tha socks to temper ala) of a judgment or prevent the fae ef ae ae Appeals, 162 Phil. 264, 2761976). The ellos of sn nder eon 4 new tial isto wipe ot the previous ajuaton tha tc ek inay be tried de noo (anew) for th purse of ederngs doen in accordance with law, taking iat tonsdratin the desea be presented during the cond til Consequently «maton fx a thal proper only ater therendn or pomulgaton es jules or issuance fa final order. motion for new tals ny welble wwhen reli is ought agnins judgment end the judgment i not Yetfinal. (Samontev. Samant, iS PRL 17, Ts 197. is but proper that the judg’ mind bo stad to any and all questions Presented during the trial inorder to serve the enue of justi. (emia Castro v Rosalyn Getarra ond Jami Curr, No. 192787, April 25, 2013) Seetion 2. Contents of motion for new trial or reconsideration and notice thereof The motion sal be made In writing the ground or grounds therefor a written notice af Hn shall be served hy the movant on the averse party. ‘A motion for new trial sball be proved inthe man Provided for proof of motion. A motion for the cause med. in paragraph (a) of the preceding section shall be supported by affidavits of merits which, my be rebutted by affidavits. A motion for the cause ment i iidavits of the in paragraph (b) shall be supported by the wring iy whom sch evidence is expected ob eves ich are proposed to or by duly authenticated documents which are proposed be introduced in evidence.oa siyPLiFiED CIVIL PROCEDURE DOOK 1 for reconsideration shall point out a findings or conclusions of the judgment Faeeinge not supported by the evidence or Taw making express reference to the wvidence of to the provisions of th findings or conclusions. A. mot specifically the or final order w! which are contrary t0 testimonial or documentary € Taw alleged to be contrary to sue! " ww trial or reconsideration 'A pro forma motion for new tt shall net toll the reglementary period of appeal. (2a) ‘A motion for reconsideration may merely reiterate issues already passed upon by the court, that by itself does not make it io forms and is immaterial because what is essential is compliance ‘with the requisites of the Rules. ‘The Supreme Court in Marina Properties Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 355 Phil. 705 (1998), held Under our rules of procedure, a party adversely affected by a decision of a trial court may move for Feconsideration thereof on the following grounds: («) the damages awarded are () the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision; or (©) ___ the decision is contrary to law. A motion for reconsideration interrupts the running of the period to appeal, unless the rotion is pro forma. This is now expressly set forth in the last paragraph of Section 2, Rule 37, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. ‘A motion for reonsderation bated on the foregoing grounds is deemed proforma if the same does not specify the findings oF conclusions inthe idgment which are act upportel by the evidence or contrary to law, taking express reference to the pertinent Sesion ole rvs etd that altaugh a motion oe ‘consideration may merely reiterate saves already passed upon b the our, that by itself docs not make it proforma ans immaterl becae what eset i complance withthe equines o the mun New Talo Ride or Requisit 3, ai a al hl which maybe ebay ‘on motion for new tra: supported by affidavits toned in paragraph (b), shall ssesby whom sich evidence is expected to be given, orby duly authenticated davumenes heen proposed to be introduced in evidence, Requisites on Motion for Reconsideration L.A motion for reconsideration e the findings or oncusionsaf ie juiguet wel iment or final oder 2. That the findings are not supported by t Stine tae ain ported by the evidence o ata tts gi oR, ae 6 tie locumentary evidence oto the pvisons ow alene contrary to such findings or conclusions. eee ‘A pro forma motion for new tral or reconsideration shall not tol the reglementary period of appeal. Moreover, itissettled thatalthougha motion for reconsideration may merely reiterate issues already passed upon by the court that, by itself, does not make it pro forma. In fet, the Court of Appeals did not’ declare said motion for reconsideration as pro forma when it denied the same. Hence, considering that the motion for reconsideration is not proforma and a mer srap of paper, its fling tolled the running period of appeal pursuant to Section 2, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court. (Marilyn Victorio-Aquin v. Poife Plans, In. ‘and Mamerto A. Marcelo, dr, G.R. No. 193108, December 10, 2014). ‘Armotion that does not comply wth the requirements of Sections 4and § of Rule 15 “A motion that does not comply with the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 16 af the Rules of Court i 6 worthlon, piece of paper which the clerk of court has no right to receive an which the court has no authority to act upon.” (Pallada e. RTC of Kalibo, Aklan, Br. 1, 364 Phil. 81, 89[1999)."Being fatal defect tases of motions to reconsider a decision, th runing of the pers to appeal is not tolled by their filing or pendeney.” (Nuiex » GS Family Bank, 511 Pal. 135, 747-748 (2005).SIMPLIFIED C1VHL PROCEDURE BOOK fornesetrialorreconsideration, fc he janet or Bl oer Fae i oar tu uponcuch terms as may be just oF May and er rene court finds that excessive damages de i i nat the judgment or final order ie ave ee the cetdence raw iemay amend such judgment tna order accordingly. 2) tion 4, Resolution of motion. — A mation for new tral Section dcetion all be revolved within thirty (0) days ons the tne io submited for resolution. (5) Section 3, Action upon motion, "The trial court may set asi Not 30 days but 90 days based on jurisprudence In the case of Judge Adoracion G. Angeles v. Judge Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, AM. No, RTJ-10-2248, September 29, 2010, the Supreme Court held: 'A judge cannot choose to prolong the period for resolving pending incidents and deciding cases beyond the period authorized by law. Let it be underscored that it isthe sworn duty of judges to administer justice without ‘undue delay under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied. Judges should act with dispatch in resolving pending incidents, so as not to frustrate and delay the satisfaction of a judgment. (Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Marcelino L. Sayo, Jr., 431 Phil. 1413, 431 (2002). Judge Sempio Diy, having been a member of the judiciary for several years, should not have any trouble disposing the court's business and resolving motions for reconsideration within tho required period. Otherwise, she should formally request this Court for an extension of the deadline to avoid administrative liability, Unfortunately, she failed to do that in these eases. Delay in resolving ot S0-dags fed by te low cannot be eee Sononed: (fe ote Court mints ue ey B. Astin, MET Ne 8.1006 Deeb 477 SCRA 9, 17). PRES f 8005 Respondent's claim of death threats on her and her staff, even if real, would not constitute a valid excuse for her inaction, After al, as member of the judiciary, mn Nev Teal oes «= she must display diligence an adversities to lve up tober oath fone ae fi all ath of office. Beni thrents were received from May te Jason Yb Suly 2 WHEREFORE, spot Je Me tan nt ‘ata sly hin nbs RBMOWE etal Ga Pejoatery pt Lappe a Seat trial shall include all grounds then vaishe ead hase anea So coe tatan ayant eae had been pending. No party shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final order (4a, 4, 1RG). ‘Second Motion for Reconsideration i allowed. Respondent corey anus tht th pion agin second Mite snot si Tes ing inane who te Se are alowed inte inter fen Te Curt ud that xtreorinanlypersuae reuoa fr ganting poe’ wed HUN wore preset the pln apparel metro ce td tht fe en faba owl be eter sve by wing th tn itn ed pe 7,0 ting Onigenond Co Limited Prine Ve 24 SCA 334, {98a ond Somes. Cure dopa 18 SCRA B34 669188. ing of mati trio =I Section 6. Bffect of granting of motion for new ' new eral ia gramted tn accordance withthe provisions of his Rules the original judgment o aa order sal be vacated, find the action shall etand for trial de nous bu the recorded tvidenee talon upon the former til insofar asthe eae potent to ctablish the issues shall be weed Ut the mow trial without retaking he same. 62) ktINPLIFIED CIVIL PROCEDURE BOOK 1 0 trial Effect of granting new The original judement or final order shall be vacate, ‘The action shall stand for trial de novo (anew), 3. potion under this Rule appear to the court ty It is allowed in Philippine jurisdiction to file a Partial Motion for Now Trial or Partial Motion or Reconsideration, Itean be doneit the grounds for a motion affect only a part of the issues, or less than fllof the matter in controversy. In which case, the court may order {t new trial or grant reconsideration as to such issues if severable ‘wathout interfering with the judgment or final order upon the res, Section 7. grounds for a moti “Litigation isa 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 trials not a refuge forthe obstinate.” (Viking Industrial Corporation v. The Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143794, July 13, 2004) Section 8. Effect of order for partial new trial. — When less than all of the issues are ordered retried, the court may cither enter a judgment or final order as to the rest, of stay the enforcement of such judgment or final order until after the new trial. (Ja) Section 9, Remedy against order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration. — An order denying a motion for not appealable, the remedy being an appeal from the judgment or final order. (n) ‘The Supreme Court held: Its true thatthe original text of Section 1, Rule 41 cf the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure expressly limited an search Section 1, Su may be thers An appeal final order No appeal my be taken from: (2) An oder de tra ores * mt now (®) An order denying rol or any snl main Seng ht es judgment; ‘king relief from (© Animerbetory der, (@)_An order disallowing or dismissing ‘an appeal; : (©) An order denying « metion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession oF compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or any other ground vitiatng consent, An order af execution; © A judgment or final order for or against one or more of several partis or in separate claims, cunterdaims, ersslaims ‘and third-party complaints, while the m: cease is pending, unless the court allows an appeal therefrom: end (@) An order dismissing en action without prejudice In all the above instances where the judgment or final erder isnot appealable the ‘aggrieved party may fle an appropriate special civil action under Fle 65. (0) fd proscribed the ying 8 motion forsqupLirIED CIVIL PROCEDURE BOOK 1 fe order denying a motion for new tril or Soni the Hist of issuances of a tral court motion for Feo as by reason af such order not being the na ae uct Prete proceedings i the tial court, This nature rae eta refeced in Scion 9 of Rule 37 af the 1097 Rules ot of theory iT phich declares that such order denying a mation fr bem orth judgment or final order.” Spouses Ramon Mendiog aPoee a Mendiola v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No, 159746, July 18, 2012) ‘The inclusion of the ‘a motion for reeonsiderat RULE 38, Relief from Judgments, Orders, or Other Proceedings A cexnl nota bi ctr plending his shall not i alors nee a eked peru natt ane ng eeh en sinned. Tecona Pa ae foe ual he £683, 687 [2009) citing Ortigas and Company limit Velasco, 324 Phil 488, 4891099). "P="? lined Partnership 8 a rule, is prohibited Sectton 1, Petton for reli rom judgment, order, o other proceedings. — When a judgment or fal cndor catered Erraay othe prosecdiag ls horabe: ies eee tn any court Chrocgh mud, eclege sate eae esligonce, he may flea petton is eac coasted nts cate ang ht he deen, procedng epiriart Definition of Petition for Relief from Judgment A PETITION for relief from judgment under Rule 38 ofthe 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is an quitable 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. (Dela Cruz e, Andres, G.R. No, 161864, April 27, 2007, 522 SCRA $85, Julio Purcon, dr. v. MRM Philippines, Inc, G.R. No, 182718, September 26, 2008), [A petition for relief from judgment is not available if other remedies exist, such as # motion for new trial o eppeal. (Insular Life Savings and Trust Company v. Spouses Runes, 479 Phil. 985, 1006 2004) [Per J. Callejo, St, Second Division). To set aside a judgment through a petition for relief, the negligence must be so fgross “that ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded Against.” This is to prevent partes from “rovivfing] the right to1p cAVIL. PROCEDURE BOOK 1 - siPLIFIE rough inexcusable negligence.” (Guevarray, appeal {already lost theoe “Sr08) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division)) Bautista, 593 Phil 20, tition for Relief: ease of granting th Pe i aeuaton or DAGUPAN REPRESENT CrTY OF PAGS Liat ESTER MARAMBA DEN AM ati, July 2.2014, LEONEN, J- ‘defendant city that used the demolition Plone Mah center allegedly without giving direct ce rt Mara and with threat faking ove the ‘This prompted plaintiff-respondent Maramba to file a Pope Te ijunaon and damages with prayer fra wrt of i ction andor taporary restraining order. Inthe complaints prayer, Maram asked for a judgment verde Stentant iy to pay pliniff the amount of Ten Fe, ro 0) ps forte actual and present valueot DeSamerial hah center completely demolished by defendant aa ren milions wae handwriten ontop of the word, Sty Se an adinal zr was handwritten atthe end TRON etn eure: The til cour through Judge Crpin Cee een ivr ef Marnmbn and awarded 10 milion at ‘ton dues Defendant city fled motion for reconsideration. Marambe fled an opposition on the ground thatthe motion was not set for hearing. The opposition prayed that the motion be stricken off the recrds, The tral court denied petitioner city’s motion for lick of notice of time and place of hearing, thus, "the motion for reconsideration is not entitled to judicial cognizance.” In 8 Separate order on the same dat, the trial court also granted rama’ tin fr extn and ordered that “e weit of ‘execution be isued.” Facts: Ptitioner Defendant city then fle «petition for elie with prayer for psiminary injunction The ey alleged that “the denon, vere it not forthe City Leal Ofer mistake, nopigeee tnd goss incimprtenc, would not have been obtained By ie pinto hi hve ben resmsidere or eerie cverurned, the damage award being not only unconscionable ‘and unreasonable, but completely baseless.” m ‘Thetral court denied defendant ity’ petition forreliefand dered thatthe writ of execution be implemented. Defendant sity fled for reconsideration. Defendant ity recounted the ‘intakes, nerlgenc, incompetence and auspicious acl! ‘misiong’ of city legal offcer Aty. Roy 8. Lafortezn in the vitof merit signed by then Mayor, Benjamin S. Lim: be eee Roos 9) He didnot present for tne et, 4 0 bretet testimonial evidence 3) He filed a meio for ren rho th uate oer teat fevous and fatal errr. This rele nthe toa, the Decne sac of he den He Let the aver desc, the dei st his Motion or Racers Oa Execution fom this fant simmer and relied on his own dvs rea eh Fecived~ but comply imran the reminder of the Gy Alsi tha be shold om nd arte ithe is ‘Thereafter the tril or, through acting Judge Serio @ Castlo. raned the pein or tsa oneqsly educed the ward of aca damage tm’ 10 ion 75,000.00. Consequenty he Wet of Exon wa ee ‘Agerieved by this order and the subsequent denial of hher motion for reconsideration, plant Marana. fled petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeal. The Cour Appeals granted Maramba's petition for certiorari. Ic held that petitioner city’s motion for reconsideration lucked a notie of hearing and wasa mer szrapol paper tat didnot al the period to appeal. The Court of Appeals als denied reconsideration, ‘prompting petitioner city elevate tho case efre the Supreme Court Tasue: Whether or nat a potion fr rei from judgment is meritorious Ruling: The petition is meritrous and shoud be granted Defendant city followed the procedure under Rule 38 of the Rules of Cour. Exeusable negligence as aground fra petition for rie requires thatthe negligence beso gross "that ordinary diligence find prudence could act have guarded gainstt” This excusable Negligence must also be impulale to the part-tigant and Bott his or hr counsel wove de Be ‘lone The binding effec of counsel's negligence ensures agnnst he renting uncertainty and tentang Cente were allowed to merely diaows thes counsel Nevertheless, this. court hat eased this rule op ooo srerons such ax “I where [the] reckles or rose negligence Srarione deprives te cient of due prose of law: C) when {the rules) application wil result in outright deprivatINPLIFIED CIVIL PROCEDURE BOOK 1 (3) where the intrest of justice so require” Certainly. sete to prove the excusable negligence Defendant gtitone 1 gned by then Mayor, Benjamin S. Lim, inthe adavit of ner city emphasized the argument it ane 1 sana rederation hat "the improvements ied or damaged consists [se] only of GL dese kei als. wed for Buying and cling ao reduc and) [bly no stretch of imagination would of Bebe Pine amdant {2 P10,000,000.00 as claimed by the Sut” Considering the foregoing, substantial justin ‘arvans the grant of the petition WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Cour of Appeal dune 15,2008 decision and August 14,2006 resolution SRPREVENSED and SET ASIDE. The tal court orders dated ‘Migus 25, 208 and November 30, 2005 are AFFIRMED. client's iberty or property ot Rule 38 (now) allows the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Court Which decided the case or issued the order to hear the petition for reli. [As revised, Rule 38 radically departs from the previous rule 1s it now allows the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Court which ‘decided the case or issued the order to hear the petition for relief. Under the old rule, a petition for relief from the judgment or final order of Municipal Trial Courts should be filed with the Regional ‘Trial Court. (Julio Purcon, Jt. v. MRM Philippines, Inc., C.R. No, 182718, September 26, 2008) ‘The relief afforded by Rule 38 will not be granted to a party who ‘Seeks to be relieved from the effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy of law was due to his own negligenct ‘The relief afforded by Rule 38 will not be granted to party who ‘seeks tobe relieved from the effects ofthe judgment when the loss of the remedy of law was due to his own negligence, or mistaken mode of procedure for that matter; otherwise the petition for relief will be tantamount to reviving the right of appeal which has already boen lost, either because of inexcusable negligence or due to a mistake of rocedure by counsel. (Julio Pureon, Jr. v. MRM Philippines, Ine, GR. No, 182718, September 26, 2008). Finally, it is a settled rule that relief : led rule that relief will not he granted 9 {Parts who seeks tobe relioved from the effects of the judgment ™ the loss of the remedy at law was due to his own negligence, ele om Judgment Ok ery . or a mistaken mode of proce ot canteen, belie terse the petition or ret “adeno et tie See 0 eal hat to mistaken mode of procedure en, etligence or due by counsel. (Espinosa 1. Y Fraud, Accident, Mistake, Excusable Negligence Fraud, must be extrins rltral tar prevented the aged any tom hg» or cng case tothe cour, Gara Couto pps GR ok Gctaber 1861, 202 SORA 28 200201 passant Judgment without fr submis athe tnt Tne Court of Appeal, 194 Phi 11, 28191) The ox a tho caveat hand reaponent was ot poof ere fair trial and was given the opportunity pst heroes Accident ~ (in equity) means such an unforeseen event, misfortune, loss, ae, or omission asitnot the result of any negligence ‘or misconduct by the party applying fr relief. (Osborn Concise Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, John Burke, p. 6) ‘The word Mistake, which grants relief from judgment, does not apply and was never intended to apply toa judicial err which the court might have committed in the tral. Such errrs may be orrected by means of an appeal. (Guevara u. Tuason and Co., 1 Phil. 27, 28 (1901). As used in Section 1, Rule 98 of the Rules of Court, mistake refers to mistake of fet, ot of law, which relates to the ease. (Agan v. Heirs of Sps. Nueva, 463 Phil. 824, 840-541 f2003)). Excusable Negligence to be excusable must be one which ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded ‘against. (Regalado v, Regalado, GR. No. 134154, February 28, 2006, 483 SCRA 473, 488). Under Section 1, the negligence must bbe excusable and generally imputable to the party because i itis imputable to the counsel, itis binding on the client. Insular Life Savings and Trust Company v, Rune, Jr G-R. No. 182530, August 12, 2004, 436 SCRA 817, $24-125)Tofollo acontrary rule and slow a party to disown his counse's conduct would render proceedings indefinite, tentative, and subject to reopening bythe mene sary of replacing counsel What the agrieved litigant sboull do ee Stdministrative sanctions against the erring counsel ad poy sok Cr the reversal ofthe court’ ruling, (Que Court of APPo 150789, August 18, 2005, 467 SCRA 858, 368)snPLIFIED CIV PROCEDURE BOOK 1 ration of Pein for Relief from Judgment: plaint with the MTC for a sum of ey's fees against Mr. Utang ers ‘damages and payment of attorne en ver reading the summons that he a ot fe Sumbong was allowed to present evidence ex part, Aer et ty idence presented by petitioner, the MTC rendered ‘Utang and in favor of Mr. Sumbong. Considering the eviden« f Decision against Mr. Prevented the aggrieved party from having a trial or Presenting his case to the court. The summons should Bo served personally to Mr, Utang and not to his 7 year ld daughter. The MTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Mr. Utang. Mr. Utang therefore can ask the MTG, thatthe judgment, order or proceeding be set aside. Section 2, Petition for relief from denial of appeal. — Wh« judgment or final order is rendered by any court in a case, and a party thereto, by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, has been prevented from taking an appeal, he ‘may file a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the appeal be given due course. (La). Section 3, Time for filing petition; contents and verification. ition provided for in either of the preceding sections of this Rule must be verified, filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, oF other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or final order was entered, or such proceeding was taken, and must be accompanied with alfidavts showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or exeusable negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the Petitioner's good and nba cause st actos de ‘as the case may be, (3) eee ane Wes [Relief trom Judgments, Orders ce Ox “ Prodi Verified petition, within 60 to file the petition AA petition proved for in either of this ule must be ved hed tin sean ms petitioner learns ofthe udgmeny, nal rics ot ate the be set aside, and not more than six of final order was entered, ‘SAYS and not more than sx (6) months der,or other proceeding to (6) months after such judgment ‘Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court ‘requires thatthe petition ‘must be accompaniod with affidavits of merits sho cog its showing th fraud, Section, Rule 38 ofthe RalesoCourt require that he petition rst be acompanied with aan of eras shone ie nc accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied wpony patency and the facts constituting the pettne’s gon and raetantal ause of action or defense asthe case maybe While «petition or relief without a separate aldait of mert is bulfcient where fats constituting petitioners substantial cause ofacton or defense. athe tase may be, are alleged ina verified petition since the cath elevates Ue petition to the anne calgey ate spurte aflart (hag Court of Appeas, 263 Phi 225 (1899), the ptiion fr lt Sled by petitioner was not even verified, Thus, the Court of Appeal id not Ervin no longer considering the merits ofthe case. (Ramo Samonte SAF Naguiat, Ine. GR. No. 16544, October 2, 2009, Section 4. Order to file an answer. — If the petition is sufficient in form and substance to justify relief, the court in which it is filed, shall issue an order requiring the adverse parties to answer the same within fifteen (15) days from the receipt thereof. The order shall be served in such manner 's the court may direct, together with copies ofthe petition ‘and the accompanying aifidavits. 4a) ‘The petition for relief from judgment must be sufficient in form and in substance to justify the rele. Ater passing the tests form and in substance, the court shall issue an order requiring adverse party to answer the petition witin ieen (16) days from Feceipt ofthe petition. The order giving de course tothe psig shall be served also together with the petition an affidavits. |iPLIFIED CIVIL PROCEDURE BOOK 1 von Pretiminary injunction pending proceedings. —The Section 5. Prema ofiled may grantsuch preliminary feertation as may be necessary for the preservation of the injunction as filing by the petitioner of. vii of the partes, upon th ee a Figs of the Parte Avcrse party, conditioned that ifthe ond in fa jlumiased or the petitioner fails on the trial of Petition its merits, he will pay the adverse party all aoc ee conte that may be awarded to him by reason aa rec of auch injunction oF the other proceeding ofthe espe petition, but such injunetion shall not operate ceichtage ot extinguish any lien which the adverse party {Savina sequired upon, the property, of the petitioner.) cg otha us bi, ws Wi a Cs ee a oe the poeerraroe of Us Hatt Fa a ey be regured oy ts coun iN Big pee Te Ne eae pat, ceetand tet if i pe aa are alnce als prove bis cao, he Wil oy A Teron Eat gy reo of Un lms Injunction isa preservative remedy. Injunction isa preservative remedy aimed at no other purpose than to protect the complainant's substantive rights and interests (dolor v, Court of Appeals, 351 SCRA 399, February 7, 2001), during the pendency of the principal action. (Cagayan de Oro City Landless Rasdents Assoc, Ine. Cour of Appeals, 254 SCRA 220, March 4 A preliminary injunction, asthe term itself suggest, is merely temporary. (Olaliav. Hizon, 196 SCRA 665, May 6, 1991) Its tobe resorted to only when there is a pressing necessity to avcid iris omeguncs that canst beremedied under any standard of compensation (Del Rosario Court sfconrenin 4 of Appeals, 255 SCRA 152 Moreover, injuntion, lke other equitable remedin, ‘issued only at the instance ieee earicieatl of a suitor who has sufficient interest in or Sil to the ght orth tected, property sought to be protected. (Saulog 8. Court of Appeals, i only wed east 262 SCRA 51, September 18, 1996) Tein poet indo comple cease entitled othe rele demanded (Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation v. Cou Arras 216 SCRA 386 December aay emt © OL ee tm Jager eg that the allegations theeatarces eee finds said allegations tobe ment ot heal Cormplained of upon rach eens the case shal stand ‘as if such judy proceeding had never been rendered eced na e ‘court shal then proceed to hear and detreiac hasan ae a timely motion fora new tl or weonedcrton Sata granted by i. (6a) rue, it shall order or other proceeding may be just. Thereafter igment, final order or other ‘This section answers the issue of whether or not the petition shall be dismissed or granted. ‘The petition for rlit from judgment shall be dismissed ifthe allegations are not true, ‘The petition for relief from judgment shall be granted and shall set aside the judgment or final order or other proceeding ifthe allegations are truc. If the allegations are tru, the court shall then proced to hear and determine the case as ita timely motion fr'a new trial or reconsideration had been granted by it. Section 7, Procedure where the denial of an appeal is set aside. —Where the denial of an appeal is set aside, the lower court shall be required to give due course tothe appeal and to elevate the record of the appealed case as ifa timely and proper appeal had been made. (72) Mlustration: Mr. Lessor filed an ejectment case (unlawful otainer) against Mr. Lessee for non-payment of rentals. Judgment was rendered agnnat Mr. Late. Not aise te judgment, Mr Lessee filed a Notice of Appeal But the Notie of Appeal was den by the trial court. Mr. Lesnce wen tothe RTC va le 65 Inthe situation, ifthe denil ofthe appeal is st arde bythe RTC; fhe trial court shall be required to give du cours tothe appa snd elevate the record ofthe appealed case AS IF «timely and ps ‘appeal had been madesauPtartep CIVIL PROCEDURE BOOK 1 judg bh for relief, parties must file the petition Sint through a petition 8 ude erage from notice of the judgment and seithin six Dist {6)_monththe petition shall be dismissed outright. The grounds seein for rele trom judgment are fraud, accident, mistake, or ‘excusable negligence. Petition for annulment of judgment (Rule 47) is a remedy ‘available only when the petitioner can no longer resort to the ‘ndinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other ltppropriate remedies through no fault of the petitioner. The ground fanthe action of annulment of judgment is either extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. If based on extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed within four (4) years from the discovery of the extrinsic fraud; ‘and if based on lack of jurisdiction, must be brought before it ‘barred by laches or estoppel. Fraud is extrinsic, where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or ‘deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping ‘him away from court. RULE 39 Execution, Satisfaction and Effect of Judgments Poy cece. Excel sallre ardent flare — judgment or order that disposes of them upon the expiration of the period to a appeal has been duly perfected. (a) ‘or motion, upon a ction or proceeding peal therefrom if no If the appeal has been duly perfected and faa rosolved, the execution may frtiwth be spied ore ag courtoforigin,onmotion ofthe judgment osigue stron therewith eerie true coplesaftheudgnent es ates fr final order or orders sooght tobe enforced endo the entry thereof, with notice to the adverse party. ‘The appellate court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest of justice 60 requires, direct the court of origin to issue the writ of execution, (n) In the case of Far Bastern Surety and Insurance Company, Inc. v. Virginia D. Vda. De Hernande2, .R. No. 130868, October 3 1975, 67 SCRA 256, 260-261, the Supreme Court hed Tis evident that Section 1 of Rule 29 of the Revised Rules of Court does not prescribe that acopy ofthe motion for the execution of a final and executory judgment be ‘served on the defeated party Iti not disputed that the judgment sought to be executed in the ease at be had already become final and fexecutory. It is fundamental thatthe prevailing party in f litigation may, at any time within five (@) years after tthe entry thereof, have a wrt of execution issued for its enforcement and the court not only has the power and ‘authority to order its execution but it is its ministerial uty to do so, It has also been held thatthe court cannot refuse to issue a writ of execution upon a final and -