Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 64

RULE 40: APPEAL FROM INFERIOR COURTS TO THE Silverio and reinstating Ricardo Silverio, Sr.

as the
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS administrator.

From the Order dated December 12, 2005, Ricardo Silverio, Jr.
Silverio, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals
filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the
600 SCRA 1, G.R. No. 178933 September 16, 2009
RTC.
QUICK SUMMARY: Beatriz Silverio died and her son Silverio In the same order, the RTC also allowed the sale of various
Jr. filed for a petition to remove Silverio Sr. as the administrator properties of the intestate estate of the late Beatriz Silverio to
of the estate. RTC granted the petition and designated Silverio partially settle estate taxes, penalties, interests and other
junior as administrator. An MR was filed by Nelia Silverio. charges due thereon. Among the properties authorized to be
Silverio Jr. further filed a petition to prohibit the occupation of sold was the one located at No. 3 Intsia Road, Forbes Park,
the property which was granted also. RTC issued on MAY 31, Makati City.
2005 an OMNIBUS MOTION denying MR of Nelia. Nelia filed
an MR on the Omnibus motion. On DEC. 12, 2005 RTC Nelia Silverio-Dee filed a Notice of Appeal the Order dated
reinstated Silverio SR. as administrator. Silverio Jr filed an MR December 12, 2005.
but was denied. RTC allowed the sale of properties of the late
Ricardo Silverio, Jr. filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal and for
Beatriz Silverio including the lot in Forbes Park. Nelia filed an
Issuance of a Writ of Execution against the appeal of Nelia
appeal on the decision of the RTC of DEC 12, 2005. Silverio Silverio-Dee on the ground that the Record on Appeal was filed
Jr. filed a MTD on her appeal stating that it was filed beyond ten (10) days beyond the reglementary period pursuant to
the reglementary period. (Rule 41, sec.3). RTC denied Nelia’s Section 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
appeal. RTC moved for execution of the May 31 decision.
Respondent filed TRO in CA which was granted. SC ruled in RTC issued an Order denying the appeal on the ground that it
favor of PETITIONER stating the appeal of Nelia was was not perfected within the reglementary period. The RTC
IMPROPER. further issued a writ of execution for the enforcement of the
Order dated May 31, 2005 against private respondent to
vacate the premises of the property located at No. 3, Intsia,
FACTS: Forbes Park, Makati City.

The instant controversy stemmed from the settlement of estate Consequently, private respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari
of the deceased Beatriz Silverio. After her death, her surviving and Prohibition (With Prayer for TRO and Writ of Preliminary
spouse, Ricardo Silverio, Sr., filed an intestate proceeding for Injunction) with the CA. CA issued the assailed Resolution
the settlement of her estate. granting the prayer for the issuance of a TRO. In issuing the
TRO, the CA ruled that the Notice of Appeal was filed within
the reglementary period provided by the Rules of Court
During the pendency of the case, Ricardo Silverio, Jr. filed a applying the “fresh rule period” enunciated by this Court in
petition to remove Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. as the administrator Neypes v. CA.
of the subject estate. Edmundo S. Silverio also filed a
comment/opposition for the removal of Ricardo C. Afterwards, the CA issued the assailed decision granting the
petition of private respondent.
RTC issued an Order granting the petition and removing
Ricardo Silverio, Sr. as administrator of the estate, while ISSUE: Whether the Omnibus Order dated May 31, 2005
appointing Ricardo Silverio, Jr. as the new administrator. Nelia (Annex “G” of Annex “C”) and the Order dated December 12,
S. Silverio-Dee filed a Motion for Reconsideration. 2005 are Interlocutory Orders which are not subject to appeal
under Sec. 1 of Rule 41
Ricardo Silverio Jr. filed an Urgent Motion for an Order
Prohibiting Any Person to Occupy/Stay/Use Real Estate HELD: YES. An interlocutory order, as opposed to a final
Properties Involved in the Intestate Estate of the Late Beatriz order, was defined in Tan v. Republic (523 SCRA 203 [2007]):
Silverio, Without Authority from this Honorable Court. A final order is one that disposes of the subject matter in its
entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving
On May 31, 2005, the RTC issued an Omnibus Order affirming
nothing else to be done but to enforce by execution what has
its Order dated January 3, 2005 and denying private
been determined by the court, while an interlocutory order is
respondent's motion for reconsideration. In the Omnibus Order,
the RTC also authorized Ricardo Silverio, Jr. to, upon receipt one which does not dispose of the case completely but leaves
of the... order, immediately exercise his duties as administrator something to be decided upon. (Emphasis supplied.)
of the subject estate. Additionally, it is only after a judgment has been rendered in
the case that the ground for the appeal of the interlocutory
Private respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated order may be included in the appeal of the judgment itself. The
June 15, 2005 of the Omnibus Order. This was later denied by interlocutory order generally cannot be appealed separately
the RTC in an Order dated December 12, 2005, which was from the judgment. It is only when such interlocutory order was
received by private respondent on December 22, 2005. rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
abuse of discretion that certiorari under Rule 65 may be
Notably, the RTC in its Order dated December 12, 2005 also resorted to.
recalled its previous order granting Ricardo Silverio, Jr. with
letters of administration over the intestate estate of Beatriz In the instant case, Nelia Silverio-Dee appealed the May 31,
2005 Order of the RTC on the ground that it ordered her to
Page 1 of 64
vacate the premises of the property located at No. 3 Intsia Executive Vice-President who shall oversee the management
Road, Forbes Park, Makati City. On that aspect the order is not of the company’s hotels and resorts within the Philippines. He
a final determination of the case or of the issue of distribution performed work for the company until sometime in November
of the shares of the heirs in the estate or their rights therein. It 1999, when he figured in an accident that compelled him to go
must be borne in mind that until the estate is partitioned, each back to Australia while recuperating from his injuries. While in
heir only has an inchoate right to the properties of the estate, Australia, he was informed by respondent Ganzon that his
services were no longer needed because their intended project
such that no heir may lay claim on a particular property. In
would no longer push through.
Alejandrino v. Court of Appeals, 295 SCRA 526 (1998), we
succinctly ruled: Art. 1078 of the Civil Code provides that
where there are two or more heirs, the whole estate of the The respondents opposed the complaint. Ganzon stated that it
did not intend to create an employer-employee relationship,
decedent is, before partition, owned in common by such heirs,
and the execution of the employment contract that was being
subject to the payment of the debts of the deceased. Under a
invoked by McBurnie was solely for the purpose of allowing
co-ownership, the ownership of an undivided thing or right McBurnie to obtain an alien work permit in the Philippines. At
belongs to different persons. Each co-owner of property which the time McBurnie left for Australia for his medical treatment,
is held pro indiviso exercises his rights over the whole property he had not yet obtained a work permit.
and may use and enjoy the same with no other limitation than
that he shall not injure the interests of his co-owners. The
The LA declared McBurnie as having been illegally dismissed
underlying rationale is that until a division is made, the from employment, Feeling aggrieved, the respondents
respective share of each cannot be determined and every co- appealed the LA’s Decision to the NLRC. They filed their
owner exercises, together with his co-participants, joint Memorandum of Appeal and Motion to Reduce Bond, and
ownership over the pro indiviso property, in addition to his use posted an appeal bond in the amount of ₱100,000.00. The
and enjoyment of the same. Although the right of an heir over respondents contended in their Motion to Reduce Bond, inter
the property of the decedent is inchoate as long as the estate alia, that the monetary awards of the LA were null and
has not been fully settled and partitioned, the law allows a co- excessive (60 million pesos), allegedly with the intention of
owner to exercise rights of ownership over such inchoate right. rendering them incapable of posting the necessary appeal
Thus, the Civil Code provides: Art. 493. Each co-owner shall bond.
have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits
pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or The NLRC denied the motion to reduce bond, explaining that
mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its "in cases involving monetary award, an employer seeking to
enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the appeal the [LA’s] decision to the Commission is unconditionally
effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co- required by Art. 223, Labor Code to post bond in the amount
owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to equivalent to the monetary award x x x." Thus, the NLRC
required from the respondents the posting of an additional
him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership.
bond in the amount of ₱54,083,910.00.
Thus, private respondent employed the wrong mode of appeal
by filing a Notice of Appeal with the RTC. Hence, for employing Motion for reconsideration was denied, the respondents
the improper mode of appeal, the case should have been decided to elevate the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via
dismissed. the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (With Extremely
Urgent Prayer for the Issuance of a Preliminary Injunction
The implication of such improper appeal is that the notice of and/or Temporary Restraining Order)
appeal did not toll the reglementary period for the filing of a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the proper remedy in the In the meantime, in view of the respondents’ failure to post the
instant case. This means that private respondent has now lost required additional bond, the NLRC dismissed their appeal
her remedy of appeal from the May 31, 2005 Order of the RTC. .The respondents’ motion for reconsideration was denied. This
prompted the respondents to file with the CA the Petition for
McBurnie vs. Ganzon, 600 SCRA 658 Certiorari (With Urgent Prayers for the Immediate Issuance of
G.R. Nos. 178034 & 178117 . September 18, 2009. a Temporary Restraining Order and a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction)
Quick Summary: Mcburnie filed for complaint for illegal
dismissal against Ganzon. LA ruled in favor of Mcburnie and CA issued a Resolution granting the respondents’ application
awarded damages of almost 60million pesos. Ganzon for a writ of preliminary injunction. It directed the NLRC,
appealed in NLRC and filed a motion to reduce bond, they paid McBurnie, and all persons acting for and under their authority
100,000 as appeal bond. NLRC denied their motion and to refrain from causing the execution and enforcement of the
ordered them to post bond of 54 million. Their MR was denied. LA’s decision in favor of McBurnie, conditioned upon the
They appealed to CA. Ca ruled in their favor and reduced the respondents’ posting of a bond in the amount of
bond to 10 million. Mcburnie sought for Reconsideration. ₱10,000,000.00. McBurnie sought reconsideration of the
SC ruled in favor of McBurnie stating that the failure to post the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction, but this was
denied by the CA in its Resolution.
required bond in NLRC was fatal to Ganzon’s appeal.

ISSUE: Whether failure to post a bond equivalent to the


FACTS: McBurnie, an Australian national, instituted a
amount of the monetary award is fatal to an appeal.
complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims
against the Ganzon. McBurnie claimed that he signed a five-
year employment agreement with the company EGI as an
Page 2 of 64
HELD: YES, The failure of the respondents to comply with the Private respondent vacated the property. He thereafter
requirement of posting a bond equivalent in amount to the requested the refund of his deposit minus the sum of
monetary award is fatal to their appeal. For filing their motion P1,000.00, representing the rental for the additional ten days of
only on the final day within which to perfect an appeal, his occupancy after the expiration of the lease. The petitioner
respondents cannot be allowed to seek refuge in a liberal rejected this request. He said the lessee still owed him for
application of the rules. Under such circumstance, there is other charges, including the electricity and water bills and the
sum of P2,500.00 for repainting of the leased premises to
neither way for the NLRC to exercise its discretion to grant or
restore them to their original condition.
deny the motion, nor for the respondents to post the full
amount of the bond, without risk of summary dismissal for non-
perfection of appeal. The private respondent sued in the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Makati. A summary judgment was rendered sustaining the
While in certain instances, we allow a relaxation in the complainant and holding that the repainting was not
application of the rules, we never intend to forge a weapon for chargeable to him. This decision was appealed to the Regional
erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. The liberal Trial Court of Makati and was affirmed .This was done in a
memorandum decision reading in full as follows:
interpretation and application of rules apply only in proper
cases of demonstrable merit and under justifiable causes and
circumstances, but none obtains in this case. The NLRC had, MEMORANDUM DECISION
therefore, the full discretion to grant or deny their motion to
reduce the amount of the appeal bond. The finding of the labor After a careful and thorough perusal, evaluation and study of
tribunal that respondents did not present sufficient justification the records of this case, this Court hereby adopts by reference
for the reduction thereof cannot be said to have been done the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the
with grave abuse of discretion. decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati, Metro
Manila, Branch 63 and finds that there is no cogent reason to
Time and again, it has been held that the right to appeal is not disturb the same.
a constitutional right, but a mere statutory privilege. Hence,
parties who seek to avail themselves of it must comply with the WHEREFORE, judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in
statutes or rules allowing it. To reiterate, perfection of an toto.
appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is
mandatory and jurisdictional. The requirements for perfecting When the defendant went to the Court of Appeals, his petition
an appeal must, as a rule, be strictly followed. Such for review was denied. He is now before us to fault the
requirements are considered indispensable interdictions respondent court, principally for sustaining the memorandum
against needless delays and are necessary for the orderly decision of the regional trial court. His contention is that it
discharge of the judicial business. Failure to perfect the appeal violates Article VIII, Section 14 of the Constitution.
renders the judgment of the court final and executory. Just as a
losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the ISSUE: Whether a memorandum decision is valid.
prescribed period, so does the winner also have the correlative
right to enjoy the finality of the decision. Thus, the propriety of HELD : YES. The Court has deliberated extensively on the
the monetary awards of the Labor Arbiter is already binding challenge posed against the memorandum decision as now
upon this Court, much more with the Court of Appeals. authorized by law. Taking into account the salutary purpose for
which it is allowed, and bearing in mind the above-discussed
Francisco vs. Permskul restraint we must observe when a law is challenged before us,
173 SCRA 324, G.R. No. 81006 May 12, 1989 we have come to the conclusion that Section 40 of B.P. Blg.
129, as we shall interpret it here, is not unconstitutional.
Quick Summary: Petitioner leased his property to private
respondent. Private respondent advanced payments(deposits). That same circumstance is what will move us now to lay down
When he vacated the property before expiration of the lease he the following requirement, as a condition for the proper
wanted to refund some of the deposits (unused). Petitioner application of Section 40 of B.P. Blg. 129. The memorandum
rejected such request because he said respondent still owed decision, to be valid, cannot incorporate the findings of fact and
him for other chargers (electricity, water and repainting). MTC the conclusions of law of the lower court only by remote
ruled in favor of respondent. The decision was appealed in reference, which is to say that the challenged decision is not
RTC, however only a memorandum decision was made in easily and immediately available to the person reading the
favor of respondent. Petitioner appealed to CA stating that the memorandum decision. For the incorporation by reference to
memorandum agreement is unconstitutional. SC ruled in favor be allowed, it must provide for direct access to the facts and
of the respondent and the validity of the memorandum the law being adopted, which must be contained in a statement
decision. attached to the said decision. In other words, the memorandum
decision authorized under Section 40 of B.P. Blg. 129 should
actually embody the findings of fact and conclusions of law of
FACTS: Petitioner leased his apartment in Makati to the
the lower court in an annex attached to and made an
private respondent for a period of one year for the stipulated
rental of P3,000.00 a month. Pursuant to the lease contract, indispensable part of the decision.
the private respondent deposited with the petitioner the amount
The Court finds it necessary to emphasize that the
of P9,000.00 to answer for unpaid rentals or any damage to
memorandum decision should be sparingly used lest it become
the leased premises except when caused by reasonable wear
and tear. an addictive excuse for judicial sloth. It is an additional

Page 3 of 64
condition for its validity that this kind of decision may be A notice to vacate the premises having been made, the
resorted to only in cases where the facts are in the main petitioners through Atty. Baylon filed before respondent Court
accepted by both parties or easily determinable by the judge of Appeals a petition via Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and
and there are no doctrinal complications involved that will Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 seeking the annulment
require an extended discussion of the laws involved. The of the Orders of the lower court. Court of Appeals dismissed
memorandum decision may be employed in simple litigations the petition.
only, such as ordinarily collection cases, where the appeal is
obviously groundless and deserves no more than the time Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals “committed grave
needed to dismiss it. abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction” in
denying their petition for certiorari based on their failure to
Casolita, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals furnish private respondent with a copy of the notice of appeal.
275 SCRA 257, G.R. No. 115703 July 8, 1997 Such omission, they insist, was a mere technicality which
should be cast aside to attain substantial justice.
QUICK SUMMARY: ATROP filed for recovery of possession of
a land in Intramuros which was claimed by Casolita and ISSUE: Whether notice to the adverse counsel of the Notice of
several other petitioner. The lower court ruled in favor of Appeal is a mandatory requirement for perfecting an Appeal.
ATROP. Atty Aguilar lawyer of Casolita received notice of
HELD: NO. Under the previous rule, an appeal may be taken
decision but failed to file an appeal, Atty gatpatan, filed an
“by serving upon the adverse party and filing with the trial court
appeal. ATROP filed motion to dismiss the appeal which was
within thirty (30) days from notice of order or judgment, a
granted. Atty Baylon filed an MR for all the defendants. ATROP
notice of appeal, an appeal bond, and a record on appeal.”
questioned this because as to Casolita the case has been final
This provision was amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 129,
and executory. Casolita et. al countered that they did not
particularly Section 39 thereof, by deleting the need to file an
receive a notice of appeal. SC Ruled in favor ATROP.
appeal bond and record on appeal, except in multiple appeals
and in special proceedings, and by fixing the period of appeal
FACTS: Private respondent ATROP, INC filed a complaint to fifteen (15) days. The entire original record of the case
against herein petitioners with the Regional Trial Court of instead is transmitted to the appellate court. Appeals from
Manila, for recovery of possession of a parcel of land located in final judgments or orders of the Regional Trial Court are
Intramuros, Manila. now taken to public respondent Court of Appeals by
simply filing a notice of appeal. The simplification of the
Petitioner Casolita through his counsel, Atty. Jose L. Aguilar, procedure for elevating to a higher court final judgments or
alleged that he and his family had been in continuous orders of the lower courts correspondingly underscored the
possession of the land since 1953, having been designated as importance of the notice of appeal. The adverse party may only
caretaker by the supposed “real owners” Ramon LeQuina and be apprised initially of the pendency of an appeal by the notice
Portia Pueo. The other petitioners, represented by Atty. Benito of appeal. To deprive him of such notice is tantamount to
Gatpatan, Jr. filed their answer unequivocally adopting and depriving him of his right to be informed that the judgment in
incorporating the allegations of Casolita in his answer to the his favor is being challenged. This requirement should be
complaint. complied with so that he may be afforded the opportunity to
register his opposition to the notice of appeal if he so desires.
The lower court rendered a decision in favor of ATROP, INC., And service of the notice of appeal upon him may not be
ordering the defendants to vacate the premises, to remove the dispensed with on the basis of the appellant’s whims and
structures they built, and to pay compensation for the use of caprices, as in this case.
the land, attorney’s fees and costs. Atty. Aguilar received a
copy of the decision but failed to file a notice of appeal. On the We hold, however, that respondent court neither
other hand, Atty. Gatpatan, Jr. filed a notice of appeal. committed an error nor abused its discretion in upholding
the lower court’s denial of Casolita’s motion for
In its omnibus motion to dismiss the appeal and for the reconsideration, motion to admit appeal and notice of
issuance of a writ of execution, ATROP INC., argued that as appeal on the ground that Atty. Baylon was not Casolita’s
far as petitioner Casolita was concerned, the decision had counsel of record.
become final and executory for his counsel, Atty. Aguilar,
received a copy thereof without filing a notice of appeal. As to The records show that Atty. Aguilar was petitioner Casolita’s
the other petitioners, ATROP, INC., observed that while they counsel of record. Even Atty. Gatpatan, Jr. impliedly
timely filed the notice of appeal the notice was fatally defective recognized his separate representation when he adopted the
for they did not serve the same to the counsel of ATROP, INC. allegations in the answer filed for said petitioner by Atty.
The lower court granted the omnibus motion to dismiss and Aguilar. That Atty. Aguilar was the counsel of petitioner
ordered the issuance of a writ of execution. Casolita was noted by the lower court in its Order of November
10, 1993. This was buttressed by the fact that Casolita was
Atty. Alfredo C. Baylon, Jr. thereafter filed a notice of furnished a copy of the decision through said counsel of
appearance as “counsel for all the defendants” and moved for record. The failure of Atty. Aguilar to file a notice of appeal
reconsideration .He contended that petitioners Casolita, et al., binds Casolita which failure the latter can not now disown on
were not properly notified of the decision since Atty. Aguilar the basis of his bare allegation and self-serving
had withdrawn as counsel “due to poor health”; hence, the pronouncement that the former was ill. A client is bound by his
decision had not become final and executory. However Court counsel’s mistakes and negligence.
denied such MR.
Page 4 of 64
Casalla vs. People concerned and shall state the time and place for the hearing of
391 SCRA 344, G.R. No. 138855 October 29, 2002 the motion, are mandatory. If not religiously complied with, they
render the motion pro forma. As such the motion is a useless
Quick Summary: Lamberto Casalla was convicted in MTC for piece of paper that will not toll the running of the prescriptive
violation of the BP 22. He filed an appeal in RTC but the RTC period.
denied his appeal. He filed an MR but was also denied
because it lacked a notice of hearing. SC still ruled in favor of Under the present rules, the notice of hearing is expressly
respondent because a notice of hearing is mandatory even in made a requirement. In the instant case, it is undisputed
RTC contrary to the contention of the petitioner. that the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner with
the Regional trial Court did not contain any notice of
FACTS: Lamberto Casalla issued two (2) Bank of Commerce hearing. It was therefore pro forma; hence, it did not
checks in payment of the obligation of his wife, TERESITA suspend the running of the prescriptive period. This
CASALLA, to private respondent MILAGROS SANTOS- defect was not cured by the filing of a second motion for
ESTEVANES, in order to avert a court litigation. The two (2) reconsideration, which is prohibited under the rules.
checks, however, were dishonored by the drawee bank for
reason of insufficiency of funds. Petitioner claims that the requirement of a notice of hearing did
not apply to the motion for reconsideration he filed before the
Regional Trial Court, since it was acting only in its appellate
Private respondent filed two (2) criminal complaints against
petitioner for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22) in jurisdiction. This is error, as the Rules of Court apply to all
MTC. It rendered a decision convicting the accused (petitioner courts, except as otherwise provided by the Supreme
herein) of the crime charged on two (2) counts. Court. Regional Trial Courts are not precluded from
conducting hearings on matters on which the parties need
Petitioner interposed an appeal to the Regional Trial Court to be heard, even in the exercise of their appellate
(RTC) of Pasig City, it affirmed the judgment of MTC. jurisdiction.

Enriquez vs. Court of Appeals


Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. Lower court 396 SCRA 377, G.R. No. 140473 January 28, 2003
denied the motion for reconsideration on account of the
absence of a notice of hearing. Petitioner filed a second motion Quick Summary: Tigle filed an action for unlawful detainer
for reconsideration.
against Enriquez in MCTC. Tigle stated that she is the owner
of the land and he is merely tolerating Enriquez presence
Private respondent filed with the RTC a motion for the there. Enriquez countered that the land is owned in common
issuance of a writ of execution .Opposition to the motion for the and still undivided. MCTC ruled in favor of Tigle. Enriquez filed
issuance of a writ of execution was filed by petitioner. The
an appeal in RTC. In RTC Enriquez failed to file a
court a quo denied petitioner's second motion for
memorandum as ordered by the court hence its appeal was
reconsideration and granted the motion for the issuance of a
writ of execution dismissed. On appeal with CA, it dismissed the petition. SC
ruled that the MEMORANDUM IS MANDATORY.
Petitioner interposed an appeal via a petition for review with
prayer for preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining FACTS: Respondent Victorina Tigle filed an action for unlawful
order. The appellate court promulgated its decision denying the detainer against herein petitioner Melba Moncal Enriquez
appeal for lack of merit. before the MCTC of Bayawan-Basay, Negros Oriental.

In its decision, the Court of Appeals noted that the petition Tigle's complaint, alleged inter alia, she bought a parcel of land
before it did not contain a statement of material dates showing located at Tinego, Bayawan, Negros Oriental from Engracia
the timeliness of the petition. It also maintained that the petition Macaraya. Prior to the sale, Enriquez was staying at said lot by
was filed out of time, because the motion to reconsider the mere tolerance of Macaraya. Enriquez was given an option to
decision of the trial court did not contain a notice of hearing. buy said lot but she refused to exercise it. After the sale, Tigle
Hence, being a mere scrap of paper, it did not interrupt the then made demands on Enriquez to vacate the property, but
period for filing the petition before the appellate court, and the Enriquez adamantly refused.
period had lapsed before the petition was filed. It also ruled
that petitioner's second motion was not only a prohibited In her Answer with Counterclaim filed before the MCTC,
pleading but it was also filed out of time. Petitioner's motion for Enriquez averred that the subject property is owned in
reconsideration before the Court of Appeals was denied. common by the heirs of Felix Moncal and any sale by
Macaraya (one of the heirs of Felix Moncal) could only refer to
ISSUE: Whether a notice of hearing for an MR is required Macaraya's undivided 1/7 share of the lot. Since said 1/7 share
when such is filed in RTC of Macaraya is still unidentified, the same cannot be a subject
of ejectment
HELD: YES. The requirements laid down in the Rules of Court,
that the notice of hearing shall be directed to the parties MCTC of Bayawan-Basay rendered judgment in favor of the
concerned and shall state the time and place for the hearing of plaintiff and ordered defendant MELBA MONCAL ENRIQUEZ
the motion are mandatory.—We have ruled in a number of to immediately vacate the premises of the parcel of land
cases that the requirements laid down in the Rules of Court, mentioned
that the notice of hearing shall be directed to the parties
Page 5 of 64
Enriquez seasonably appealed to the RTC of Dumaguete City. CA and it ruled in favor of MBTC. Clarita again filed a new
RTC directed respective counsel for the parties to "submit case for declaration of nullity of the TCTs covering the
within fifteen (15) days from receipt of this order their properties now in RTC. MBTC moved to dismiss it because
respective memoranda and/or briefs." The RTC stated that they are mere reiterations. RTC ruled in favor of Clarita. CA on
upon expiration of the period to submit memoranda, it "shall appeal ruled in favor of MBTC. SC ruled in favor of MBTC
decide the case on the basis of the entire record of the citing the doctrine of immutability of judgment.
proceedings in the court of origin and/or such brief(s) as may
have been filed."
FACTS
The counsel for Enriquez failed to comply with the order to
submit a memorandum. RTC issued the following order: For Petitioners Antonio Navarro and Clarita Navarro were married.
failure of defendant-appellant to file and submit a During their union, they acquired three parcels of land in
memorandum within the reglementary period as required by Alabang, Muntinlupa City on which they built their home. These
Rule 40, Section 7 (b), her appeal is dismissed. pieces of land were registered in the name of "Antonio N.
Navarro… married to Belen B. Navarro."
Enriquez then moved for reconsideration, manifesting that she
was adopting her position paper in the MCTC as her Respondent Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (MBTC)
memorandum.RTC denied Enriquez's motion on the ground had caused the judicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage
that "the records does (sic) not show of such manifestation." which Antonio had earlier constituted on the subject properties
as security for a loan he allegedly obtained from MBTC. In
December of that year, the properties were sold at public
Enriquez then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals. CA
auction where MBTC, as the lone bidder, was issued a
dismissed the petition. The appellate court held that "under
certificate of sale.
Section 7, Rule 40 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (the
filing of a memorandum) is a mandatory obligation on the part
of the appellant, such that, the failure to do so warrants a Clarita brought before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
concomitant dismissal of the appeal." Muntinlupa City, an action for the declaration of nullity of the
real estate mortgage and the foreclosure sale.
ISSUE: Whether the filing of the memorandum of appeal is
mandatory. Clarita alleged that the properties involved belonged to her and
Antonio’s conjugal partnership property as the same were
HELD: YES. Rule 40, Section 7 (b) provides that, “it shall be acquired during their marriage and that Antonio, with the
the duty of the appellant to submit a memorandum” and failure connivance of a certain Belen G. Belen, had secured the
to do so “shall be a ground for dismissal of the appeal.” The registration thereof in their names without her knowledge. She
use of the word “shall” in a statute or rule expresses what is pointed out that Antonio and Belen then mortgaged the
mandatory and compulsory. Further, the Rule imposes upon properties to MBTC in 1993 likewise without her knowledge.
an appellant the “duty” to submit his memorandum. A duty is a
“legal or moral obligation, mandatory act, responsibility, MBTC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground,
charge, requirement, trust, chore, function, commission, debt, inter alia, of laches. With the denial of its motion, MBTC filed a
liability, assignment, role, pledge, dictate, office, (and) petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The Court of
Appeals found merit in the petition and ordered the dismissal of
engagement.” Thus, under the express mandate of said Rule,
the complaint on the ground that the same was already barred
the appellant is duty-bound to submit his memorandum on
by laches, pointing out that it had taken Clarita 11 long years
appeal. Such submission is not a matter of discretion on his since the issuance of the TCTs. The decision had attained
part. His failure to comply with this mandate or to perform said finality without a motion for reconsideration being filed or an
duty will compel the RTC to dismiss his appeal. appeal being taken therefrom.
But it is equally true that an appeal being a purely statutory
right, an appealing party must strictly comply with the Clarita instituted another action also before the RTC of
Muntinlupa City but this time for the declaration of nullity of the
requisites laid down in the Rules of Court. In other words, he
TCTs covering the same properties and for reconveyance and
who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must play by the rules.
damages. This constitutes the root of the two petitions at bar.
This the petitioner failed to do when she did not submit her
memorandum of appeal in Civil Case No. 12044 as required by
Rule 40, Section 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. That The said complaint was basically a reiteration of Clarita’s
allegations in the previous case. MBTC moved to dismiss the
she lost her case is not the trial court’s fault but her own.
complaint on the ground that it was already barred by the prior
Navarro vs. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company judgment. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss noting
595 SCRA 149, G.R. No. 165697 August 4, 2009 that the dismissal of previous case did not constitute res
judicata because a dismissal on laches and failure to implead
an indispensable party could never be a dismissal on the
Quick Summary. Antonio Navarro and Clarita Navarro were
merits. MBTC filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was
married and owned parcels of land which were registered in denied.
the name of Antonio and Belen Navarro. MBTC foreclosed
such lots because it was used by Antonio to secure a loan.
MBTC elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a petition
Clarita filed with RTC declaration of nullity of the REM because
for certiorari and prohibition with an application for temporary
she was not informed of such transactions. The case reached restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction, attributing
Page 6 of 64
grave abuse of discretion to the trial court in denying its motion Quick Summary: Transipek received payments for JOCI.
to dismiss. However he was not able to turnover a check to JOCI
amounting to 4 million and deposited it to PCIB under his name
In the meantime, a compromise agreement was executed by and his wife. JOCI filed a case against PCIB, it refused to pay
Antonio and Clarita in which the latter waived and condoned and filed a motion to dismiss. It also filed a third party
her claims against the former, who in turn acknowledged his complaint against Transipek.
wife’s share in the properties subject of the case. Antonio In the third party complaint Transipek was declared in default.
likewise stipulated therein that he had not availed of any Transipek filed petition for certiorari IN CA assailing the default
mortgage loan from MBTC and that it was the bank manager, order but it was dismissed.
Danilo Meneses, who facilitated the manipulation of his
account with the bank which led to the constitution of the In the Main case RTC ruled in favor of JOCI. Transipek
mortgage and the eventual foreclosure thereof. The trial court appealed the decision to CA. CA issued a decision stating that
approved the compromise thereby leaving the case to proceed PCIB’s motion to declare Transipek in default is erroneous. It
against MBTC. remanded the proceeding to RTC, CA denied the MR of PCIB.
SC said that Transipek may not appeal again the order of
Court of Appeals, finding merit in MBTC’s petition, rendered default. He can only appeal based on the decision being
the assailed Decision. It held that the dismissal the previous CONTRARY TO LAW OR THE EVIDENCE ALREADY
case on the ground of laches should preclude the filing of PRESENTED.
present case because the former had the effect of an
adjudication on the merits. Also, it pointed out that inasmuch Note: See doctrine of Law of the case in the ruling
as the two cases presented identical issues and causes of
action and prayed for the same relief, the second complaint FACTS
must likewise suffer the effect of laches.
J. O. Construction, Inc. (JOCI), a domestic corporation in Cebu
ISSUE: Whether the present petition should be barred by City, filed a complaint against Philippine Commercial and
UNDER the doctrine of immutability of judgment. Industrial Bank (PCIB) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Makati City .The Complaint alleges that JOCI entered into a
HELD: YES. While the Court agrees that an action to declare contract with Duty Free Philippines, Inc. for the construction of
the nullity of contracts is not barred by the statute of limitations, a Duty Free Shop in Mandaue City. As actual construction
the fact that Clarita was barred by laches from bringing such went on, progress billings were made.
action at the first instance has already been settled by the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 55780. At this point in Payments were received by JOCI directly or through herein
the proceedings, the Court can no longer rule on the respondent John Tansipek, its authorized collector. Payments
applicability of the principle of laches vis-à-vis the received by respondent Tansipek were initially remitted to
imprescriptibility of Clarita’s cause of action because the JOCI. However, payment through PNB Check No. 0000302572
said decision is not the one on appeal before us. But more in the amount of P4,050,136.51 was not turned over to JOCI.
importantly, the Court takes notice that the decision rendered Instead, respondent Tansipek endorsed said check and
in that case had already become final without any motion for deposited the same to his account in PCIB. PCIB allowed the
reconsideration being filed or an appeal being taken therefrom. said deposit, despite the fact that the check was crossed for
Thus, we are left with no other recourse than to uphold the the deposit to payee’s account only, and despite the alleged
immutability of the said decision. No other procedural law lack of authority of respondent Tansipek to endorse said
principle is indeed more settled than that once a judgment check. PCIB refused to pay JOCI the full amount of the check
becomes final, it is no longer subject to change, revision, despite demands made by the latter. JOCI prayed for the
amendment or reversal, except only for correction of clerical payment of the amount of the check.
errors, or the making of nunc pro tunc entries which cause no PCIB filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint . PCIB likewise
prejudice to any party, or where the judgment itself is void. The moved for leave for the court to admit the former’s third-party
underlying reason for the rule is two-fold: (1) to avoid delay in complaint against respondent Tansipek. The third-party
the administration of justice and thus make orderly the complaint alleged that respondent Tansipek was a depositor at
discharge of judicial business, and (2) to put judicial its Wilson Branch, San Juan, Metro Manila, where he
controversies to an end, at the risk of occasional errors, maintained an account, in his name and/or that of his wife,
inasmuch as controversies cannot be allowed to drag on Anita.
indefinitely and the rights and obligations of every litigant must
not hang in suspense for an indefinite period of time. Respondent Tansipek had presented to PCIB a signed copy of
the Minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors of JOCI
Just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the stating the resolution that Checks payable to J.O. Construction,
prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative Inc. may be deposited under the name of John and/or Anita
right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case by the Tansipek, maintained at PCIB, Wilson Branch.”
execution and satisfaction of the judgment. Any attempt to
thwart this rigid rule and deny the prevailing litigant his right to Respondent Tansipek had also presented a copy of the
savor the fruit of his victory must immediately be struck down. Articles of Incorporation of JOCI showing that he and his wife,
Anita, were incorporators of JOCI, with Anita as Treasurer.
Banco De Oro-EPCI, Inc. vs. Tansipek
593 SCRA 456, G.R. No. 181235 July 22, 2009

Page 7 of 64
PCIB filed a Motion to Admit Amended Third-Party Complaint. is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule of
The amendment consisted in the correction of the caption, so decision between the same parties in the same case continues
that PCIB appeared as Third-Party Plaintiff and Tansipek as to be the law of the case, whether correct on general principles
Third-Party Defendant. or not, so long as the facts on which such decision was
predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the
Upon Motion, respondent Tansipek was granted time to court.—In People v. Pinuila, 103 Phil. 992 (1958), we held that:
file his Answer to the Third-Party Complaint. He was, “Law of the case” has been defined as the opinion delivered
however, declared in default for failure to do so. The on a former appeal. More specifically, it means that whatever is
Motion to Reconsider the Default Order was denied. once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule of
decision between the same parties in the same case continues
Respondent Tansipek filed a Petition for Certiorari with the
to be the law of the case, whether correct on general principles
Court of Appeals assailing the Default Order and the
or not, so long as the facts on which such decision was
denial of the Motion for Reconsideration. Court of Appeals
predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the
dismissed the Petition for failure to attach the assailed Orders.
court. It may be stated as a rule of general application that,
Court of Appeals denied respondent Tansipek’s Motion for
where the evidence on a second or succeeding appeal is
Reconsideration for having been filed out of time.
substantially the same as that on the first or preceding appeal,
RTC promulgated its judgment in favor of the plaintiff [JOCI] all matters, questions, points, or issues adjudicated on the prior
Respondent Tansipek appealed the Decision to the Court of appeal are the law of the case on all subsequent appeals and
Appeals. will not be considered or readjudicated therein.

Court of Appeals issued the assailed Decision finding that it There is no substantial distinction between an appeal and
was an error for the trial court to have acted on PCIB’s motion a Petition for Certiorari when it comes to the application of
to declare respondent Tansipek in default. The Court of the Doctrine of the Law of the Case. The doctrine is founded
Appeals thus remanded the case to the RTC for further on the policy of ending litigation. The doctrine is necessary to
proceedings enable the appellate court to perform its duties satisfactorily
and efficiently, which would be impossible if a question once
The Court of Appeals denied the Motion for Reconsideration of considered and decided by it were to be litigated anew in the
PCIB. Petitioner Banco de Oro-EPCI, Inc., as successor-in- same case upon any and every subsequent appeal.
interest to PCIB, filed the instant Petition for Review on
Certiorari, assailing the above Decision and Resolution of the A party declared in default is not barred from appealing from
Court of Appeals, the judgment on the main case, whether or not he had
previously filed a Motion to Set Aside Order of Default, and
ISSUES: regardless of the result of the latter and the appeals
therefrom.—It is important to note that a party declared in
1. Whether or not the proper remedy was to file a motion default—respondent Tansipek in this case—is not barred
for reconsideration or motion to lift order of default from appealing from the judgment on the main case,
2. Whether Tansipek may still appeal from the judgment whether or not he had previously filed a Motion to Set
of the main case.
Aside Order of Default, and regardless of the result of the
HELD: latter and the appeals therefrom. However, the appeal
should be based on the Decision’s being contrary to law
1. Respondent Tansipek’s remedy against the Order of Default or the evidence already presented, and not on the alleged
was erroneous from the very beginning. Respondent Tansipek invalidity of the default order.
should have filed a Motion to Lift Order of Default, and not a
Motion for Reconsideration, pursuant to Section 3(b), Rule 9 of RULE 41: APPEAL FROM THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
the Rules of Court: (b) Relief from order of default.
Makati Insurance v Reyes
2. YES. The dismissal of a Petition for Certiorari assailing the GR 167403 August 6, 2008
denial of a party’s Motion constitutes a bar to the retrial of the
same issue of default under the doctrine of the law of the Summary of Facts with RULING:
case.—Assuming for the sake of argument, however, that Complaint for damages was filed against Rubills international
respondent Tansipek’s Motion for Reconsideration may be and Tong Woon shipping for breach of contract. RTC
treated as a Motion to Lift Order of Default, his Petition for dismissed the case without prejudice as petitoner’s counsel
Certiorari on the denial thereof has already been failed to appear at the scheduled pre-trial conference of which
dismissed with finality by the Court of Appeals. order was received Nov 29, 2001. MR was filed on Dec 4,
Respondent Tansipek did not appeal said ruling of the 2001 which was denied by RTC which order was received July
Court of Appeals to this Court. The dismissal of the 3, 2002. Petitioner filed Notice of Appeal on July 17. 2002.
Petition for Certiorari assailing the denial of respondent RTC dismissed as it ruled that it was filed out of time. CA
Tansipek’s Motion constitutes a bar to the retrial of the affirmed and declared that even if the NA was filed on time, the
same issue of default under the doctrine of the law of the same is dismissible as petitioner took a wrong remedy. SC
case. affirmed CA and ruled that case is dimissible. The Notice of
appeal was filed within the reglementary period based on
“Law of the case” has been defined as the opinion delivered Neypes ruling “fresh period rule”, however, petitioner took a
on a former appeal—more specifically, it means that whatever wrong remedy. H of Rule 41 provides that “No appeal may be
Page 8 of 64
taken from an order dismissing an action without prejudice”. PNB v Sps. Cordova
The case may be assailed via petition for certiorari under Rule GR 169314 May 14, 2008
65, if there is GAD. Even if the appeal is to be taken as Rule
65 petition, the same will be dismissible as CA did not commit Summary of Facts with Ruling:
GAD as it acted correctly in stating that NA filed by petitioner Complaint for rescission was dismissed by RTC and petitioner
was dismissible. filed a notice of appeal timely.Respondents filed MR which
RTC granted. Upon receiving the modified decision order of
FACTS: RTC, petitioner filed MR which was also denied by RTC. A
second notice of appeal was filed of which respondents
Makati Insurance filed a complaint for damages for breach of
opposed contending that since the first decision was vacated
contract against Rubills International and Tong Woon Shipping
and replaced by the new decision, the first notice of appeal
for breach of contract of carriage. Complainant alleged that
became ineffective. CA denied the motion and the subsequent
shipment was in apparent damaged condition upon arrival at
MR. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. SC ruled that
point of destination.
the first notice of appeal is still effective. The filing of a second
Petitioner’s counsel fails to appear at the scheduled pre-trial notice of appeal from a modified decision is a superfluity
conference and hence, RTC judge dismissed the case without because the appeal is deemed perfected upon the filing of the
prejudice. It received the order dismissing the case on Nov 29, first notice of appeal as to the party who filed as such. Also,
2001. filing a second notice of appeal does not constitute as waiver
of the first notice of appeal.
On Dec 4, 2001, MR was filed alleging that sickness prevented
its counsel from attending the pre-trial conference. RTC denied FACTS:
MR of which received by petitioner on July 3, 2002.
Complaint for rescission was filed but later dismissed by RTC
Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on July 17, 2002. however, it granted Sps Cordova’s counterclaim on its order
Respondents opposed filing of notice of appeal contending that dated Feb 18, 2002. Petitioner filed notice of appeal timely on
it was filed out of time. March 20, 2002.

RTC dismissed petitioner’s notice of appeal for being filed 3 Respondents also filed MR of which RTC granted and
days beyond the 15 day reglementary period. Petitioner filed its amended to increase amount of damages awarded to
Verified Motion for Reconsideration five days after receiving respondents on its order dated July 2, 2002. After receiving the
the Order dismissing the case without prejudice. Excluding the order of RTC on Aug 7, 2002, petitioner filed MR on Aug 22,
day the said motion was filed, petitioner had only 11 days left 2002 of which RTC denied.
to file a notice of appeal. Petitioner received the Order of 17
It subsequently filed second Notice of Appeal on Oct 23, 2002.
June 2002 denying its Verified Motion for Reconsideration on 3
July 2002. Accordingly, it had only until 14 July 2002 to file a Respondents moved for the dismissal of the appeal. As this
Notice of Appeal. Petitioner, however, filed its Notice of Appeal motion was denied by the trial court, they re-filed it with the
on 17 July 2002. appellate court. In their motion, respondents argued that
petitioner only had one (1) day left to file the second notice
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 which CA
when it received the order denying the MR, inasmuch as it had
dismissed as it affirmed RTC’s decision. CA declared that even
already consumed the 15-day reglementary period when it filed
if petitioner’s Notice of Appeal was considered filed on time, it
the MR on August 22, 2002. Since the February 18, 2002
was dismissible for being the wrong remedy. MR was also
Decision was vacated, revised and replaced by the July 2,
denied.
2002 Order, the first notice of appeal became ineffective and
Hence, this petition. invalid.

ISSUE: CA deny the motion. MR was denied.

Whether or not the Notice of Appeal was filed out of time. Petition for review on Certiorari was filed.

RULING: ISSUE:

No, the notice of appeal was indeed filed within the


reglementary period as per Neypes Ruling. However, SC had Whether or not CA erred in granting motion to dismiss on the
to dismiss the case for failing as petitioner avail of a wrong ground that the first notice of appeal became ineffective and
remedy. invalid.

Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41, Section RULING:
1(h), thereof expressly provides that no appeal may be taken
Yes. CA erred, petitioner’s appeal is deemed perfected as to it
from an order dismissing an action without prejudice. It may be
when it timely filed its first notice of appeal following Sec 9
subject of a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of
Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
the Rules of Court, as amended by the said 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. The Court of Appeals, therefore, acted correctly in Incidentally, this perfected appeal is not docketed with the CA,
stating that the Notice of Appeal filed by the petitioner was because the trial court, which was still to resolve respondents’
dismissible.
Page 9 of 64
motion for reconsideration, had not yet transmitted the records her MR. However, her motion was denied. Petitioner elevated
of the case to the appellate court. Incumbent, nonetheless, on the matter via certiorari before the CA. CA dismissed the
the part of the RTC is the elevation of the records after a petition. SC ruled that the fresh period rule will only apply if the
resolution of the merits of respondents’ motion. MR decision is reversed, it may not apply to the case of
petitioner whose motion for reconsideration was denied.
Its appeal having been perfected, petitioner did not need to file
a second notice of appeal even if the trial court granted, as it Facts:
did, the other party’s motion for reconsideration and modified The DENR Regional Executive Director Jim O. Sampulna (RD
the decision to increase the monetary award. This is in Sampulna), denied for lack merit the application of Julieta
accordance with our ruling in Pacific Life Assurance Panolino (petitioner), which was opposed by herein respondent
Josephine L. Tajala, for a free patent over a parcel of land
Corporation v. Sison, 16 thus:
located in Sultan Kudarat, and directed petitioner to vacate the
We hold that petitioner did not have to file another notice of contested property and remove at her expense whatever
appeal, having given notice of its intention to appeal the improvements she may have introduced thereon.
original decision.
Petitioner received a copy of the decision on June 27, 2007, of
x x x Since the decision, as modified by the order of March 11, which she filed a motion for reconsideration on July 11, 2007.
1993, more than doubled petitioner’s liability, there is no Her motion was denied on September 6, 2007, copy of which
she received on September 12, 2007.
reason to believe that petitioner’s failure to appeal therefrom in
any way indicated its acceptance thereof. On September 19, 2007, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal bef
ore the Office of RD Sampulna, stating that she was appealing
An essential and logical implication of the said rule is that the
the decision and order to the Office of the DENR Secretary. By
filing of a second notice of appeal from the modified decision is
Order of October 16, 2007, RD Sampulna denied the notice of
a superfluity, if not a useless ceremony. It, therefore, matters appeal, holding that it was filed beyond the reglementary
no longer whether that second notice is timely filed or not. period. The RD explained that petitioner should have filed her
Hence, in this case, petitioner’s filing of a belated second appeal on September 13, 2007 as she had only one day left of
notice of appeal does not affect or foreclose its already the 15-day reglementary period for the purpose, pursuant to
perfected appeal. DENR Administrative Order No. 87, Series of 1990 which
provides that if a motion for reconsideration of the
Respondents want the Court to depart from the aforesaid rules decision/order of the Regional Office is filed and such motion
because, in this case, petitioner, in effect, abandoned its for reconsideration is denied, the movant shall have the right
perfected appeal when it filed a motion for reconsideration of to perfect his
the order modifying the decision. The Court does not agree. appeal during the remainder of the period for appeal, reckoned
Petitioner’s filing of the said motion does not have the effect of from receipt of the resolution of denial.The administrative
a waiver of the appeal, and, like the second notice, is a order also provides that “The Rules of Court shall apply when
pointless formality which does not prejudice the already not inconsistent with the provisions hereof.”
perfected appeal.
Invoking the rule enunciated by this Court in the 2005 case
The necessary consequence of our ruling that petitioner’s of Neypes, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., petitioner argued in
perfected appeal springs from the first notice is that such first her motion for reconsideration of RD Sampulnas October 16,
appeal should be the one docketed by the appellate court. CA- 2007 Order that she still had a fresh period of fifteen days from
G.R. CV No. 80735, the subject of this petition, is the mistaken her receipt on September 12, 2007 of copy of the Order
denying her motion for reconsideration. However, her motion
appeal, for it traces its origin from the superfluous second
was denied.
notice. Considering, however, that the records were already
transmitted to the appellate court in the appeal docketed as Petitioner elevated the matter via certiorari before the CA
CA-G.R. CV No. 80735, for us to have to go through the which, by Resolution, dismissed it on the ground that petitioner
process of dismissing the said mistaken appeal, then have the failed to exhaust administrative remedies, she having
perfected appeal from the first notice docketed, and finally, bypassed the Office of the DENR Secretary and the Office of
order the records of the case re-transmitted through that the President before resorting to judicial action.
docketed appeal, would be too circuitous a procedure. Thus,
for expediency, we simply reinstate the appeal without a further Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing that her petition
re-docket, and direct the appellate court to resolve the case for certiorari raised a purely legal issue. The appellate court,
without further delay. holding that the issue raised is clearly a question of fact,
denied petitioners motion. Hence, the present petition for
JULIETA PANOLINO vs. JOSEPHINE L. TAJALA review on certiorari.
G.R. No. 183616 June 29, 2010
Issue: Whether the fresh period rule laid down
QUICK SUMMARY: in Neypes applies to petitioner’s case
DENR denied the application of petitioner for a free patent over Ruling: NO.
a parcel of land. She filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR)
14 days after receiving a copy of the decision which was The issue raised by petitioner before the appellate court
denied. 7 days after receiving the denial, she filed a Notice of is one of law because it can be resolved by merely determining
Appeal. RD of DENR denied the notice of appeal, holding that what the law is under the undisputed facts. The appellate
it was filed out of time. Petitioner argued that she still had a court’s ruling that such issue raises a question of fact which
fresh period of 15 days from her receipt of the Order denying
Page 10 of 64
entails an examination of the probative value of the evidence of petitioner which was denied. RTC of Tarlac City issued the
presented by the parties is thus erroneous. assailed Order ruling that the property covered by TCT No.
292139 is petitioner’s paraphernal property, hence, it may not
As reflected in the decision in Neypes, the fresh period rule be made liable for the obligations of Wilfredo.
shall apply to Rule 40 (appeals from the Municipal Trial Courts
to the Regional Trial Courts); Rule 41 (appeals from the Respondents Motion for Reconsideration of the foregoing order
Regional Trial Courts to the Court of Appeals or Supreme was denied by the RTC, prompting respondents to file an
Court); Rule 42 (appeals from the Regional Trial Courts to the appeal with the CA.
Court of Appeals); Rule 43 (appeals from quasi-judicial
agencies to the Court of Appeals); and Rule 45 (appeals by The CA, reversed and set aside the Resolution of the RTC of
certiorari to the Supreme Court). Obviously, these Rules Tarlac City. In its ruling, the CA said that the Family Code
cover judicial proceedings under the 1997 Rules of Civil provisions on conjugal partnerships govern the property
Procedure. relations between petitioner and Wilfredo. Petitioner filed a
Motion for Reconsideration. The CA denied the motion. Hence,
Petitioners present case is administrative in nature involving an the Petition before us filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
appeal from the decision or order of the DENR regional office
to the DENR Secretary. Such appeal is indeed governed by Issue: Whether the petitioner used the appropriate mode of
Section 1 of Administrative Order No. 87, Series of 1990. As appeal
earlier quoted, Section 1 clearly provides that if the motion for Ruling: No.
reconsideration is denied, the movant shall perfect his appeal
during the remainder of the period of appeal, reckoned from A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper if a tribunal,
receipt of the resolution of denial; whereas if the decision board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
is reversed, the adverse party has a fresh 15-day period to has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
perfect his appeal. abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate
Rule 41, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, as clarified remedy in the ordinary course of law. However, the proper
in Neypes, being inconsistent with Section 1 of Administrative remedy of petitioner from the assailed Decision and Resolution
Order No. 87, Series of 1990, it may not apply to the case of of the Court of Appeals is an ordinary appeal to this Court via a
petitioner whose motion for reconsideration was denied. petition for review under Rule 45 and not a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65.
EMELINDA V. ABEDES vs.CA, RELIA QUIZON ARCIGA and
SHERIFF RONBERTO B. VALINO Parenthetically, it must be emphasized that under Rule 56,
G.R. No. 174373 October 15, 2007 Sec. 5(f) of the Rules of Court, which governs the procedure in
the Supreme Court, a wrong or inappropriate mode of appeal,
QUICK SUMMARY: as in this case, merits an outright dismissal. Patently, the
Respondent filed an action for support against the husband of petition must fail.
petitioner. The RTC ruled in favour of respondent and the
sheriff levied upon petitioner’s property to satisfy the judgment. Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court elaborates on the
Petitioner alleged that the property belongs exclusively to her modes of appeal:
and not a conjugal property. RTC ruled in her favour. CA
reversed RTC’s judgment. Petitioner filed a Motion for SEC. 2. Modes of appeal.
Reconsideration which was denied. Hence, she filed a petition
under Rule 65 of the ROC. SC ruled that the proper remedy of (a) Ordinary appeal. The appeal to the
petitioner is an ordinary appeal via a petition for review under Court of Appeals in cases decided by the
Rule 45 and not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a
notice of appeal with the court which
Facts: rendered the judgment or final order
Respondent Relia Quizon Arciga filed an action before the appealed from and serving a copy thereof
RTC of Pasig City against Wilfredo, husband of herein upon the adverse party. No record on
petitioner, seeking support for her daughter, Dannielle appeal shall be required except in special
Ann. Wilfredo was ordered by the RTC to support Danielle proceedings and other cases of multiple or
Ann. separate appeals where the law or these
Rules so require. In such cases, the record
The Sheriff caused the registration of a Notice of Levy on on appeal shall be filed and served in like
Execution on TCT No. 292139. Petitioner filed a Notice of Third manner.
Party Claim with the RTC alleging that the property belongs
exclusively to her. (b) Petition for review. The appeal to the
Court of Appeals in cases decided by the
Notwithstanding the adverse claim, a Notice of Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its
Sheriffs Sale was made. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Complaint appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for
for Injunction with Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction and review in accordance with Rule 42.
Temporary Restraining Order and Damages before the RTC of
Tarlac City (c) Appeal by certiorari. In all cases where
only questions of law are raised or involved,
After due hearing, the RTC issued a TRO. Meanwhile, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by
respondents filed an Urgent Motion to Dismiss the Complaint
Page 11 of 64
petition for review on certiorari in accordance Subsequently, the petitioners also filed their own Motion for
with Rule 45. Reconsideration assailing the said Resolution. As earlier
stated, the CA denied their Motion. Hence, this Petition.

The first mode of appeal, governed by Rule 41, is taken to the Issue: Whether the failure to pay docket and other lawful fees
Court of Appeals on questions of fact or mixed questions of within the prescribed period is a ground for the dismissal of an
fact and law. The second mode of appeal, covered by Rule appeal.
42, is brought to the Court of Appeals on questions of fact, of
law, or mixed questions of fact and law. The third mode of Ruling: Yes.
appeal, provided for by Rule 45, is elevated to the Supreme The Petition is meritorious.
Court only on questions of law. The Rules of Court, as amended, specifically provides that
appellate court docket and other lawful fees should be paid
In the case at bar, respondents utilized the first mode of within the period for taking an appeal. Hence, Section 4 of Rule
appeal. Respondents filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC of 41 reads:
Tarlac City on 18 August 2004, giving notice that they were
appealing its Order and Resolution, dated 9 June 2004 and 3
August 2004, respectively, to the Court of Appeals. Indeed, "Section 4. Appellate court docket and other lawful fees. --
Section 3 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court states that an Within the period for taking an appeal,[9] the appellant shall
appeal to the Court of Appeals shall be taken by filing a notice pay to the clerk of the court which rendered the judgment or
of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment and final order appealed from, the full amount of the appellate
serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. The question court docket and other lawful fees. Proof of payment of said
now arises whether respondents raised questions of fact or fees shall be transmitted to the appellate court together with
mixed questions of fact and law before the Court of Appeals. A the original record or the record on appeal."
review of the records reveals that respondents, in their appeal
with the Court of Appeals, raised mixed questions of fact and Contrary to the submission of private respondents that the
law. aforecited rule is merely directory, the payment of the docket
and other legal fees within the prescribed period is both
GABRIEL LAZARO and the heirs of FLORENCIA PINEDA mandatory and jurisdictional. Section 1 (c), Rule 50 of the
and EVA VIERNES vs. CA and Spouses JOSE and ANITA Rules of Court provides: "Failure of the appellant to pay the
ALESNA docket and other fees as provided in Section 4 of Rule 41" is a
G.R. No. 137761. April 6, 2000 ground for the dismissal of the appeal. Indeed, it has been held
that failure of the appellant to conform with the rules on appeal
QUICK SUMMARY: renders the judgment final and executory. Verily, the right to
Respondents filed an action for annulment of title against appeal is a statutory right and one who seeks to avail of that
petitioners before the RTC. RTC rendered judgment in favour right must comply with the statute or the rule.
of the petitioners. Respondents filed an appeal to CA which
was dismissed for failure to pay the required docket fees within In the present case, the private respondents failed to pay the
the prescribed period. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration required docket fees within the reglementary period. In fact, the
was granted. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a Motion for Court notes that they paid the fees only after the CA had
Reconsideration which was denied. SC ruled that the payment dismissed the appeal, or six months after the filing of the
of the docket and other legal fees within the prescribed period Notice of Appeal. Clearly, existing jurisprudence and the Rules
is both mandatory and jurisdictional and failure of the appellant mandate that the appeal should be dismissed.
to pay the docket and other fees is a ground for the dismissal
of the appeal.
We must stress that the bare invocation of "the interest of
substantial justice" is not a magic wand that will automatically
Facts:
compel this Court to suspend procedural rules. Indeed, in no
uncertain terms, the Court held that the said rules may be
Before the RTC of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Spouses Jose relaxed only in "exceptionally meritorious cases." In this case,
and Anita Alesna, private respondents herein, filed a civil the CA and the private respondents failed to show that this
action for annulment of title, reconveyance and damages (with case is one such exception.
prayer for preliminary injunction) against Petitioners Gabriel
Lazaro and the heirs of Florencia Pineda and Eva Viernes. REPUBLIC vs. CA, HON. MADRONA and APOLINARIA
MALINAO JOMOC
After trial, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of the G.R. No. 163604. May 6, 2005
petitioners. Thereafter, the private respondents filed a Notice of
Appeal before the trial court. QUICKSUMMARY:
Absentee spouse of herein respondent was declared
The CA dismissed the appeal for failure of herein private presumptively dead hence, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal.
respondents to pay the required docket fees within the The trial court disapproved petitioner’s notice on the ground
prescribed period. Thereafter, it issued its first assailed that no record of appeal was filed and served as required. After
Resolution granting their Motion for Reconsideration and its Motion for Reconsideration was denied, petitioner filed a
reinstating the appeal. Petition for Certiorari before the CA which was also denied
because the petition is not sufficient in form. SC ruled that the
petition, being in the nature of a special
proceeding, OSG should have filed, in addition to its Notice of
Appeal, a record on appeal.
Page 12 of 64
except in special proceedings and
Facts: other cases of multiple or separate appeals
where the law or these Rules so require. In
In the Matter of Declaration of Presumptive Death of Absentee such cases, the record on appeal shall be
Spouse Clemente P. Jomoc, RTC, granted the petition and filed and served in like manner. (Emphasis
accordingly declared the absentee spouse, who had left his and underscoring supplied)
petitioner-wife nine years earlier, presumptively dead. The
Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, sought to
appeal the trial courts order by filing a Notice of Appeal. Finally, on the alleged procedural flaw in petitioners petition
before the appellate court. Petitioners failure to attach to his
The trial court, noting that no record of appeal was filed and petition before the appellate court a copy of the trial
served as required by and pursuant to Sec. 2(a), Rule 41 of the courts order denying its motion for reconsideration of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the present case being a disapproval of its Notice of Appeal is not necessarily fatal, for
special proceeding, disapproved the Notice of Appeal. the rules of procedure are not to be applied in a technical
sense. Given the issue raised before it by petitioner, what the
The Republic’s Motion for Reconsideration of the trial courts appellate court should have done was to direct petitioner to
order of disapproval having been denied, it filed a Petition comply with the rule.
for Certiorari before the CA, contending that the declaration of
presumptive death of a person under Article 41 of the Family MAJOR ROMEO G. ELEPANTE vs. HON. MADAYAG and
Code is not a special proceeding or a case of multiple or MAJ. GEN. RODOLFO BIAZON
separate appeals requiring a record on appeal. G.R. No. 93559 April 26, 1991

The Court of Appeals denied the Republics petition on QUICK SUMMARY:


procedural and substantive grounds stating that the petition is Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus with the SC. SC
not sufficient in form. It failed to attach to its petition a certified directed RTC of Makati to hear and decide the case. The trial
true copy of the assailed Order. However, despite the court rendered a decision dismissing the petition for habeas
procedural lapses, the Court resolves to delve deeper into the corpus for lack of merit. Petitioner filed a petition for review
substantive issue of the validity/nullity of the assailed order. on certiorari before the SC. OSG filed his comment saying that
when petitioner filed this petition, the assailed decision had
The principal issue in this case is whether a petition for attained finality, an appeal in habeas corpus should be filed
declaration of the presumptive death of a person is in the within 48 hours from notice of the judgment. SC ruled that 13
nature of a special proceeding. If it is, the period to appeal is days had lapsed when petitioner filed the instant petition.
30 days and the party appealing must, in addition to a notice of Hence, the decision sought to be reviewed is already final.
appeal, file with the trial court a record on appeal to perfect its
appeal. Otherwise, if the petition is an ordinary action, the Facts:
period to appeal is 15 days from notice or decision or final
order appealed from and the appeal is perfected by filing a Major Romeo Elepante filed a petition for habeas corpus with
notice of appeal (Section 3, Rule 41, Rules of Court). this Court. The Court resolved to issue a writ returnable to the
Executive Judge of the RTC, Makati, Metro Manila. Also this
Issue: Whether a record on appeal shall be required in order Court directed the latter to hear and decide the case.
to perfect an appeal
In the hearing, Romeo Elepante testified that he is a Major in
Ruling: Yes. the Philippine Navy (Marines) and the Executive Officer of the
Metropolitan Citizens Military Training Command; that on April
15, 1990, a platoon of armed soldiers led by Captain Doctor
This Court finds that the instant petition is in the nature of a
brought him to the NCR Defense Command where he was
special proceeding and not an ordinary action. The instant
detained; that there was no warrant for his arrest; that he was
petition, being in the nature of a special
confined as prisoner at Fort Bonifacio; that no formal charges
proceeding, OSG should have filed, in addition to its Notice of
have been filed against him. The trial court rendered a decision
Appeal, a record on appeal in accordance with Section 19 of
dismissing for lack of merit the petition for habeas corpus. The
the Interim Rules and Guidelines to Implement BP Blg. 129
and Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. trial court opined that Major Elepante was arrested because of
his involvement in several coup attempts.

Rule 41, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court, on


Major Elepante filed this petition for review on certiorari,
Modes of Appeal, invoked by the trial court in disapproving
alleging inter alia, that there is no criminal complaint filed
petitioners Notice of Appeal, provides:
against him so that his continued detention is a violation of the
Sec. 2. Modes of appeal. - Constitution. The Office of the Solicitor General filed its
comment. In his comment the Solicitor General pointed out that
counsel for petitioner received on May 29, 1990, a copy of the
(a) Ordinary appeal. - The appeal to the Court
trial court's decision dated May 24, 1990, so that when he filed
of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional
this petition on June 11, 1990, the assailed decision had
Trial Court in the exercise of its original
attained finality. Citing Rule 41, Section 18 of the Revised
jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of
Rules of Court, appeal in habeas corpus should be filed within
appeal with the court which rendered the
forty-eight (48) hours from notice of the judgment.
judgment or final order appealed from and
serving a copy thereof upon the adverse
party. No record on appeal shall be required
Page 13 of 64
Issue: Whether petitioner’s appeal in habeas corpus was assail it during the pendency of the petition (2) While it is true
timely filed that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case may be
raised at any time of the proceedings, this rule presupposes
Ruling: No. that laches or estoppel has not supervened. As distinguished
from a question of law which exists "when the doubt or
Section 18 of Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court, explicitly difference arises as to what the law is on certain state of facts"
provides, viz: — "there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference
arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts;" or when
Sec. 18. Appeal in habeas corpus cases, how taken. the "query necessarily invites calibration of the whole evidence
— An appeal in habeas corpus cases shall be considering mainly the credibility of witnesses, existence and
perfected by filing with the clerk of the court or the relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, their relation
judge who rendered the judgment, within forty-eight to each other and to the whole and the probabilities of the
(48) hours from notice of such judgment, a statement situation.
that the person making it appeals therefrom.
FACTS:
As interpreted in the case of Saulo v. Brig. Gen. Cruz (109 Private respondents Hermilo Rodis, Sr., together with Douglas
Phil. 379 [1960]), which also involved a habeas corpuscase, Sandiego and Ricardo Silverio, Sr., was charged with estafa
this Court ruled that the requirement under Section 18 of Rule before the RTC.
41 of the Old Rules of Court which provides that an appeal
in habeas corpus should be perfected within twenty-four (24) Respondent Rodis moved to quash the information on the
hours (now forty-eight hours under Rule 41, Section 18 of the ground that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),
Revised Rules of Court), is not only mandatory but not the regular courts, had jurisdiction over the offense
jurisdictional. Hence, this Court has no other alternative but to
charged and that the facts stated herein did not constitute an
dismiss the appeal filed out of time.
offense.

In computing the forty-eight (48) hour period of appeal, this RTC denied the motion and elevated the case before the IAC
Court in Kabigting v. Director of Prisons (6 SCRA 281 [1962]), on a petition for certiorari.
ruled that the date on which the decision was promulgated
and/or served is not counted and the period starts to run the IAC dismissed the petition after finding there is no GAD. MR
following day unless the same by a Sunday or legal holiday in was likewise denied. private respondent filed a petition for
which case the period of appeal is to be considered from the review on certiorari with this Court. The petition was denied.
succeeding day. To perfect an appeal, a notice of appeal is
required to be filed with the Clerk of Court or Judge who Trial ensued in the criminal case. Respondent then filed a
rendered the judgment (Rule 41, Section 18, Revised Rules of demurrer to evidence. RTC denied the motion to dismiss.
Court).
Petition for certiorari and prohibition was filed by Respondent
In the case at bar, counsel for petitioner received on May 29, before CA.
1990 a copy of the trial court's decision dated May 24, 1990
CA granted the petition.
(Rollo, p. 8). Clearly when he filed the instant petition on June
11, 1990, thirteen (13) days had lapsed, so it was filed outside Hence, this petition.
the forty-eight (48) hour reglementary period. This being so,
the decision sought to be reviewed is already final so that this ISSUE:
Court following the Saulo ruling, has no alternative but to
dismiss the instant petition. Whether or not CA has acquired jurisdiction over the petition
for certiorari.
Sesbreno v CA
GR 84096 January 26, 1995 RULING:

Yes, petitioner is estopped in assailing the jurisdiction of CA as


Summary of Facts with Ruling: (1) he did not assail it during the pendency of the petition (2)
A case of estafa was filed before the RTC against Rodis et. Al. While it is true that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a
During trial and after prosecution rested its case, respondents case may be raised at any time of the proceedings, this rule
then filed a demurrer to evidence. RTC denied the motion to presupposes that laches or estoppel has not supervened.
dismiss. On petition for certiorari and prohibition, CA granted
the petition. Petitioner interposed an appeal before SC Petitioner contends that by the filing of a motion to dismiss on
contending that the CA has no jurisdiction over the subject demurrer to evidence, private respondent, in effect, admitted
matter because when petitioner filed a demurrer to evidence, in the truth of the allegations in the information, as well as the
effect, it admitted the allegations and the evidence presented evidence presented by the prosecution to support said
by the prosecution and therefore, the only issue to be resolved allegations. Therefore, the only issue raised by private
is whether or not respondents shall be held liable for estafa, respondent before the Court of Appeals, i.e., whether or not he
which is a pure question of law of which CA has no jurisdiction. can be held liable for estafa under the facts obtaining in the
RULING: CA has acquired jurisdiction though what was raised case, is purely a question of law for which said appellate court
is a pure question of law because SC ruled that petitioner is had no jurisdiction
estopped in assailing the jurisdiction of CA as (1) he did not
Page 14 of 64
In Bernardo v. Court of Appeals, 216 SCRA 224 (1992), this the private respondent, and before trial, the respondent judge
Court clarified the distinction between a question of law and a dismissed the complaint of the petitioner. The RTC Order
question of fact in this wise: dismissing the Complaint was received by petitioner on June 2,
1999. On that date, the 15-day prescriptive period within which
. . . . As distinguished from a question of law which exists to file an appeal began to run. Instead of preparing an appeal,
"when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration on June 14,
certain state of facts" — "there is a question of fact when the 1999. After hearing, judge denied such motion. On August 19,
doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of 1999, petitioner received the RTC Order denying his Motion for
alleged facts;" or when the "query necessarily invites Reconsideration. Accordingly, he had three (3) days or until
calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the August 22, 1999 to file a notice of appeal. Petitioner filed a
credibility of witnesses, existence and relevancy of specific notice of appeal on August 26, 1999 however, the respondent
surrounding circumstances, their relation to each other and to judge denied the said notice of appeal on the ground that the
the whole and the probabilities of the situation." period to appeal ha[d] already expired.
An examination of the petition filed before the Court of Appeals Hence, this Petition before the Honorable Court.
disclosed that indeed no question of fact was raised. What
private respondent asserted therein was that the facts as Issue:
alleged and proved by petitioner did not constitute a criminal
offense. Clearly then, the only issue to be resolved by the Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of
Court of Appeals, which it did resolve, was whether private discretion in denying the notice of appeal.
respondent could be held liable for estafa under the facts Ruling:
obtaining in the criminal case. This certainly is a question of
law that should fall within the jurisdiction of SC. NO. The RTC is correct in denying the notice of appeal as it
was filed out of the reglementary period.
Oro vs Diaz
G.R. No. 140974 July 11, 2001 On August 19, 1999, petitioner received the RTC Order
denying his Motion for Reconsideration. Accordingly, he had
Summary of Facts with Ruling: three (3) days or until August 22, 1999 to file a notice of
A case before DARAB for collection has become final and appeal. Unfortunately, he was able to do so only on August 26,
executory. However, respondent still failed to pay the rentals 1999, or four (4) days late.
as tenant. Petitioner then filed a complaint for damages in
RTC. After urgent motion to dismiss filed by respondent, judge The approval of a notice of appeal becomes the ministerial
granted the motion to dismiss. The RTC Order dismissing the duty of the lower court, provided the appeal is filed on time. If
Complaint was received by petitioner on June 2, 1999. On that the notice of appeal is, however, filed beyond the reglementary
date, the 15-day prescriptive period within which to file an period, the trial court may exercise its power to refuse or
appeal began to run. Instead of preparing an appeal, petitioner disallow the same in accordance with Section 13 of Rule 41 of
filed his Motion for Reconsideration on June 14, 1999. After the Rules of Court.
hearing, judge denied such motion. On August 19, 1999,
The trial court was correct in disallowing the Notice of Appeal,
petitioner received the RTC Order denying his Motion for
also because it was directed at an Order denying a motion for
Reconsideration. Accordingly, he had three (3) days or until
reconsideration, instead of at the judgment or final order
August 22, 1999 to file a notice of appeal. Petitioner filed a
disposing the case. Section 1 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court
notice of appeal on August 26, 1999 however, the respondent
proscribes the filing of an appeal from an order denying a
judge denied the said notice of appeal on the ground that the
motion for reconsideration. That provision reads:
period to appeal ha[d] already expired. RULING: SC ruled that
RTC is correct in denying the notice of appeal. On August 19, "Section 1. Subject of appeal. - An appeal may be taken from a
1999, petitioner received the RTC Order denying his Motion for judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or
Reconsideration. Accordingly, he had three (3) days or until of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to
August 22, 1999 to file a notice of appeal. However, he filed be appealable.
notice of appeal on Aug 26, of which 4 days late. The approval
of a notice of appeal becomes the ministerial duty of the lower No appeal may be taken from:
court, provided the appeal is filed on time. If the notice of
appeal is, however, filed beyond the reglementary period, the (a) An order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration;
trial court may exercise its power to refuse or disallow the
xxx xxx xxx
same in accordance with Section 13 of Rule 41 of the Rules of
Court. In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is
not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate
FACTS:
special civil action under Rule 65." (Emphasis supplied)
Due to failure of respondents to pay his rentals as tenant,
It should be stressed that the right to appeal is not a natural
petitioner brought action before DARAB for collection.
right or a part of due process. Rather, it is a procedural remedy
Case was decided and finally executed of which respondents of statutory origin and, as such, may be exercised only in the
did not pay. Petitioner then filed a case for damages before the manner prescribed by the provisions of law authorizing its
RTC. After considering the 'urgent' motion to dismiss filed by exercise." Hence, its requirements must be strictly complied
Page 15 of 64
with. Failure of a party to perfect an appeal within the period foreclosing the mortgage on the property covered by TCT No.
fixed by law renders final the decision sought to be appealed. 356315. Note, however, that he was allowed to foreclose the
As a result, no court could exercise appellate jurisdiction to lot covered by TCT No. 366380, which consisted of around
review the decision. 4,334 square meters, but not the portions already purchased
by petitioners pursuant to the Agreement he had entered into
Moreover, the perfection of an appeal within the period and in with petitioners. It must, at this point, be stressed that the
the manner prescribed by law is essential; noncompliance with Resolution to grant partial execution was based on the HLURB
this legal requirement is fatal and has the effect of rendering Decision involving the same parties and subject matter. In fact,
the judgment final and executory. After a decision is declared the trial court itself stated that its Resolution was anchored on
final and executory, vested rights are acquired by the winning a supervening event, the said HLURB ruling. It is clear
party. Just as a losing party has the right to appeal within the therefore, that the trial court did not merely grant execution.
prescribed period, the winning party has the correlative right to Rather, it also resolved matters that delved on the merits of the
enjoy the finality of the case. claims of both parties. It did not merely order something to be
done pursuant to a previous final decision, but resolved issues
Hufana v Genato
determinative of the final outcome of the case. As such, the
GR 141209 Sep 17, 2001
Resolution is in effect a final order that may be appealed to the
Summary of Facts with Ruling:
CA under the Rules of Court.
Genato filed a complaint before RTC to foreclose a real estate
mortgage over two parcels of land owned by Oakland. RTC FACTS:
ruled in favor of Genato. Oakland sought relief from the Court
of Appeals which, however, affirmed the trial court on July 28, William Ong Genato filed a complaint before RTC to foreclose
1992. When the CA Decision became final and executory on a real estate mortgage over two parcels of land owned by
August 27, 1992, Genato filed a Motion for Execution, which Oakland. RTC ruled in favor of Genato. Oakland sought relief
was granted by the RTC on December 7, 1992. A Petition for from the Court of Appeals which, however, affirmed the trial
Prohibition with a prayer for a temporary restraining order or court on July 28, 1992. When the CA Decision became final
writ of preliminary injunction was filed before the Supreme and executory on August 27, 1992, Genato filed a Motion for
Court. Through this Petition, the alleged owners/buyers of the Execution, which was granted by the RTC on December 7,
mortgaged properties sought to restrain the trial court from 1992. Pursuant thereto, the branch clerk of court issued an
proceeding with the auction on the ground that the mortgage Execution Foreclosing Mortgage dated December 9, 1992, and
was void. It affirmed the validity of the mortgage and declared scheduled the auction sale of the foreclosed properties on
Oakland liable to Genato. The separate Motions for January 14, 1993. However, a Petition for Prohibition with a
Reconsideration filed by Oakland were denied by the CA prayer for a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary
through a Resolution dated July 21, 1994. For its nonpayment injunction was filed before the Supreme Court. Through this
of the prescribed docket fees, its appeal to this Court was Petition, the alleged owners/buyers of the mortgaged
likewise denied. Also denied with finality on December 12, properties sought to restrain the trial court from proceeding
1994 was the Motion for Reconsideration. Due to the finality of with the auction on the ground that the mortgage was void.
the Resolution dated December 12, 1994, Genato filed before
the RTC an Ex Parte Motion for Execution of Judgment. Both The former Special First Division of the CA subsequently
Oakland and herein petitioners based their opposition on a dissolved the Supreme Courts TRO and dismissed the Petition
in a Decision dated February 3, 1994. It affirmed the validity of
Decision dated March 20, 1995 issued by the Housing and
the mortgage and declared Oakland liable to Genato. The
Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) in HLRC Case No. REM
separate Motions for Reconsideration filed by Oakland were
A-940322-0060. This case, entitled Cristilyn Castilla et al. v. denied by the CA through a Resolution dated July 21, 1994.
Oakland Development Resources Corporation, Prater Espana For its nonpayment of the prescribed docket fees, its appeal to
& William Ong Genato, declared the mortgage between this Court was likewise denied. Also denied with finality on
Genato and Oakland void insofar as third parties were December 12, 1994 was the Motion for Reconsideration.
concerned.RTC declared the mortgage between Oakland and
Genato null and void insofar as third parties were concerned. It Due to the finality of the Resolution dated December 12, 1994,
further ruled that the buyers herein petitioners -- had a superior Genato filed before the RTC an Ex Parte Motion for Execution
of Judgment. Oakland opposed the Motion, while the
right thereto. Court of Appeals stated that it had already ruled
intervenors in the case (herein petitioners) filed an Urgent
upon the validity of the mortgage. Since validity was the
Manifestation with Motion to Intervene and an Opposition to
primary issue raised in a previous case filed before it, the said Herein Plaintiffs Ex Parte Motion for Execution. Both Oakland
ruling is already conclusive upon the same issue raised by the and herein petitioners based their opposition on a Decision
same parties before the HLURB. The CA Decision cannot be dated March 20, 1995 issued by the Housing and Land Use
contravened by a subsequent ruling of the HLURB. It was Regulatory Board (HLURB) in HLRC Case No. REM A-
therefore erroneous for the trial court to ignore the Decision of 940322-0060. This case, entitled Cristilyn Castilla et al. v.
a higher court. RULING: CA did not err in taking cognizance of Oakland Development Resources Corporation, Prater Espana
the case. under Section 1(f) of Rule 41, an order of execution & William Ong Genato, declared the mortgage between
issued by a trial court is not appealable. However, In this case, Genato and Oakland void insofar as third parties were
the RTC Resolution dated July 1, 1997 resolved, among concerned.
others, to grant in part, as well as deny in part, the Motion for Citing the HLURB Decision, the trial judge denied Genatos Ex
an Alias Writ of Execution filed by respondent. The net result of Parte Motion for Execution of Judgment on August 18, 1995.
the trial courts Resolution was that Genato was precluded from However, on reconsideration and upon manifestation that he
Page 16 of 64
would respect the Deeds of Absolute Sale/Contracts to Sell (f) An order of execution;
executed by Oakland in favor of the intervenors/petitioners, the
RTC issued a Resolution dated 14 May 1996 allowing (g) A judgment or final order for or against one or more of
execution to proceed, but limited the auction sale to the lot several parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross-
covered by TCT No. 366380, except those portions that had claims and third-party complaints, while the main case is
been bought and occupied by the intervenors. pending, unless the court allows an appeal therefrom; and

Oakland filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution


(h) An order dismissing an action without prejudice.
dated May 14, 1996 and for Accounting, in order to identify the
obligations satisfied by the proceeds of the auction sale.
Furthermore, Genato filed two separate Motions -- one for the In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is
not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate
issuance of an alias writ of execution of the deficiency
special civil action under Rule 65.
judgment to foreclose the other parcel covered by TCT No.
356315/PR-10397; and second, for the confirmation of sale.
Clearly, under Section 1(f) of Rule 41, an order of execution
RTC declared the mortgage between Oakland and Genato null issued by a trial court is not appealable.
and void insofar as third parties were concerned. It further
ruled that the buyers herein petitioners -- had a superior right In this case, the RTC Resolution dated July 1, 1997 resolved,
thereto. among others, to grant in part, as well as deny in part, the
Motion for an Alias Writ of Execution filed by respondent. The
Court of Appeals stated that it had already ruled upon the net result of the trial courts Resolution was that Genato was
validity of the mortgage. Since validity was the primary issue precluded from foreclosing the mortgage on the property
raised in a previous case filed before it, the said ruling is covered by TCT No. 356315. Note, however, that he was
already conclusive upon the same issue raised by the same allowed to foreclose the lot covered by TCT No. 366380, which
parties before the HLURB. The CA Decision cannot be consisted of around 4,334 square meters, but not the portions
contravened by a subsequent ruling of the HLURB. It was already purchased by petitioners pursuant to the Agreement he
therefore erroneous for the trial court to ignore the Decision of had entered into with petitioners.
a higher court.
It must, at this point, be stressed that the Resolution to grant
Hence, this recourse. partial execution was based on the HLURB Decision involving
the same parties and subject matter. In fact, the trial court itself
Issue: stated that its Resolution was anchored on a supervening
whether the appeal to the CA of the July 1, 1997 RTC event, the said HLURB ruling. The RTC Resolution stated thus:
Resolution is proper, considering that the Resolution purports
to be merely an order of execution which is allegedly This court would like to impress upon the parties that [in]
interlocutory in nature. consonance to its Resolution issued on August 18, 1995 in
relation to its Resolution issued on May 14, 1995, vis--vis the
Ruling: Decision rendered by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board in HLRB Case No. REM A-940322-0060, promulgated
Yes. Normally, decisions and final orders of regional trial courts
on March 20, 1995 [--] which has become final and executory
are appealable to the Court of Appeals. Section 1 of Rule 41, on June 27, 1995 after William Ong Genatos motion for
however, enumerates the following RTC orders that may not reconsideration was denied [--] the sheriff shall confine the sale
be appealed: to the parcel of land covered and embraced in Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 366380 and shall see to it that no portion
SECTION 1. Subject of appeal. An appeal may be taken from or lots bought and occupied by the intervenors shall be
a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, included nor shall be the subject of the auction sale.
or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules
to be appealable. It is clear therefore, that the trial court did not merely grant
execution. Rather, it also resolved matters that delved on the
No appeal may be taken from: merits of the claims of both parties. It did not merely order
something to be done pursuant to a previous final decision, but
resolved issues determinative of the final outcome of the case.
(a) An order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration;
As such, the Resolution is in effect a final order that may be
appealed to the CA under the Rules of Court.
(b) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion
seeking relief from judgment;
Cosmos Bottling v Nagrama
(c) An interlocutory order; GR 164404 March 4, 2008

Summary of facts with ruling:


(d) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;
Respondent filed a complaint before LA on the ground that he
was illegally dismiss by Cosmos Bottling and that it committed
(e) An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by unfair labor practices. LA dismissed the complaint for lack of
consent, confession or compromise on the ground of fraud,
merit of which NLRC affirmed. CA reversed the NLRC ruling
mistake or duress, or any other ground vitiating consent;
and granted the reliefs sought. Petitioner filed an appeal via
Page 17 of 64
rule 45 before SC of which petitioner raised not only question (3) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations,
of law but question of fact. RULING: As a general rule, surmises or conjectures;
conclusive and binding on the Supreme Court.48 Our power of
review is limited to questions of law. It is well established that (4) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on
the Court is not a trier of facts and does not routinely undertake misapprehension of facts;
the re-examination of the evidence presented by the
contending parties during the trial of the case. However, as an (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting;
exception, SC may entertain question of law and fact when the
findings of fact are conflicting. Hence, petitioner did not err in (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went
filing the appeal before SC via rule 45. beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the
admissions of both appellant and appellee;
FACTS:

Respondent was instructed to attend the seminar. However, he (7) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to
failed to attend the first two (2) days of the seminar. In a letter those of the trial court;
by his immediate supervisor, Josephine D. Calacien, dated
September 29, 1999, respondent was informed that charges of (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of
abandonment of duty and gross insubordination had been specific evidence on which they are based;
lodged against him. He was required to submit his written
explanation. (9) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain
relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly
He contended that he had to attend to an administrative considered, would justify a different conclusion;
hearing for fellow unionists which were held at Santiago, andcralawlibrary
Isabela; that before he went, he first secured permission from
the plant controller.
(10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are
Hearing was held on the twin charges against him. premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by
the evidence on record.49
Respondent and officers of petitioner corporation testified. On
October 29, 1999, he was formally terminated from service.
The fifth cited circumstance is pertinent to the case at bar, in
Respondent filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter, that petitioner asserts that the CA made findings of fact in
contending that he was illegally dismissed and that petitioner conflict with those of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC. In Philippine
had committed unfair labor practices. American Life and General Insurance Co. v. Gramaje,50 the
Court, speaking through Justice Chico-Nazario, held:
LA dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.
As borne by the records, it appears that there is a divergence
NLRC affirmed LA’s decision.
between the findings of facts of the Labor Arbiter as affirmed
CA reversed the NLRC ruling and granted the reliefs sought. by the NLRC, and that of the Court of Appeals. Therefore, for
the purpose of clarity and intelligibility, this Court will make an
Petitioner filed an appeal via rule 45 before SC. infinitesimal scrutiny of the findings of facts of the Labor Arbiter
and the NLRC.51
ISSUE:
Hence, despite petitioner raising a question of fact, We opt to
whether or not the petition is violative of Rule 45 in that only take cognizance of the questions brought to Us by petitioner.
questions of law should be raised.

RULING: Madrigal Transport v Lapanday


GR 156067 August 11, 2004
NO. The findings of facts of the CA are as a general rule,
conclusive and binding on the Supreme Court. Our power of Summary of Facts with Ruling:
review is limited to questions of law. It is well established that A complaint for damages was filed against respondents
the Court is not a trier of facts and does not routinely undertake Lapanday. Motion to dismiss was filed of which RTC granted
the re-examination of the evidence presented by the for failure to state cause of action. Petition for certiorari was
contending parties during the trial of the case. filed before CA of which CA dismissed held that the issues
raised by petitioner involved pure questions of law that should
be brought to the Supreme Court, pursuant to Section 2 of
The Court, however, may determine the factual milieu of cases Rule 50 and Section 2(c) of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
or controversies under specific circumstances, as follows: RULING: The proper remedy should be ordinary appeal and
not petition for certiorari. The dismissal being a final order is
(1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or subject of an ordinary appeal. Certiorari will not lie on dismissal
impossible; of case being a final order. Section 1(h) does not apply,
because the trial courts Order did not dismiss the action
without prejudice. Even assuming that the Order of the RTC
(2) when there is a grave abuse of discretion;
was erroneous, its error did not constitute grave abuse of
discretion. Petitioner asserts that the trial court should not have
dismissed the Complaint or should have at least allowed the
Page 18 of 64
substitution of the assignee in petitioners stead. These alleged RULING:
errors of judgment, however, do not constitute a despotic,
capricious, or whimsical exercise of power. On the contrary, NO. The proper remedy is ordinary appeal.
petitioner availed of certiorari because the 15-day period within
which to file an appeal had already lapsed. Basic is the rule The manner of appealing an RTC judgment or final order is
that certiorari is not a substitute for the lapsed remedy of also provided in Rule 41 as follows:
appeal. As previously stressed, appeal -- not certiorari -- was
the correct remedy to elevate the RTCs Order granting the Section 2. Modes of appeal.
Motion to Dismiss. The appeal, which would have involved a
pure question of law, should have been filed with the Supreme (a) Ordinary appeal. The appeal to the Court of Appeals in
Court pursuant to Section 2 (c) of Rule 41 and Section 2 of cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its
Rule 50,[67] Rules of Court. original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal
with the court which rendered the judgment or final order
FACTS: appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse
party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special
Madrigal filed a Petition for Voluntary Insolvency before the proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals
Regional Trial Court (RTC). where the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the
record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner.
Petitioner filed a Complaint for damages against Respondents
Lapanday Holdings Corporation (Lapanday), Macondray and (b) Petition for review. The appeal to the Court of Appeals in
cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its
Company, Inc. (Macondray), and Luis P. Lorenzo Jr. before the
appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in
RTC.
accordance with Rule 42.
Madrigal alleged that it had entered into a joint venture
agreement with Lapanday. (c) Appeal by certiorari. In all cases where only questions of
law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme
The insolvency court (RTC Branch 49) declared petitioner Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with
insolvent. On March 30, 1998 and April 6, 1998, Respondents Rule 45.
Lapanday, Lorenzo and Macondray filed their respective
Motions to Dismiss the case pending before the RTC Branch An order or a judgment is deemed final when it finally
36. disposes of a pending action, so that nothing more can be
done with it in the trial court. In other words, the order or
Branch 36 granted the Motion, for failure of the Complaint to judgment ends the litigation in the lower court. Au contraire, an
state a cause of action. Applying Sections 32 and 33 of the interlocutory order does not dispose of the case completely,
Insolvency Law, the trial court opined that upon the filing by but leaves something to be done as regards the merits of the
Madrigal of a Petition for Voluntary Insolvency, the latter lost latter.
the right to institute the Complaint for Damages. The RTC
ruled that the exclusive right to prosecute the actions belonged Certiorari v Ordinary appeal
to the court-appointed assignee. As to the Purpose. Certiorari is a remedy designed for the
correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment.
MR was filed but was later denied. Petitioner filed a Petition for
Certiorari with the Court of Appeals. As to the Manner of Filing. Over an appeal, the CA exercises
its appellate jurisdiction and power of review. Over a certiorari,
Appellate court ruled that since the main issue in the instant the higher court uses its original jurisdiction in accordance with
case was purely legal, the Petition could be treated as one for its power of control and supervision over the proceedings of
review as an exception to the general rule that certiorari was lower courts. [39] An appeal is thus a continuation of the
not proper when appeal was available. original suit, while a petition for certiorari is an original and
independent action that was not part of the trial that had
Respondents Lapanday and Lorenzo challenged this ruling resulted in the rendition of the judgment or order complained
through a Motion for Reconsideration dated February 10, 2000. of.
The appellate court issued the assailed Decision granting As to the Subject Matter. Only judgments or final orders and
Respondents Lapanday and Lorenzos Motion for those that the Rules of Court so declare are appealable. Since
Reconsideration and dismissing Madrigals Petition for the issue is jurisdiction, an original action for certiorari may be
Certiorari. The appellate court held that the issues raised by directed against an interlocutory order of the lower court prior
petitioner involved pure questions of law that should be to an appeal from the judgment; or where there is no appeal or
brought to the Supreme Court, pursuant to Section 2 of Rule any plain, speedy or adequate remedy.
50 and Section 2(c) of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
As to the Period of Filing. Ordinary appeals should be filed
Hence, this petition. within fifteen days from the notice of judgment or final order
ISSUE: appealed from.

Whether or not petition for certiorari is the proper remedy On the other hand, a petition for certiorari should be filed not
under Rule 41. later than sixty days from the notice of judgment, order, or

Page 19 of 64
resolution.] If a motion for new trial or motion for he was ordered to pay be computed from April 1988 to March
reconsideration was timely filed, the period shall be counted 1994 only since he had vacated the premises by April 1994.
from the denial of the motion.
RTC order issuance of writ of execution. MR was filed but was
As to the Need for a Motion for Reconsideration. A motion for later on denied.
reconsideration is generally required prior to the filing of a
petition for certiorari, in order to afford the tribunal an Danilo filed a Supplemental Petition with Urgent Motion for
opportunity to correct the alleged errors. Note also that this Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of
motion is a plain and adequate remedy expressly available Preliminary Injunction to enjoin the RTC from enforcing the
under the law. Such motion is not required before appealing a judgment against Danilo for him to pay PhP 2,000 in monthly
judgment or final order. rentals from April 1994 onwards.

Parel v Prudencio ISSUE:


GR 192217 March 2, 2011
Whether the CA committed an error of law in upholding the
RTC Orders.
Summary of facts with Ruling:
The decision for the recovery of possession of property has RULING:
attained finality. Simeon sought to enforce the decision which
RTC granted. Danilo filed comment on Simeon’s Motion for Yes. It is true that Danilo should have brought to the Court’s
issuance of writ of execution. He alleged that he should be attention the date he actually left the subject premises at an
liable to pay only for period of April 1988 to March 1994 since earlier time. The RTC is also correct in ruling that the judgment
he vacated by April 1994. However, RTC order issuance of writ involved was already final and executory. However, it would be
of execution. MR was filed but was later on denied. RULING: inequitable to order him to pay monthly rentals "until he
Though issuance of writ of execution is a matter of right such is actually vacates" when it has not been determined when he
not without exception. A writ of execution may still be actually vacated the ground floor of Simeon’s house. He would
appealed. One of the exceptions wherein a writ of execution be paying monthly rentals indefinitely.
may be appealed is when there is a change in situation of the
The RTC should have determined via hearing if Danilo’s
parties making the execution unjust. The fact that Danilo has
allegation were true and accordingly modified the period Danilo
left the property under dispute is a change in the situation of
is to be held accountable for monthly rentals.
the parties that would make execution inequitable or unjust.
The writ of execution sought to be implemented does not take Unjustified delay in the enforcement of a judgment sets at
into consideration the circumstances that merit a modification naught the role of courts in disposing justiciable controversies
of judgment. Given that there is a pending issue regarding the with finality. Once a judgment becomes final and executory, all
execution of judgment, the RTC should have afforded the the issues between the parties are deemed resolved and laid
parties the opportunity to adduce evidence to determine the to rest. All that remains is the execution of the decision which
period within which Danilo should pay monthly rentals before is a matter of right.
issuing the writ of execution in the instant case. Should Danilo
be unable to substantiate his claim that he vacated the Banaga v. Majaducon, however, enumerates the instances
premises in April 1994, the period to pay monthly rentals where a writ of execution may be appealed:
should be until June 19, 2007, the date he informed the CA
that he had already left the premises 1) the writ of execution varies the judgment;

FACTS: 2) there has been a change in the situation of the parties


making execution inequitable or unjust;
A complaint for recovery of possession and damages was filed
by Simeon Prudencio (Simeon) against Danilo Parel (Danilo) 3) execution is sought to be enforced against property exempt
with the RTC. from execution;

RTC ruled in favor of Danilo. CA reversed RTC’s decision. 4) it appears that the controversy has never been subject to
Danilo was ordered to pay from April 1988 until the former the judgment of the court;
actually vacates the same, and the sum of P50,000.00 as
5) the terms of the judgment are not clear enough and there
attorney’s fees.
remains room for interpretation thereof; or
Danilo challenged the CA Decision before this Court via an
6) it appears that the writ of execution has been improvidently
appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
issued, or that it is defective in substance, or is issued against
SC affirmed CA. the wrong party, or that the judgment debt has been paid or
otherwise satisfied, or the writ was issued without authority;
Simeon sought to enforce this Court’s April 19, 2006 Decision
and thus filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution. In these exceptional circumstances, considerations of justice
and equity dictate that there be some mode available to the
Danilo filed his Comment on Simeon’s Motion for Issuance of party aggrieved of elevating the question to a higher court.
Writ of Execution. He prayed that the PhP 2,000 monthly rental That mode of elevation may be either by appeal (writ of error or

Page 20 of 64
certiorari), or by a special civil action of certiorari, prohibition, registered owner of a parcel of land located in Pangasinan
or mandamus. under a TCT and due to respondent’s encroachment she was
compelled to file a case against them to protect her rights
The instant case falls under one of the exceptions cited above. thereon. To support her claims, petitioner appended in her
The fact that Danilo has left the property under dispute is a complaint a copy of the relocation survey. Respondents
change in the situation of the parties that would make assailed the ownership of the petitioner on the disputed
execution inequitable or unjust. property. They asserted that they, together with their
predecessors-in-interest, were in possession of the subject
Moreover, there are exceptions that have been previously property for over 80 years already. They likewise denied
considered by the Court as meriting a relaxation of the rules in having knowledge of any relocation survey conducted on the
order to serve substantial justice. These are: (1) matters of life, property which was made the basis of the petitioner in filing her
liberty, honor or property; (2) the existence of special or complaint.
compelling circumstances; (3) the merits of the case; (4) a
cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the The RTC rendered a decision dismissing the case. It ruled that
party favored by the suspension of the rules; (5) a lack of any respondents were occupying the disputed portion for 52 years
showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; already and the action of the petitioner to remove them from
and (6) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced the said lot is already barred by laches. The MR was denied.
thereby.20 We find that Danilo’s situation merits a relaxation of
the rules since special circumstances are involved; to On appeal, the CA to consider the appeal abandoned and
determine if his allegation were true would allow a final dismissed since petitioner was able to file her Appellant's Brief
resolution of the case. only on 19 June 2009 or 139 days after the lapse of the
reglementary period.
Applicable, too, is what Sec. 5, Rule 135 of the Rules of Court
states as one of the powers of a court: Issue: WON the CA erred erred in dismissing the appeal for
petitioner's failure to file the appellant's brief
Section 5. Inherent powers of the courts.3/4 Every court shall seasonably.1âwphi1
have power:

xxxx Decision:

(g) To amend and control its process and orders so as to make No. Expounding on the discretion of the appellate court to
them conformable to law and justice. dismiss or allow the appeal to proceed despite belated service
and filing of the required brief, the Court in Diaz v. People, 691
The writ of execution sought to be implemented does not take SCRA 139 (2013), held: The usage of the word may in Section
into consideration the circumstances that merit a modification 1(e) of Rule 50 indicates that the dismissal of the appeal upon
of judgment. Given that there is a pending issue regarding the failure to file the appellant’s brief is not mandatory, but
execution of judgment, the RTC should have afforded the discretionary. Verily, the failure to serve and file the required
parties the opportunity to adduce evidence to determine the number of copies of the appellant’s brief within the time
period within which Danilo should pay monthly rentals before provided by the Rules of Court does not have the immediate
issuing the writ of execution in the instant case. Should Danilo effect of causing the outright dismissal of the appeal. This
be unable to substantiate his claim that he vacated the means that the discretion to dismiss the appeal on that basis is
premises in April 1994, the period to pay monthly rentals lodged in the CA, by virtue of which the CA may still allow the
should be until June 19, 2007, the date he informed the CA appeal to proceed despite the late filing of the appellant’s brief,
when the circumstances so warrant its liberality. In deciding to
that he had already left the premises.
dismiss the appeal, then, the CA is bound to exercise its sound
Sibayan vs. Costales discretion upon taking all the pertinent circumstances into due
G.R. No. 191492, July 4, 2016, Perez, J consideration.

Summary: Petitioner filed an action for recovery of possession


We find no reason to disturb the appellate court’s exercise of
and ownership of a parcel of land located in Pangasinan.
discretion in dismissing the appeal. We perused the
Respondent, opposed claiming that they were in possession of
explanation proffered by petitioner and we found nothing that
such property for 80 years. The RTC dismissed the complaint.
would compel us to reverse the appellate court. The attribution
On appeal, the CA dismissed the complaint for failure to file
of negligence to the counsel does not automatically shield the
appellants brief. The SC affirmed. It ruled that the simple
client from adverse consequence of her own negligence and
negligence of the counsel in failing to file an appellant’s brief
relieve her from the unfavorable result of such lapse. Truly, a
binds the counsel and that the failure to file an appellant’s brief
litigant bears the responsibility to monitor the status of his
results in the abandonment of the appeal which may be the
case, for no prudent party leaves the fate of his case entirely in
cause for its dismissal.
the hands of his lawyer. It is the client’s duty to be in contact
with his lawyer from time to time in order to be informed of the
progress and developments of his case; hence, to merely rely
Facts: Petitioner initiated an action for Recovery of Possession on the bare reassurances of his lawyer that everything is being
and Ownership with Damages against respondents Emilio taken care of is not enough.
Costales, Susana Isidro, Rodolfo Isidro, Marcelo Isidro, and
Roberto Cerane before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
The failure to file Appellant’s Brief, though not jurisdictional,
Urdaneta, Pangasinan, Branch 45. She alleged that she is the
results in the abandonment of the appeal which may be the
Page 21 of 64
cause for its dismissal. We must emphasize that the right to bond must be filed before trial or before appeal was perfected
appeal is not a natural right but a statutory privilege, and it may or before the judgment became executory.
be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the
provisions of the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same Issue: WON the CA erred in its blind adherence to and strict
must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failing to do application of Section 20, Rule 57 of the ROC.
so, the right to appeal is lost. In the present case, petitioner
failed to file the required brief within the period prescribed
under Section 7, Rule 44 of the Rules. Thus, the appellate Decision
court rightly considered her appeal abandoned and
consequently dismissed the same. No. Residual jurisdiction refers to the authority of the trial court
to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights
Development Bank of the Philippine vs. Carpio of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the
G.R. No. 195450, February 1, 2017, Mendoza, J: appeal; to approve compromises; to permit appeals by indigent
litigants; to order execution pending appeal in accordance with
Summary: Abad, et al represented by Te filed a complaint for Section 2, Rule 39; and to allow the withdrawal of the appeal,
delivery of certificates of title against DBP and GFSME provided these are done prior to the transmittal of the original
pursuant to the loan agreement they entered into. The RTC record or the record on appeal, even if the appeal has already
granted the writ of seizure. DBP filed a MTD and Quash the been perfected or despite the approval of the record on appeal
writ of seizure, which was granted by the RTC. DBP filed a or in case of a petition for review under Rule 42, before the CA
motion for writ of execution for the return of the titles, which gives due course to the petition. The “residual jurisdiction” of
was granted by the RTC. Due to Abad,et. al’s non-delivery, the trial court is available at a stage in which the court is
DVP filed a motion to call on plaintiff’s surety bond. The RTC normally deemed to have lost jurisdiction over the case or the
denied the motion. On appeal, the CA dismissed the petitition, subject matter involved in the appeal. This stage is reached
applying Section 20, Rule 57. The SC denied the petition. It upon the perfection of the appeals by the parties or upon the
ruled that pertinent positive rules being present here, they approval of the records on appeal, but prior to the transmittal of
should preempt and prevail over all abstract arguments based the original records or the records on appeal. In eitherinstance,
only on equity the trial court still retains its so-called residual jurisdiction to
issue protective orders, approve compromises, permit appeals
of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal, and allow
the withdrawal of the appeal.
Facts: Dabay Abad, Hatab Abad, Omar Abas, Hanapi
Abdullah, Rojea Ab Abdullah, Abdullah Abedin, Alex Abedin, et
al.( (Abad, et al.), represented by their attorney-in-fact, Manuel Before the trial court can be said to have residual jurisdiction
L. Te, filed a complaint for delivery of certificates of title, over a case, a trial on the merits must have been conducted;
damages, and attorney's fees against petitioner Development the court rendered judgment; and the aggrieved party
Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and Guarantee Fund for Small appealed therefrom. In this case, there was no trial on the
and Medium Enterprise (GFSME) before the RTC. They merits as the case was dismissed due to improper venue and
alleged that their certificates of title were submitted to DBP for respondents could not have appealed the order of dismissal as
safekeeping pursuant to the loan agreement they entered into the same was a dismissal, without prejudice. Section 1(h),
with DBP and prayed for the issuance of a writ of seizure. The Rule 41 of the Rules of Civil Procedure states that no appeal
RTC granted the writ of seizure. DBP filed its Omnibus Motion may be taken from an order dismissing an action without
to Dismiss Complaint and to Quash Writ of Seizure 8 on the prejudice. Indeed, there is no residual jurisdiction to speak of
ground of improper venue, among others. The RTC granted where no appeal has even been filed. In Strongworld
the MTD. DBP and GFSME filed their Joint Motion to Order Construction Court elucidated on the difference between a
Plaintiffs to Return Titles to Defendants. The RTC granted the dismissal with prejudice and one without prejudice: We
motion. distinguish a dismissal with prejudice from a dismissal without
prejudice. The former disallows and bars the refiling of the
complaint; whereas, the same cannot be said of a dismissal
Abad, et al. filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the without prejudice. Likewise, where the law permits, a dismissal
Court praying, among others, for the nullification and reversal with prejudice is subject to the right of appeal. x x x Section 1,
of the January 27, 2003 Order of the RTC. The Court Rule 16 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure
dismissed the petition. DBP filed its Motion for Writ of enumerates the grounds for which a motion to dismiss may be
Execution16 of the January 27, 2003 Order before the RTC. On filed, viz.: Section 1. Grounds.— Within the time for but before
December 16, 2003, the RTC issued the corresponding Writ of filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim,
Execution a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following
grounds: (a) That the court has no jurisdiction over the person
Due to the non-delivery of the certificates of title by Abad, et of the defending party; (b) That the court has no jurisdiction
al., DBP filed its Motion/Application to Call on Plaintiff's Surety over the subject matter of the claim; (c) That venue is
Bond,19 dated February 3, 2004, praying for the release of the improperly laid; (d) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to
bond issued by CBIC to answer for the damages it sustained sue; (e) That there is another action pending between the
as a result of the failure to return the 228 certificates of title. same parties for the same cause; (f) That the cause of action is
RTC denied the subject motion explaining that the resolution of barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations; (g)
the motion was no longer part of its residual power. On appeal, That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action;
the CA dismissed the petition. It considered the RTC decision (h) That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiffs pleading
as final and executory. It added that Section 20, Rule 57 of the has been paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished;
Rules of Court provided that the claim for damages against the (i) That the claim on which the action is founded is
unenforceable under the provisions of the statute of frauds;

Page 22 of 64
and (j) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not Issue: WON the CA erred erred in dismissing the appeal for
been complied with. petitioner's failure to file the appellant's brief
seasonably.1âwphi1
DBP must be reminded that equity, “which has been aptly
described as a ‘justice outside legality,’ is applied only in the Decision:
absence of, and never against, statutory law or, as in this case,
judicial rules of procedure. The pertinent positive rules being No. Expounding on the discretion of the appellate court to
present here, they should preempt and prevail over all abstract dismiss or allow the appeal to proceed despite belated service
arguments based only on equity.” As the Court has stated in and filing of the required brief, the Court in Diaz v. People, 691
Lim Tupas v. CA, 193 SCRA 597 (1991), “[e]motional appeals SCRA 139 (2013), held: The usage of the word may in Section
for justice, while they may wring the heart of the Court, cannot 1(e) of Rule 50 indicates that the dismissal of the appeal upon
justify disregard of the mandate of the law as long as it remains failure to file the appellant’s brief is not mandatory, but
in force. The applicable maxim, which goes back to the ancient discretionary. Verily, the failure to serve and file the required
days of the Roman jurists — and is now still reverently number of copies of the appellant’s brief within the time
observed — is ‘aequetas nunquam contravenit legis.’” provided by the Rules of Court does not have the immediate
effect of causing the outright dismissal of the appeal. This
RULE 42: PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE REGIONAL means that the discretion to dismiss the appeal on that basis is
TRIAL COURTS TO THE COURT OF APPEALS lodged in the CA, by virtue of which the CA may still allow the
appeal to proceed despite the late filing of the appellant’s brief,
Sibayan vs. Costales when the circumstances so warrant its liberality. In deciding to
G.R. No. 191492, July 4, 2016, Perez, J dismiss the appeal, then, the CA is bound to exercise its sound
discretion upon taking all the pertinent circumstances into due
Summary: Petitioner filed an action for recovery of possession consideration.
and ownership of a parcel of land located in Pangasinan.
Respondent, opposed claiming that they were in possession of
such property for 80 years. The RTC dismissed the complaint. We find no reason to disturb the appellate court’s exercise of
On appeal, the CA dismissed the complaint for failure to file discretion in dismissing the appeal. We perused the
appellants brief. The SC affirmed. It ruled that the simple explanation proffered by petitioner and we found nothing that
negligence of the counsel in failing to file an appellant’s brief would compel us to reverse the appellate court. The attribution
binds the counsel and that the failure to file an appellant’s brief of negligence to the counsel does not automatically shield the
results in the abandonment of the appeal which may be the client from adverse consequence of her own negligence and
cause for its dismissal. relieve her from the unfavorable result of such lapse. Truly, a
litigant bears the responsibility to monitor the status of his
case, for no prudent party leaves the fate of his case entirely in
the hands of his lawyer. It is the client’s duty to be in contact
Facts: Petitioner initiated an action for Recovery of Possession with his lawyer from time to time in order to be informed of the
and Ownership with Damages against respondents Emilio progress and developments of his case; hence, to merely rely
Costales, Susana Isidro, Rodolfo Isidro, Marcelo Isidro, and on the bare reassurances of his lawyer that everything is being
Roberto Cerane before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of taken care of is not enough.
Urdaneta, Pangasinan, Branch 45. She alleged that she is the
registered owner of a parcel of land located in Pangasinan
under a TCT and due to respondent’s encroachment she was The failure to file Appellant’s Brief, though not jurisdictional,
compelled to file a case against them to protect her rights results in the abandonment of the appeal which may be the
thereon. To support her claims, petitioner appended in her cause for its dismissal. We must emphasize that the right to
complaint a copy of the relocation survey. Respondents appeal is not a natural right but a statutory privilege, and it may
assailed the ownership of the petitioner on the disputed be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the
property. They asserted that they, together with their provisions of the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same
predecessors-in-interest, were in possession of the subject must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failing to do
property for over 80 years already. They likewise denied so, the right to appeal is lost. In the present case, petitioner
having knowledge of any relocation survey conducted on the failed to file the required brief within the period prescribed
property which was made the basis of the petitioner in filing her under Section 7, Rule 44 of the Rules. Thus, the appellate
complaint. court rightly considered her appeal abandoned and
consequently dismissed the same.

The RTC rendered a decision dismissing the case. It ruled that


respondents were occupying the disputed portion for 52 years Development Bank of the Philippine vs. Carpio
already and the action of the petitioner to remove them from G.R. No. 195450, February 1, 2017, Mendoza, J:
the said lot is already barred by laches. The MR was denied.
Summary: Abad, et al represented by Te filed a complaint for
delivery of certificates of title against DBP and GFSME
On appeal, the CA to consider the appeal abandoned and pursuant to the loan agreement they entered into. The RTC
dismissed since petitioner was able to file her Appellant's Brief granted the writ of seizure. DBP filed a MTD and Quash the
only on 19 June 2009 or 139 days after the lapse of the writ of seizure, which was granted by the RTC. DBP filed a
reglementary period. motion for writ of execution for the return of the titles, which
was granted by the RTC. Due to Abad,et. al’s non-delivery,
DVP filed a motion to call on plaintiff’s surety bond. The RTC
denied the motion. On appeal, the CA dismissed the petitition,
applying Section 20, Rule 57. The SC denied the petition. It
Page 23 of 64
ruled that pertinent positive rules being present here, they the trial court still retains its so-called residual jurisdiction to
should preempt and prevail over all abstract arguments based issue protective orders, approve compromises, permit appeals
only on equity of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal, and allow
the withdrawal of the appeal.

Facts: Dabay Abad, Hatab Abad, Omar Abas, Hanapi Before the trial court can be said to have residual jurisdiction
Abdullah, Rojea Ab Abdullah, Abdullah Abedin, Alex Abedin, et over a case, a trial on the merits must have been conducted;
al.( (Abad, et al.), represented by their attorney-in-fact, Manuel the court rendered judgment; and the aggrieved party
L. Te, filed a complaint for delivery of certificates of title, appealed therefrom. In this case, there was no trial on the
damages, and attorney's fees against petitioner Development merits as the case was dismissed due to improper venue and
Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and Guarantee Fund for Small respondents could not have appealed the order of dismissal as
and Medium Enterprise (GFSME) before the RTC. They the same was a dismissal, without prejudice. Section 1(h),
alleged that their certificates of title were submitted to DBP for Rule 41 of the Rules of Civil Procedure states that no appeal
safekeeping pursuant to the loan agreement they entered into may be taken from an order dismissing an action without
with DBP and prayed for the issuance of a writ of seizure. The prejudice. Indeed, there is no residual jurisdiction to speak of
RTC granted the writ of seizure. DBP filed its Omnibus Motion where no appeal has even been filed. In Strongworld
to Dismiss Complaint and to Quash Writ of Seizure8 on the Construction Court elucidated on the difference between a
ground of improper venue, among others. The RTC granted dismissal with prejudice and one without prejudice: We
the MTD. DBP and GFSME filed their Joint Motion to Order distinguish a dismissal with prejudice from a dismissal without
Plaintiffs to Return Titles to Defendants. The RTC granted the prejudice. The former disallows and bars the refiling of the
motion. complaint; whereas, the same cannot be said of a dismissal
without prejudice. Likewise, where the law permits, a dismissal
Abad, et al. filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the with prejudice is subject to the right of appeal. x x x Section 1,
Court praying, among others, for the nullification and reversal Rule 16 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure
of the January 27, 2003 Order of the RTC. The Court enumerates the grounds for which a motion to dismiss may be
dismissed the petition. DBP filed its Motion for Writ of filed, viz.: Section 1. Grounds.— Within the time for but before
Execution16 of the January 27, 2003 Order before the RTC. On filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim,
December 16, 2003, the RTC issued the corresponding Writ of a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following
Execution grounds: (a) That the court has no jurisdiction over the person
of the defending party; (b) That the court has no jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the claim; (c) That venue is
Due to the non-delivery of the certificates of title by Abad, et improperly laid; (d) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to
al., DBP filed its Motion/Application to Call on Plaintiff's Surety sue; (e) That there is another action pending between the
Bond,19 dated February 3, 2004, praying for the release of the same parties for the same cause; (f) That the cause of action is
bond issued by CBIC to answer for the damages it sustained barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations; (g)
as a result of the failure to return the 228 certificates of title. That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action;
RTC denied the subject motion explaining that the resolution of (h) That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiffs pleading
the motion was no longer part of its residual power. On appeal, has been paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished;
the CA dismissed the petition. It considered the RTC decision (i) That the claim on which the action is founded is
as final and executory. It added that Section 20, Rule 57 of the unenforceable under the provisions of the statute of frauds;
Rules of Court provided that the claim for damages against the and (j) That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not
bond must be filed before trial or before appeal was perfected been complied with.
or before the judgment became executory.
DBP must be reminded that equity, “which has been aptly
Issue: WON the CA erred in its blind adherence to and strict described as a ‘justice outside legality,’ is applied only in the
application of Section 20, Rule 57 of the ROC. absence of, and never against, statutory law or, as in this case,
judicial rules of procedure. The pertinent positive rules being
Decision present here, they should preempt and prevail over all abstract
arguments based only on equity.” As the Court has stated in
No. Residual jurisdiction refers to the authority of the trial court Lim Tupas v. CA, 193 SCRA 597 (1991), “[e]motional appeals
to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights for justice, while they may wring the heart of the Court, cannot
of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the justify disregard of the mandate of the law as long as it remains
appeal; to approve compromises; to permit appeals by indigent in force. The applicable maxim, which goes back to the ancient
litigants; to order execution pending appeal in accordance with days of the Roman jurists — and is now still reverently
Section 2, Rule 39; and to allow the withdrawal of the appeal, observed — is ‘aequetas nunquam contravenit legis.’”
provided these are done prior to the transmittal of the original
record or the record on appeal, even if the appeal has already Canton vs. City of Cebu and/or Metro Cebu Development
been perfected or despite the approval of the record on appeal Project
or in case of a petition for review under Rule 42, before the CA G.R. No. 152898, February 12, 2007, Carpio, J:
gives due course to the petition. The “residual jurisdiction” of
the trial court is available at a stage in which the court is Summary: Petitioner filed a case of forcible entry against
normally deemed to have lost jurisdiction over the case or the respondent. Respondent averred that petitioners have no claim
subject matter involved in the appeal. This stage is reached of ownership and possession of such land because the
upon the perfection of the appeals by the parties or upon the disputed area is a foreshore land. The MTC ruled in favor of
approval of the records on appeal, but prior to the transmittal of petitioners. The RTC reversed the MTC. It ruled that the area
the original records or the records on appeal. In eitherinstance, is a foreshore land is not subject of any foreshore lease
Page 24 of 64
agreement between the government and any private individual. however not unbridled. The [Court of Appeals] has the duty to
The CA issued a resolution dismissing the complaint for failure check the exercise of this discretion, to see to it that the
to comply with Sec. 3, Rule 42. The SC affirmed the CA. It submission of supporting documents is not merely perfunctory.
ruled that the right to appeal, not being a natural right, parties The practical aspect of this duty is to enable the [Court of
must comply with the law’s requirement. Appeals] to determine at the earliest possible time the
existence of prima facie merit in the petition. Moreover, Section
Facts: Petitioners filed a case for forcible entry, against MCDP 3 of Rule 42 of the Rules of Court provides that if petitioner
and the City of Cebu before the MTC. Petitioners alleged that fails to comply with petitioner to comply with any of the
respondents’ agents unlawfully entered their property and foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket
demolished their fence. Petitioners stated that their property is and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of
in San Roque, Talisay, Cebu and is outside the South Cebu the petition, and the contents of and the documents which
Reclamation Project. Petitioners showed tax declarations to should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the
prove their ownership of the disputed area. Respondents, on dismissal thereof.
the other hand, argued that petitioners have no right of
ownership and of possession over the disputed area. The In his motion for reconsideration, petitioners’ counsel, instead
disputed area is foreshore land which was reclaimed and of submitting the pleadings required by the Court of Appeals,
developed by respondents as part of the South Cebu continued to assert that "the complaint, or answer, filed with
Reclamation Project. the Municipal Trial Court and parties’ appeal memoranda filed
with the Regional Trial Court are not indispensable to support
The MTC ruled in favor of petitioners. It ruled that the only the allegations in view of the clear and concise statement of
issue raised before it is prior physical possession and not the the matters in dispute by both court of origin and appellate and
right to ownership or possession. Thus, respondents’ removal the parties’ position paper."10
of the fence on the ground of lack of a construction permit may
be legally proper but they should have secured the aid of the Our ruling in Atillo v. Bombay11 should serve as a guide to all
court prior to entering into possession of the disputed property. practitioners who ignore the Court of Appeals’ directive and
insist on their own interpretation of the Rules of Court:
The RTC reversed the MTC. It ruled that area is foreshore land
that is not subject of any foreshore lease agreement between [I]t is not disputed that it is petitioner who knows best what
the government and any private individual. Hence, the disputed pleadings or material portions of the record of the case would
area should be considered as part of the public domain support the allegations in the petition. Petitioner’s discretion in
belonging to the State irrespective of its location, whether it be choosing the documents to be attached to the petition is
in the Municipality of Talisay or the City of Cebu. however not unbridled. The [Court of Appeals] has the duty to
check the exercise of this discretion, to see to it that the
The CA issued a resolution which dismissed the petition submission of supporting documents is not merely perfunctory.
outright for failure of the petitioners to attach to their petition The practical aspect of this duty is to enable the [Court of
copies of the complaint, answer, parties’ position papers filed Appeals] to determine at the earliest possible time the
with the Municipal Trial Court, and parties’ appeal memoranda existence of prima facie merit in the petition. Moreover, Section
filed with the Regional Trial Court, in violation of Section 2, 3 of Rule 42 of the Rules of Court provides that if petitioner
Rule 42. fails to comply with the submission of "documents which
should accompany the petition," it "shall be sufficient ground
for the dismissal thereof." In this case, the insufficiency of the
Issue: WON the CA erred in its application of Sec. 2, Rule 42 supporting documents combined with the unjustified refusal of
in outright dismissing the petition because copies of the petitioner to even attempt to substantially comply with the
complaint, answer, parties’ position papers filed with the attachment requirement justified the dismissal of her petition.
Municipal Trial Court and parties’ appeal memoranda filed with
the Regional Trial Court were not attached.
Yu vs Samson-Tatad
G.R. No. 170979, February 9, 2011, Brion, J:
Decision
Summary: The RTC convicted petitioner of estafa. Petitioner
No. Rules of procedure must be used to facilitate, not to filed MNT. Respondent denied the MNT. Petitioner filed a NOA
frustrate, justice. However, petitioners and their counsel should with the RTC alleging that she had a “fresh period” of 15 days
bear in mind that the right to appeal is not a natural right. The to appeal upon the receipt of the denial of her MNT.
right to appeal is a statutory privilege, and it may be exercised Prosecution filed a MTD the appeal for being filed 10 days late
only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the arguing that the Neypes ruling is inapplicable in criminal cases.
law. A party who seeks to appeal must comply with the law’s RTC considered the twin motions submitted for resolution.
requirements; otherwise, he forfeits his privilege. Rules of Petitioner filed a petition for prohibition with prayer for TRO and
procedure may be relaxed only to relieve a litigant of an a WPI to enjoin the RTC from acting on the prosecution’s MTD
injustice which is not commensurate with the degree of his and execution of the decision. The SC ruled that the Neypes
thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed ruling is applicable in criminal cases.
procedure.
Facts: Sps. Casaclang filed an information for estafa against
[I]t is not disputed that it is petitioner who knows best what petitioner. The RTC convicted the petitioner as charged. The
pleadings or material portions of the record of the case would petitioner filed a motion for new trial with the RTC, alleging that
support the allegations in the petition. Petitioner’s discretion in she discovered new and material evidence that would
choosing the documents to be attached to the petition is exculpate her of the crime for which she was convicted.
Page 25 of 64
Respondent Judge denied the petitioner’s motion for new trial Rule 45 governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme
for lack of merit. The petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the Court. The new rule aims to regiment or make the appeal
RTC, alleging that pursuant to our ruling in Neypes v. Court of period uniform, to be counted from receipt of the order denying
Appeals, she had a "fresh period" of 15 days the from the motion for new trial, motion for reconsideration (whether full
November 3, 2005, receipt of the denial of her motion for new or partial) or any final order or resolution.16
trial. The prosecution filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for
being filed 10 days late, arguing that Neypes is inapplicable to Were we to strictly interpret the "fresh period rule" in Neypes
appeals in criminal cases. Prosecution filed a motion for and make it applicable only to the period to appeal in civil
execution of the decision. RTC considered the twin motions cases, we shall effectively foster and encourage an absurd
submitted for resolution. situation where a litigant in a civil case will have a better right
to appeal than an accused in a criminal case – a situation that
Petitioner filed the present petition for prohibition with prayer gives undue favor to civil litigants and unjustly discriminates
for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of against the accused-appellants. It suggests a double standard
preliminary injunction to enjoin the RTC from acting on the of treatment when we favor a situation where property interests
prosecution’s motions to dismiss the appeal and for the are at stake, as against a situation where liberty stands to be
execution of the decision. He argues that the RTC lost prejudiced. We must emphatically reject this double and
jurisdiction to act on the prosecution’s motions when she filed unequal standard for being contrary to reason. Over time,
her notice of appeal within the 15-day reglementary period courts have recognized with almost pedantic adherence that
provided by the Rules of Court, applying the "fresh period rule" what is contrary to reason is not allowed in law – Quod est
enunciated in Neypes. inconveniens, aut contra rationem non permissum est in lege.

Respondent People of the Philippines, through the Office of the RULE 43: APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS
Solicitor General (OSG), filed a manifestation in lieu of AND QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCIES TO THE COURT OF
comment, stating that Neypes applies to criminal actions since APPEALS
the evident intention of the "fresh period rule" was to set a
uniform appeal period provided in the Rules. In their comment,
the Spouses Casaclang aver that the petitioner cannot seek Santos vs. Go
refuge in Neypes to extend the "fresh period rule" to criminal G.R. No. 156081, October 19, 2005, Quisumbing, J:
cases because Neypes involved a civil case, and the
pronouncement of "standardization of the appeal periods in the Summary: Go filed a complaint for estafa against petitioners
Rules" referred to the interpretation of the appeal periods in as officers of FEPI for offering a property for sale knowing fully
civil cases well that the issuance of its title is impossible. Petitioners
denied that FEPI ever made any oral or written representation
to Go that it is the owner. After PI, the City Prosecutor
Issue: WON the fresh period rule" enunciated in Neypes dismissed the case. On appeal, the DOJ reversed the City
applies to appeals in criminal cases. Prosecutor. An information for estafa was filed in court.
Campos and Pantaleon filed a Motion for Judicial
Decision: Determination of Probable Cause, which was granted by the
trial court. Meanwhile petitioners herein filed with the Court of
Appeals, a petition for review. Accordingly, the trial court
Yes. The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely
deferred the arraignment. The CA denied the petition. The SC
motion for new trial or reconsideration. No motion for
affirmed the CA. It ruled that since DOJ is not a quasi-judicial
extension of time to file a motion for new trial or
body Rule 43 cannot be availed of as a mode of appeal to the
reconsideration shall be allowed.
CA.

The Supreme Court may promulgate procedural rules in all


Facts: Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. (FEPI) entered into a Project
courts. It has the sole prerogative to amend, repeal or even
Agreement with Manila Southcoast Development Corporation
establish new rules for a more simplified and inexpensive
(MSDC), whereby FEPI undertook to develop several parcels
process, and the speedy disposition of cases. In the rules
of land in Nasugbu, Batangas allegedly owned by MSDC. The
governing appeals to it and to the Court of Appeals, particularly
said Project Agreement clothed FEPI with authority to market
Rules 42, 43 and 45, the Court allows extensions of time,
and sell the subdivision lots to the public. Go offered to buy Lot
based on justifiable and compelling reasons, for parties to file
17, Block 38 from FEPI. Go fully complied with the terms of the
their appeals. These extensions may consist of 15 days or
Contract. FEPI, however, failed to develop the property.
more.
Neither did it release the TCT to Go. In several letters to its
clients, including respondent Go, FEPI explained that the
To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to project was temporarily halted due to some claimants who
afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the Court opposed FEPI’s application for exclusion of the subject
deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within properties from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian
which to file the notice of appeal in the Regional Trial Court, Reform Law (CARL).
counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new
trial or motion for reconsideration. Henceforth, this "fresh
Go then filed a complaint before the Housing and Land Use
period rule" shall also apply to Rule 40 governing appeals
Regulatory Board (HLURB). He likewise filed a separate
from the Municipal Trial Courts to the Regional Trial
Complaint-Affidavit for estafa before the Office of the City
Courts; Rule 42 on petitions for review from the Regional
Prosecutor of Pasig City against petitioners as officers of FEPI.
Trial Courts to the Court of Appeals; Rule 43 on appeals
Go averred that FEPI committed estafa since it offered the
from quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals and
subject property for sale since they knew fully well that the
Page 26 of 64
development of the property and issuance of its corresponding agencies enumerated in Section 1 of Rule 43. Inclusio unius
title were impossible to accomplish, as the ownership and title est exclusio alterius. We cannot agree with petitioners’
thereto had not yet been acquired and registered under the submission that a preliminary investigation is a quasi-judicial
name of FEPI at the time of sale. proceeding, and that the DOJ is a quasi-judicial agency
exercising a quasijudicial function when it reviews the findings
Petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the City Prosecutor of of a public prosecutor regarding the presence of probable
Pasig City to conduct the preliminary investigation on the cause.
ground that the complainant was not from Pasig City, the
contract was not executed nor were the payments made in Since the DOJ is not a quasi-judicial body and it is not one of
Pasig City. They averred that FEPI was not the owner of the those agencies whose decisions, orders or resolutions are
project but the developer with authority to sell under a joint appealable to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43, the
venture with MSDC, who is the real owner. They further resolution of the Secretary of Justice finding probable cause to
denied that FEPI ever made any written nor oral representation indict petitioners for estafa is, therefore, not appealable to the
to Go that it is the owner, pointing out that Go failed to Court of Appeals via a petition for review under Rule 43.
positively identify who made such misrepresentation to him nor Accordingly, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed
did Go say where the misrepresentation was made. According petitioners’ petition for review.
to petitioner, there being neither deceit nor misrepresentation,
there could be no damage nor prejudice to respondent, and no Courts cannot interfere with the discretion of the public
probable cause exists to indict the petitioners. prosecutor in evaluating the offense charged. He may dismiss
the complaint forthwith, if he finds the charge insufficient in
In his reply, Go stressed that the City Prosecutor of Pasig City form or substance, or without any ground. Or, he may proceed
had jurisdiction over the case. He argued that the Contract to with the investigation if the complaint in his view is sufficient
Sell specifically provided that payment be made at FEPI’s and in proper form. The decision whether to dismiss a
office at Pasig City and the demand letters bore the Pasig City complaint or not, is dependent upon the sound discretion of the
address. He averred that FEPI could not disclaim ownership of prosecuting fiscal and, ultimately, that of the Secretary of
the project since the contract described FEPI as owner without Justice. Findings of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to
mentioning MSDC. review unless made with grave abuse of discretion. In this
case, petitioners have not shown sufficient nor convincing
After the preliminary investigation, the City Prosecutor resolved reason for us to deviate from prevailing jurisprudence.
to dismiss the complaint for estafa. The City Prosecutor found
no misrepresentation. Gonzales vs. Civil Service Commission
G.R. No. 139131, September 27, 2002, Quisumbing, J
Go appealed the City Prosecutor’s Resolution to the
Department of Justice (DOJ), which, in turn reversed the City Summary: PCMC was dropped from the rolls on account of
Prosecutor’s findings. It ruled that under the Contract, the his failure to report to work despite written notice. Gonzales
petitioners sold the property to Go despite full knowledge that filed a complaint with the CSC. The CSC dismissed the
FEPI was not its owner. The DOJ noted that petitioners did not complaint. The CA denied the appeal for failure to comply with
deny the due execution of the contract and had accepted Section 6(c), Rule 43. The SC reversed the CA. It ruled that
payments of the purchase price as evidenced by the receipts. there was substantial compliance of the rules since petitioner
had attached certified true copies of the documents supporting
his Motion for Reconsideration and Compliance
Accordingly, an Information for estafa was filed against
petitioners and Federico Campos and Polo Pantaleon before
the MTC of Pasig City. However, the arraignment was deferred
since Campos and Pantaleon filed a Motion for Judicial Facts: Petitioner Jesus R. Gonzales was one of the two Utility
Determination of Probable Cause, which was granted by the Workers II assigned at the Pharmacy Section of respondent
trial court. Meanwhile petitioners herein filed with the Court of Philippine Children’s Medical Center (PCMC). Petitioner
Appeals, a petition for review. Accordingly, the trial court started absenting himself without an approved leave (AWOL)
deferred the arraignment. The CA denied the petition. It ruled and without explaining the reason for his absence to his
that a petition for review pursuant to Rule 43 cannot be availed superiors. Ms. Jara Corazon O. Ehera, Human Resources
of as a mode of appeal from the ruling of the Secretary of Management Officer III, wrote a letter-notice dated March 5,
Justice because the Rule applies only to agencies or officers 1998 to petitioner directing him to report for work within three
exercising quasi-judicial functions. (3) days from receipt of said notice, otherwise, he would be
dropped from the rolls. Dr. Corazon D. Rivera, officer-in-charge
of the Pharmacy Section, reported petitioner’s irresponsibility
Issue: WON a petition for review under Rule 43 is a proper and lack of concern for his work to Dr. Lillian V. Lee, Executive
mode of appeal from a resolution of the Secretary of Justice Director of PCMC, recommending that petitioner be dropped
directing the prosecutor to file an information in a criminal case from the rolls. Despite the written letter-notice sent to him,
petitioner failed to report for work thus constraining PCMC to
Decision drop him from the rolls. Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the
Civil Service Commission (CSC).
No. Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure clearly shows
that it governs appeals to the Court of Appeals from decisions The CSC dismissed the complaint. The decision, however,
and final orders or resolutions of the Court of Tax Appeals or stated that considering that the separation of petitioner was not
quasi-judicial agencies in the exercise of their quasi-judicial disciplinary in character, he may be re-employed in the same
functions. The Department of Justice is not among the agency at the discretion of the appointing authority.
Page 27 of 64
The CA denied the appeal for failure to comply with Section 6 never shared in the harvests nor was respondent given any
(c), Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court, 10 particularly for share as payment for her work.
failure to attach certified true copies of material portions of the
records and supporting papers. Provincial Adjudicator rendered a decision in favor of petitioner.
In ruling that respondent was not a tenant, the Provincial
Issue: WON the committed grave error in dismissing the Adjudicator noted that the affidavits presented as evidence
appeal of herein petitioner based on pure technicality. were conflicting and the inconsistencies therein were material
to the resolution of the case
Decision
DARAB issued its decision reversing the decision 5 of the
Yes. In Cadayona vs. Court of Appeals, however, we already Provincial Adjudicator. The DARAB ruled that the land in
held that Section 6, Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court is question is agricultural and the applicable agrarian law is
not to be construed as imposing the requirement that all Republic Act No. 1199, the Agricultural Tenancy Act, and not
supporting papers accompanying the petition should be Presidential Decree No. 27 which applies only to tenanted rice
certified true copies. We compared this provision with its or corn lands covered by Operation Land Transfer. DARAB
counterpart provision in Rule 42, on petitions for review from nonetheless found substantial evidence to show that
the RTC to the CA, and noted that under the latter, only the respondent is indeed a tenant of the land in question.
judgments or final orders of the lower court need to be certified
true copies or duplicate originals. In numerous resolutions The Court of Appeals issued a Resolution dismissing outright
issued by this Court we emphasized that in an appeal via a the petition. It ruled that (a) it should be in the form of a petition
petition for certiorari under Rule 45 and in an original civil for review as required by Supreme Court Revised Adm. Circ.
action for certiorari under Rule 65 in relation to Rules 46 and No. 1-95; and (b) the annexes to the petition are certified as
56, what is required to be a certified true copy is the copy of true xerox copy by counsel for the petitioner, and not by the
the questioned judgment, final order or resolution. We see no proper public official who has custody of the records, in
reason why a stricter requirement should be made for petitions violation of the same Circular and Adm. Circ. No. 3-96.
under Rule 43, which governs appeals from the Court of Tax
Appeals and quasi-judicial agencies to the CA. This could not
have been intended by the framers of the rules. A contrary Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration and for Admission
ruling would be too harsh and would not promote the of Amended Petition. The Court of Appeals issued a
underlying objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive Resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration and for
disposition of every action and proceeding. Admission of Amended Petition of petitioner. It ruled that
considering further that non-compliance in the original petition
Further, we note that petitioner had attached certified true is admittedly attributable to the petitioner and that no highly
copies of the documents supporting his Motion for justifiable and compelling reason has been advanced for us to
Reconsideration and Compliance. As previously held, depart from the mandatory requirements of the Circular, we
submission of a required document with the Motion for RESOLVED to DENY the motion for lack of merit.
Reconsideration constitutes substantial compliance with
Section 3, Rule 46.
Issue: WON the petitioner is entitled to an annulment of the
impugned decision and resolutions of the DARAB and the CA
Jaro vs. CA, G.R. No. 127536
February 19, 2002, Carpio, J:
Decision
Summary: De Pelaez filed a complaint for prohibition against
petitioner who wants to reject them from the land alleging that Yes. A perusal of the decision of the DARAB does not show
they are the tenants of the land. Petitioner countered that that its rulings are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute
respondent is not a tenant of the land for respondent never serious abuse of discretion. The term “grave abuse of
shared in the harvests nor was respondent given any share as discretion” has a technical and settled meaning. Grave abuse
payment for her work. PA ruled in favor of petitioners. DARAB of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of
reversed the PA. The CA dismissed the petition outright since power amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, or the
it did not follow the form of a petition for review. The SC exercise of power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason
granted the Jaro’s petition for review by reason of his amended of passion or personal hostility. The abuse of discretion must
petition which amounted to substantial compliance of the rules. be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a
positive legal duty or a virtual refusal to perform such duty.
Facts: De Pelaez ("respondent" for brevity) filed a complaint
for prohibition under Section 27 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act The perceived errors committed by the DARAB, if at all, merely
against petitioner before the Department of Agrarian Reform amount to errors of judgment, not errors of jurisdiction. The
Adjudication Board, Provincial Adjudicator Board, Lucena City, errors that a court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction
Quezon. Respondent alleged in the complaint that the late differ from errors of judgment. An error of judgment is one that
Rosenda Reyes y Padua ("Rosenda" for brevity) was the the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Such an
original owner of a parcel of coconut land. Rosenda allegedly error does not make the court’s decision void and it may serve
instituted respondent and her husband, the late Igmedio only as a ground for reversal if it is shown that prejudice has
Pelaez, as tenants of the land. In 1978, Ricardo Padua Reyes been caused by it. An error of judgment can be reviewed only
("Ricardo" for brevity), the heir of Rosenda, sold the land to by an appeal. On the other hand, an error of jurisdiction is one
petitioner who, respondent alleged, now wants to eject where the act complained of was issued by the court, officer or
respondent from the land. Petitioner countered that respondent a quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with
is not and had never been a tenant of the land for respondent grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack or
Page 28 of 64
excess of jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction renders a Relations Commission, we stressed the policy of the courts to
judgment void or at least void-able and which error is encourage the full adjudication of the merits of an appeal.
correctable only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari.
Zaragoza vs. Nobleza
To recall, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for two G.R. No. 144560, April 13, 2004, Carpio-Morales, J:
reasons. First, the appeal was not in the form of a petition for
review as required by Supreme Court Revised Administrative Facts:
Circular No. 1-95. Second, the annexes attached to the petition
were neither duplicate originals nor were they certified true Petitioner filed a complaint,5 for Termination of Leasehold
copies. The annexes were only certified as true xerox copies Relationship with Damages, against respondent before the
by the counsel of petitioner, not by the authority or the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD) of
corresponding officer or representative of the issuing entity, in Iloilo City. PARAD found for respondent and dismissed
contravention of Administrative Circular No. 3-96. While we petitioner’s complaint for lack of merit. DARAB) which affirmed
agree with the Court of Appeals that the defective petition the PARAD decision.
deserved to be dismissed, the amended petition filed by
petitioner should have been given due course. Petitioner filed The CA granted petitioner an "absolutely non-extendible period
the amended petition, now in proper form, accompanied by of fifteen (15) days, reckoned from March 15, 2000, or until
annexes, all of which were certified true copies by the DARAB. March 30, 2000" within which to file the petition for review.
This is more than substantial compliance Petitioner appears to have filed via registered mail his petition
for review,14 however, on April 12, 2000. The CA dismissed the
In Cadayona vs. Court of Appeals, we held that Section 6 of petition for being procedurally flawed, it noting that an
Rule 43 does not require that all of the supporting papers or examination of the envelope bearing the petition15 showed that
annexes accompanying the petition should be certified true it was mailed on April 12, 2000 or thirteen (13) days beyond
copies or duplicate originals. What is mandatory is to attach the extended period of appeal and that two of the annexes to
the clearly legible duplicate originals or certified true copies of the petition were "mere plain copies," in violation of Section
the judgment or final orders of the lower courts. Not only did 6(c) of Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure
petitioner attach to his amended petition and motion for
reconsideration certified true copies of the assailed DARAB Issue:
decision and resolution, petitioner also attached certified true
copies of other supporting documents. Petitioner on his own
initiative complied with the required attachments when he filed WON the dismissal of petitioner’s appeal by the CA was based
the amended petition. on technicality thereby denying the rights of petitioner to
prosecute his case before said appellate court so that it can be
decided on the merits and not on its technicality aspect.
There is ample jurisprudence holding that the subsequent and
substantial compliance of an appellant may call for the
relaxation of the rules of procedure. In Cusi-Hernandez vs. Decision
Diaz and PiglasKamao vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, we ruled that the subsequent submission of the Petition for review is denied. Since the perfection of an appeal
missing documents with the motion for reconsideration within the statutory or reglementary period is not only
amounts to substantial compliance. The reasons behind the mandatory but also jurisdictional, the failure of petitioner to so
failure of the petitioners in these two cases to comply with the perfect his appeal rendered the questioned decision final and
required attachments were no longer scrutinized. What we executory.29 This rule is founded upon the principle that the
found noteworthy in each case was the fact that the petitioners right to appeal is not part of due process of law but is a mere
therein substantially complied with the formal requirements. statutory privilege to be exercised only in the manner and in
We ordered the remand of the petitions in these cases to the accordance with the provisions of the law.
Court of Appeals, stressing the ruling that by precipitately
dismissing the petitions “the appellate court clearly put a In the case at bar, there is no showing of a factual setting
premium on technicalities at the expense of a just resolution of which warrants a liberal application of the rules on the period of
the case.” appeal. Having been extended an additional fifteen (15) day
period within which to file his petition for review, it was
If we were to apply the rules of procedure in a very rigid and incumbent upon petitioner to strictly comply with such deadline.
technical sense, as what the Court of Appeals would have it in That he paid the appropriate docket fee upon filing his Motion
this case, the ends of justice would be defeated. In Cusi- for Extension of Time with the appellate court does not help his
Hernandez vs. Diaz, where the formal requirements were cause any. The inevitable consequence of his grave
liberally construed and substantial compliance was recognized, inadvertence is to render the DARAB’s decision dismissing the
we explained that rules of procedure are mere tools designed case final and executory.
to expedite the decision or resolution of cases and other
matters pending in court. Hence, a strict and rigid application of We must stress that the bare invocation of "the interest of
technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice" is not a magic wand that will automatically
substantial justice must be avoided. We further declared that: compel this Court to suspend procedural rules. "Procedural
“Cases should be determined on the merits, after full rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their
opportunity to all parties for ventilation of their causes and non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party’s
defenses, rather than on technicality or some procedural substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be
imperfections. In that way, the ends of justice would be served followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when
better.” In the similar case of Piglas-Kamao vs. National Labor they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not
Page 29 of 64
commensurate with the degree of thoughtlessness in not Courts and the quasi-judicial agencies generally or specifically
complying with the procedure prescribed referred to therein except, among others, “those falling within
the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance
St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC and Bienvenido with x x x the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential
Aricayos Decree No. 442, as amended, x x x.” This would necessarily
G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998, Regalado, J: contradict what has been ruled and said all along that appeal
does not lie from decisions of the NLRC. Yet, under such
Summary: Aricayos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal excepting clause literally construed, the appeal from the NLRC
against petitioner. Petitioner opposed claiming that Aricayos is cannot be brought to the Court of Appeals, but to this Court by
not its employee. The LA declared that no ee-er relationship necessary implication.
exists. The NLRC rendered a decision setting aside and
remanding the case back to the LA. The SC ruled that all The same exceptive clause further confuses the situation by
references in the amended Section 9 of B.P. No. 129 to declaring that the Court of Appeals has no appellate
supposed appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court are jurisdiction over decisions falling within the appellate
interpreted and hereby declared to mean and refer to petitions jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the
for certiorari under Rule 65. Consequently, all such petitions Constitution, the provisions of B.P. No. 129, and those
should henceforth be initially filed in the Court of Appeals in specified cases in Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as These cases can, of course, be properly excluded from the
the appropriate forum for the relief desired. exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
However, because of the aforementioned amendment by
Facts: transposition, also supposedly excluded are cases falling
within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in
accordance with the Labor Code. This is illogical and
The present petition for certiorari stemmed from a complaint for impracticable, and Congress could not have intended that
illegal dismissal filed by herein private respondent before the procedural gaffe, since there are no cases in the Labor Code
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Respondent the decisions, resolutions, orders or awards wherein are within
alleges that on January 22, 1996, he was dismissed from his the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or of any other
employment for allegedly misappropriating P38,000.00 which court for that matter.
was intended for payment by petitioner of its value added tax
(VAT) to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Petitioner on
the other hand claims that private respondent was not its A review of the legislative records on the antecedents of R.A.
employee but only the uncle of Amelita Malabed, the owner of No. 7902 persuades us that there may have been an oversight
petitioner St. Martin's Funeral Home in the course of the deliberations on the said Act or an
imprecision in the terminology used therein. In fine, Congress
did intend to provide for judicial review of the adjudications of
The LA rendered a decision in favor of petitioner on October the NLRC in labor cases by the Supreme Court, but there was
25, 1996 declaring that no employer-employee relationship an inaccuracy in the term used for the intended mode of
existed between the parties and, therefore, his office had no review. This conclusion which we have reluctantly but
jurisdiction over the case. prudently arrived at has been drawn from the considerations
extant in the records of Congress, more particularly on Senate
The NLRC rendered a resolution setting aside the questioned Bill No. 1495 and the Reference Committee Report on S. No.
decision and remanding the case to the labor arbiter for 1495/H. No. 10452.
immediate appropriate proceedings.
The Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that ever
Issue: since appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court were
eliminated, the legislative intendment was that the special civil
WON the SC may the petition for certiorari action of certiorari was and still is the proper vehicle for judicial
review of decisions of the NLRC. The use of the word “appeal”
in relation thereto and in the instances we have noted could
Decision have been a lapsus plumae because appeals by certiorari and
the original action for certiorari are both modes of judicial
No. Before proceeding further into the merits of the case at review addressed to the appellate courts. The important
bar, the Court feels that it is now exigent and opportune to distinction between them, however, and with which the Court is
reexamine the functional validity and systemic practicability of particularly concerned here is that the special civil action of
the mode of judicial review it has long adopted and still follows certiorari is within the concurrent original jurisdiction of this
with respect to decisions of the NLRC. The increasing number Court and the Court of Appeals; whereas to indulge in the
of labor disputes that find their way to this Court and the assumption that appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court are
legislative changes introduced over the years into the allowed would not subserve, but would subvert, the intention of
provisions of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 442 (The Labor Congress as expressed in the sponsorship speech on Senate
Code of the Philippines and Batas Pambansa Blg. (B.P. No.) Bill No. 1495.
129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) now stridently
call for and warrant a reassessment of that procedural aspect. While we do not wish to intrude into the Congressional sphere
on the matter of the wisdom of a law, on this score we add the
It will, however, be noted that paragraph (3), Section 9 of B.P. further observations that there is a growing number of labor
No. 129 now grants exclusive appellate jurisdiction to the Court cases being elevated to this Court which, not being a trier of
of Appeals over all final adjudications of the Regional Trial fact, has at times been constrained to remand the case to the

Page 30 of 64
NLRC for resolution of unclear or ambiguous factual findings; questions of law and fact, questions of fact alone, or questions
that the Court of Appeals is procedurally equipped for that of law alone.
purpose, aside from the increased number of its component
divisions; and that there is undeniably an imperative need for Long Answer
expeditious action on labor cases as a major aspect of
constitutional protection to labor. Therefore, all references in As a general rule, appeals on pure questions of law are
the amended Section 9 of B.P. No. 129 to supposed appeals brought to this Court since Sec. 5 (2) (e), Art. VIII of the
from the NLRC to the Supreme Court are interpreted and Constitution includes in the enumeration of cases within its
hereby declared to mean and refer to petitions for certiorari jurisdiction “all cases in which only an error or question of law
under Rule 65. Consequently, all such petitions should is involved.” It should not be overlooked, however, that the
henceforth be initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict same provision vesting jurisdiction in this Court of the cases
observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the enumerated therein is prefaced by the statement that it may
appropriate forum for the relief desired. “review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or
certiorari as the law or the Rules of Court may provide,”
Santos vs. Committee on Claims Settlement the judgments or final orders of lower courts in the cases
G.R. No. 158071. April 2, 2009 therein enumerated. Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure constitutes an exception to the aforesaid general
SUMMARY rule on appeals. Rule 43 provides for an instance where an
appellate review solely on a question of law may be sought in
the CA instead of this Court.
This case involves a determination of whether the petitioner
government employee must retire under RA 660 or under RA Undeniably, an appeal to the CA may be taken within the
8291. GSIS was of the opinion that he should retire under 8291 reglementary period to appeal whether the appeal involves
as he had already retired under RA 660. When the dispute was questions of fact, law, or mixed questions of fact and law. As
appealed to the CA under Rule 43, the case was dismissed. such, a question of fact or question of law alone or a mix
Since the case involved a pure question of law, the CA question of fact and law may be appealed to the CA via Rule
maintained only the SC has jurisdiction over it. The SC ruled 43.
that CA can review on appeal even cases involving pure
questions of law. Office of the Ombudsman vs. Valencerina
G.R. No. 178343. July 14, 2014
FACTS
SUMMARY
Petitioner was a government employee. After 21 years he
In this case, the respondent was found guilty of gross neglect
retired from DAR pursuant to RA 1616. Shortly after, he was
of duty due to approval of a surety bond despite not meeting
reemployed in the office of the deputy ombudsman. Here,
the requirements therefor. The execution of the Ombudsman
petitioner initiated the availment of early retirement under RA
order terminating the respondent’s employment was stayed by
660.
the CA on appeal contending that it is empowered by the rules.
GSIS Operating Unit advised that petitioner could no longer The Ombudsman argues however that its rules clearly state
retire under RA 660, but instead could retire under RA 8291, that no appeal can stay the execution of its orders. The SC
under which, his previous 21 years of service would no longer ruled in favor of Ombudsman.
be considered. Petitioner appealed to GSIS Committee on FACTS
Claims, which affirmed GSIS Operating Unit. The GSIS Board
of Trustees also maintained the same decision. The respondent was one of several officers of GSIS who was
found administratively liable for gross neglect of duty. This was
Hence, the petitioner appealed to the CA under Rule 43. The
because Escobel Land applied for a surety bond with GSIS so
CA dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The CA ruled
it could secure a loan from Bear Stearns. The surety bond was
that the issue being what law must be applied for the
initially granted upon the endorsement of the officers of GSIS,
petitioner’s retirement is a pure question of law, and thus
including respondent, however, GSIS President declared the
cognizable directly by the SC.
bond invalid and unenforceable due to irregularities. The
ISSUE respondent then sent a cancellation notice to Escobel but
despite the same, Escobel was already able to secure a loan
Whether a case involving pure questions of law may be from Bear Stearns. Escobel defaulted on its loan, hence Bear
reviewed on appeal by the Court of Appeals. Stearns advised GSIS of its intention to collect payment.

RULING The Ombudsman found the respondent guilty of gross neglect


of duty. Respondent appealed to the CA via Rule 43. During
Short Answer the pendency of the appeal, Ombudsman ordered the GSIS
President to execute the order dismissing the respondent. The
Yes. Rule 43 is an exception to the Constitutional provision
respondent countered with a motion for injunction which the
that cases involving pure questions of law are to be brought to
CA granted. Hence, this present petition.
the Supreme Court. Hence, Rule 43 as it stands now, gives
power to the CA to review on appeal cases involving mixed ISSUE

Page 31 of 64
Whether the CA may by way of injunction, stay the execution that the OP did not have appellate jurisdiction over the case
of Ombudsman order. and the proper remedy was certiorari petition to the CA.

RULING FACTS

Short Answer Petitioner filed a complaint against private respondent PGA


Cars for refund of the purchase price of his BMW car due to
No. While the Rules of Court state that appeals cannot stay the the latter’s imperfections. The complaint was filed in the
execution of the decision appealed unless otherwise ordered Consumer’s Arbitration Office (CAO) pursuant to the
by the CA, the Ombudsman procedures clearly state that Consumer Act of PH. CAO decided in favor of petitioner. The
appeals shall not stop the decision from being executory. case was appealed to the DTI Secretary, which dismissed the
Between the Rules of Court and the Ombudsman procedures, appeal. The case was further appealed to the Office of the
the latter must necessarily prevail, it being in the nature of a President (OP), which ruled in favor of private respondent PGA
special law. Cars.
Long Answer The petitioner filed a certiorari petition with the CA questioning
the appellate jurisdiction of the OP to review the decision of the
Section 7, Rule III of the Ombudsman Procedures:
DTI Sec. The CA dismissed the petition for being an improper
An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. In remedy. Hence, this present petition.
case the penalty is suspension or removal and the respondent
Petitioner argued that the Consumer Act provides that
wins such appeal, he shall be considered as having been
decisions of the DTI Sec may be reviewed thru a petition for
under preventive suspension and shall be paid the salary and
certiorari by the “proper court”. In view thereof, the OP is not
such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the
the proper court referred to in the law.
suspension or removal.
ISSUE
Based on the aforequoted provision, it is clear that the OMB’s
June 8, 2005 Order imposing the penalty of removal on Whether the OP does not have appellate jurisdiction over the
Valencerina was immediately executory, notwithstanding the decisions of the DTI Sec under the Consumer Act.
pendency of his appeal.
RULING
Section 12, Rule 43 of the Rules — which provides that “[t]he
appeal shall not stay the award, judgment, final order or Short Answer
resolution sought to be reviewed unless the Court of Appeals
shall direct otherwise upon such terms as it may deem just” — Yes. First, the law clearly states that decisions of the DTI Sec
would not apply in this case for the following reasons: can be reviewed only by the proper court thru a certiorari
petition, and such court is not the OP. Second, the
First, Section 3,50 Rule V of the OMB Rules of Procedure administrative control of the OP over administrative bodies by
provides that the Rules may apply suppletorily or by analogy way of appellate jurisdiction is not availing when there is a
only when the procedural matter is not governed by any special law that specifically indicates a mode of appeal.
specific provision in the said rules
Long Answer
Second, it is a fundamental legal principle that when two rules
apply to a particular case, that which was specially designed The procedure for appeals to the OP is governed by
for the said case must prevail over the other. Administrative Order No. 18,14 Series of 1987. Section 1
thereof provides:
Third, the OMB is constitutionally authorized to promulgate its
own rules of procedure. As such, the CA cannot stay the SECTION 1. Unless otherwise governed by special laws, an
execution of decisions rendered by the said office when the appeal to the Office of the President shall be taken within thirty
rules the latter so promulgates categorically and specifically (30) days from receipt by the aggrieved party of the
warrant their enforcement, else the OMB’s rule-making decision/resolution/order complained of or appealed from…
authority be unduly encroached and the constitutional and
We interpreted the above provision and declared that “a
statutory provisions providing the same be disregarded.
decision or order issued by a department or agency need not
Moran, Jr. vs. Office of the President of the Philippines be appealed to the Office of the President when there is a
G.R. No. 192957. September 29, 2014 special law that provides for a different mode of appeal.

In this case, a special law, RA 7394, likewise expressly


SUMMARY
provided for immediate judicial relief from decisions of the DTI
A decision of the DTI Sec under the Consumer Act, which was
Secretary by filing a petition for certiorari with the “proper
in favor of the petitioner, was appealed to the OP. In the OP,
court.” Hence, private respondent should have elevated the
the decision was adverse to the petitioner. Hence, the
case directly to the CA through a petition for certiorari.
petitioner filed a certiorari case arguing that the OP did not
have appellate jurisdiction over the DTI Sec decision as under Viva Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Keppel Philippines Marine,
the Consumer Act, such decision was to be reviewed by the Inc.
proper court thru certiorari, and not by the OP. The SC ruled G.R. No. 177382. February 17, 2016
Page 32 of 64
other supporting papers; and (d) contain a sworn certification
SUMMARY against forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of
The petitioner filed a case for corporate rehabilitation in the Section 2, Rule 42. The petition shall state the specific material
RTC, which was denied. The petitioner’s appeal involving did dates showing that it was filed within the period fixed herein.
not implead the creditors of the company, which is required by
Rule 43. In view thereof, the CA dismissed the appeal, which Petitioner did not comply with some of these requirements.
was affirmed by the SC because noncompliance with the rules First, it did not implead its creditors as respondents. Instead,
of appeal laid out under Rule 43 is a ground for dismissal of petitioner only impleaded the Presiding Judge of the Regional
the appeal. Trial Court, contrary to Section 6(a) of Rule 43. Second, it did
not serve a copy of the Petition on some of its creditors,
FACTS specifically, its former employees. Finally, it did not serve a
copy of the Petition on the Regional Trial Court.
Petitioner Viva Shipping filed a petition for Corporate
Rehabilitation before the RTC. The RTC denied the petition as The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioner’s Rule 43
it found that the petition failed to show the company’s viability Petition as a consequence of noncompliance with procedural
and feasibility for rehabilitation. rules. Rule 43, Section 7 of the Rules of Court states:

The petitioner then filed an appeal with the CA under Rule 43. Sec. 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements.—The
In the appeal, only the judge of the RTC was impleaded as failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing
appellee and did not include the creditors of the company, as requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other
required by Rule 43. However, the petitioner did serve copies lawful fees, the deposit of costs, proof of service of the petition,
of the petition to some but not all of its creditors. In view and the contents of and the documents which should
thereof, the CA dismissed the appeal. Hence this present accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the
petition. Petitioner prayed for the relaxation of rules to allow the dismissal thereof.
appeal to proceed.
The Rules of Court requires petitioner to implead respondents
ISSUE as a matter of due process. Under the Constitution, “[n]o
person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due
Whether the rules on appeal may be relaxed to allow the process of the law.” An appeal to a corporate rehabilitation
appeal of the rehabilitation case despite the creditors not being case may deprive creditor stakeholders of property. Due
impleaded. process dictates that these creditors be impleaded to give
RULING them an opportunity to protect the property owed to them.
Creditors are indispensable parties to a rehabilitation case,
Short Answer. even if a rehabilitation case is non-adversarial

No. First, failure to comply with the rules of appeal under Rule RULE 44: ORDINARY APPEALED CASES
43 is a ground for dismissal of the appeal. Second, in a
rehabilitation case, the creditors are all indispensable parties. Mendoza vs. United Coconut Planters Bank, Inc.
In their absence, no determination of the case can be had. G.R. No. 165575. February 2, 2011
There can be no substantial justice to speak of allowing the
relaxation of rules when petitioner continues to fail to implead SUMMARY
all its creditors even in its amended complaint. This case involves an annulment of foreclosure proceedings.
Since the case was dismissed in the RTC for failure to
Long Answer prosecute within reasonable time, the case was appealed.
However, the appeal was dismissed for the appellant’s brief did
Rule 43 prescribes the mode of appeal for corporate not comply with the requirements of Rule 44. The SC affirmed
rehabilitation cases: the decision of the CA.
Sec. 5. How appeal taken.—Appeal shall be taken by filing a FACTS
verified petition for review in seven (7) legible copies with
the Court of Appeals, with proof of service of a copy Petitioner filed a complaint for annulment of the foreclosure
thereof on the adverse party and on the court or agency a proceedings initiated by respondent for lack of the required
quo. The original copy of the petition intended for the Court of notice. However, in the RTC, the case was dismissed for
failure of the petitioner to prosecute within reasonable time.
Appeals shall be indicated as such by the petitioner. . . . .
The petitioner then filed an appeal with the CA.
Sec. 6. Contents of the petition.—The petition for review shall On appeal, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the
(a) state the full names of the parties to the case, without ground that appellant’s brief did not comply with the rules. The
impleading the court or agencies either as petitioners or following were lacking in the appellant’s brief:
respondents; (b) contain a concise statement of the facts and
issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review; (c) (1) A subject index of the matter in the brief with a digest of the
be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a arguments and page references, and a table of cases
certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or alphabetically arranged, textbooks and statutes cited with
resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of references to the pages where they are cited; (2) an
assignment of errors; (3) on the authorities cited, references to
such material portions of the record referred to therein and
the page of the report at which the case begins and page of
Page 33 of 64
the report on which the citation is found; (4) page references to petitioners was denied by the RTC but on certiorari was
the record in the Statement of Facts and Statement of the granted by the CA. The petitioners did not oppose the filing of
Case. the motion for being filed out of time, however, when they
appealed the certiorari decision, they raised the argument. The
The CA dismissed the appeal in view thereof. SC denied the petition for being barred by estoppel.
ISSUE FACTS
Whether failure to include subject index, assignment of errors, Petitioners filed with the RTC a complaint for recovery of
and page references to the record in the Statement of Facts is property on the ground that they were the heirs of the lawful
a ground to dismiss the appeal. owner. On the other hand, the respondents claimed that they
were the owners as they bought the same as well as registered
RULING
them under Torrens system.
Short Answer
In the RTC, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss for lack
Yes. As the right to appeal is not a natural right, but merely a of jurisdiction as the complaint did not allege the assessed
statutory right, it must strictly comply with the requisites laid value of the property. The motion was denied. Respondents
down by the rules. Failure to comply with the requirements is a filed a certiorari petition with the CA, which was also denied.
ground to dismiss the appeal. Meanwhile, by leave of court, the petitioners were able to
amend the complaint to include allegation of assessed value of
Long Answer the property.

The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due Respondents filed a motion to dismiss amended complaint on
process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be the grounds of prescription, laches, indefeasibility of title, and
exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the failure to state cause of action. RTC denied the motion. On
provisions of law.28 An appeal being a purely statutory right, certiorari, the CA granted the petition of the respondents.
an appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites laid Hence this present petition for with the SC.
down in the Rules of Court.
In the petition for review, the petitioners alleged for the first
The Appellants’ Brief of petitioners did not have a subject time that the motion to dismiss amended complaint was filed
index. The subject index functions like a table of contents, out of time.
facilitating the review of appeals by providing ready reference.
The subject index makes readily available at one’s fingertips ISSUE
the subject of the contents of the brief so that the need to
Whether an argument not raised in the lower courts may be
thumb through the brief page after page to locate a party’s
raised for the first time on appeal.
arguments, or a particular citation, or whatever else needs to
be found and considered, is obviated. RULING
The Appellants’ Brief had no assignment of errors, but Short Answer
petitioners insist that it is embodied in the “Issues” of the brief.
The requirement under Section 13, Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules No. Arguments not raised in the lower courts cannot be raised
of Civil Procedure for an “assignment of errors” in paragraph on appeal because they are barred by estoppel.
(b) thereof is different from a “statement of the issues of fact or
law” in paragraph (e) thereof. The statement of issues is not to Long Answer
be confused with the assignment of errors, since they are not
There is no dispute that the issue of timeliness of respondents’
one and the same; otherwise, the rules would not require a
Motion to dismiss petitioners’ Amended Complaint was not
separate statement for each.
raised by petitioners before the RTC. Neither was this issue
The Statement of Facts was not supported by page references raised in their Comment to respondents’ petition for certiorari
to the record. If a statement of fact is unaccompanied by a filed with the CA. It was only this matter was raised. It is well
page reference to the record, it may be presumed to be established that issues raised for the first time on appeal and
without support in the record and may be stricken or not raised in the proceedings in the lower court are barred by
disregarded altogether. The assignment of errors and page estoppel. Points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not
references to the record in the statement of facts are important brought to the attention of the trial court ought not to be
in an Appellant’s Brief as the absence thereof is a basis for the considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for
dismissal of an appeal under Section 1 (f), Rule 50, of the 1997 the first time on appeal. Basic considerations of due process
Rules of Civil Procedure. impel the adoption of this rule.

Mercado vs. Espina Del Rosario vs. Bonga


G.R. No. 173987. February 25, 2013 G.R. No. 136308. January 23, 2001

SUMMARY SUMMARY
This case involves a dispute on who was the true owner of the This case involves an action for rescission of the contract of
subject property. Petitioners argued that they were the true sale. In the RTC proceedings, the petitioner argued that the
owners being the lawful heirs of the previous owner. The respondent alone cannot rescind the contract, it must both her
respondent argued he was the true owner on the force of a and her spouse. On appeal, petitioner changed theory and
valid sale. The controversy arose when the motion to dismiss argued that the respondent did not have the right to rescind
filed by the respondents against the amended complaint of the because she was not the owner of the property in the first
place, the property being illegally acquired from an NHA
Page 34 of 64
awardee. The CA dismissed the appeal which was affirmed by and argued that based on forestry map, Tagabaca is part of
the SC due to changing of theory is not allowed. Surigao, and not of Agusan. The SC ruled that respondent is
barred from changing his argument.
FACTS
FACTS
Petitioner purchased the apartment unit owned by respondent.
The payment arrangement was a down payment or 130k was Petitioner was the licensee of a timber concession in Agusan.
to be paid upfront and the remaining 200k shall be paid within Respondent was the licensee of another timber concession in
12 months. The down payment was paid but the balance was Surigao, which includes the municipality of Tagabaca.
not, while the apartment was already in the possession of the Tagabaca is the border between Agusan and Surigao.
petitioner. Respondent’s agents entered Tagabaca and prevented the
laborers of the petitioner from entering the same. Thus, the
Respondent filed an action to rescind contract in the RTC. In petitioners filed an injunction in the RTC. The respondent
this action, the theory of the petitioner was that the respondent claimed that the disputed area was part of their concession.
alone did not have the right to rescind, but that rescission must
be done both by her and her spouse. The RTC ruled in favor of In the RTC proceedings, the respondent’s argument was that
the respondent. Tagabaca had always been part of their concession because it
was part of their timber license. The court granted the
On appeal, the petitioner changed his theory. He alleged that injunction on the ground that Tagabaca as fixed by law (Act
the respondent did not have the right to rescind because 1693) was part of Agusan, hence part of petitioner’s
respondent’s husband acquired the property illegally from an concession.
awardee of the National Housing Authority. The CA dismissed
the appeal as the theory was being raised for the first time. On appeal, the respondent maintained the same argument.
The CA affirmed the RTC and denied the appeal. Interestingly,
ISSUE the CA allowed 4 MRs to be filed here, in each motion deciding
differently.
Whether a theory may be raised for the first time on appeal.
On the first MR filed by the respondent, the CA reversed the
RULING
RTC. On the second MR filed by petitioner, the CA again
Short Answer affirmed the RTC. On the third MR filed by respondents, the
CA reversed the RTC. On the final MR filed by petitioner, the
No. Basic considerations of due process impel that theories not CA decided to remand the case to the RTC.
raised in the proceedings of the lower court cannot be raised
for the first time on appeal. There are exceptions to the rule Hence this present petition with the SC. In the petition for
such as lack of jurisdiction, plain error, or developments in review with the SC, the respondent had a change of theory.
jurisprudence. This case is not covered by any of the Accordingly, based on the forestry map, Tagabaca is part of
exceptions. Surigao and therefore part of its concession license.

Long Answer ISSUE

As a rule, no question will be entertained on appeal unless it Whether parties may be allowed to change their theories on
has been raised in the court below. Points of law, theories, appeal.
issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower HELD
court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a
reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at Short Answer
that late stage. Basic considerations of due process impel this
rule. No. For the parties to raise an issue for the first time on appeal,
it is necessary that it be within the issue made by the parties in
Indeed, there are exceptions to the aforecited rule that no their pleadings.
question may be raised for the first time on appeal. Though not
raised below, the issue of lack of jurisdiction over the subject Long Answer
matter may be considered by the reviewing court, as it may be
raised at any stage. The said court may also consider an issue Since the issue raised in the court a quo, on the basis of the
not properly raised during trial when there is plain error.10 evidence presented and upon which the court rendered its
Likewise, it may entertain such arguments when there are judgment, is whether or not the contested area is located within
jurisprudential developments affecting the issues, or when the the province of Surigao, such question could not now be
issues raised present a matter of public policy. The case does changed by private respondent on appeal. Well settled is the
not fall into any of the exceptions. rule that questions which were not raised in the lower court
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. In order that the
Lianga Lumber Company vs. Lianga Timber Co., Inc. question may be raised on appeal, it is essential that it be
No. L-38685. March 31, 1977 within the issue made by the parties in their pleadings.
Consequently, when a party deliberately adopts a certain
SUMMARY theory and the case is tried and decided upon that theory in the
This case involves determination on which has the authority to lower court, he will not be permitted to change his theory on
conduct logging activities on the municipality of Tagabaca, appeal because to permit him to do so will be unfair to the
which is the border between Surigao and Agusan. Petitioner is adverse party.
the licensee of Agusan while respondent on Surigao. In the
lower court, the argument of respondent was that it is Indeed, the petitioners would have no more opportunity to
authorized by his license. On appeal, he changed his theory present further evidence, material to the new theory, which
Page 35 of 64
they could have done had they been aware earlier of the new ceremony took place on November 15, 1973. The ineluctable
theory at the time of the hearing before the trial court, since a conclusion is that the marriage was indeed contracted without
reopening for that purpose would be out of the question after a marriage license.
the appeal. In other words, in the interest of justice and within
the sound discretion of the appellate court, a party may change Maricalum Mining Corporation vs. Remington Industrial
his legal theory on appeal only when the factual bases thereof Sales Corporation
would not require presentation of any further evidence by the G.R. No. 158332. February 11, 2008
adverse party in order to enable it to properly meet the issue
raised in the new theory. SUMMARY
Petitioner who was impleaded in the collection suit filed by
Sy vs. Court of Appeals respondent, on the allegation that it is merely an alter ego of
G.R. No. 127263. April 12, 2000 Marinduque Mining was not able to appeal due to procedural
infirmities. However, its co-defendants PNB and DBP were
SUMMARY able to secure judgment from the SC that the allegation of alter
In an action for declaration of nullity, the ground raised by the ego has no basis as the defendants have separate
petitioner was psychological incapacity, however on appeal, personalities. The SC said such benefit must also inure to
she changed it to lack of marriage license. The SC allowed the petitioner even if it failed to appeal, as among the parties, they
same since substantial justice requires. have commonality of interest.

FACTS FACTS

Filipina, herein petitioner, first filed an action for separation of Remington filed a complaint for payment against Marinduque
properties on the ground of abandonment by his husband. The Mining. However, all of the assets of the Marinduque Mining
RTC granted the petition. Subsequently, an action for legal have already been foreclosed by PNB and DBP which were all
separation was filed by Filipina, which was also granted by the transferred to Maricalum, herein petitioner. In view thereof,
RTC. Now, Filipina filed a petition for the declaration of nullity Remington impleaded PNB, DBP, and the petitioner.
of their marriage due to psychological incapacity. The RTC Remington’s theory was that the doctrine of piercing the veil
denied the petition. Filipina appealed, but the CA affirmed the must be applied as the petitioner, PNB, and DBP were merely
RTC decision. alter egos of Marinduque Mining.

Filipina further appealed to the SC, but with a different ground The RTC ruled in favor of Remington. Petitioner Maricalum,
this time. She now alleged that the marriage was void because PNB, and DBP filed a consolidated appeal which the CA
there was no marriage license at the time of the celebration of dismissed. Subsequently, PNB and DBP on separate actions
marriage. for review with the SC, appealed the decision of the CA. The
petitioner also attempted to file an appeal with the SC but was
ISSUE denied due to procedural infirmities.
Whether the party may be allowed to raise for the first time on Meanwhile, the petitions for review of PNB and DBP were
appeal an issue not raised in the lower court. separately granted by the SC, and dismissed the complaint of
Remington. While as to the petitioner, a writ of execution was
RULING
issued by the RTC. This prompted the petitioner to file a
Short Answer petition for certiorari arguing that the dismissal of the cases
against PNB and DBP must inure to it.
Yes. As an exception to the general rule that no issues may be
raised for the first time on appeal, the court may allow such ISSUE
when substantial justice plainly requires.
Whether the benefit of judgement appealed may inure to the
Long Answer party who did not appeal.

Although we have repeatedly ruled that litigants cannot raise RULING


an issue for the first time on appeal, as this would contravene Short Answer
the basic rules of fair play and justice, in a number of
instances, we have relaxed observance of procedural rules, Yes. By way of exception, the benefit of judgment may inure to
noting that technicalities are not ends in themselves but exist the party who did not appeal, if between or among the parties,
to protect and promote substantive rights of litigants. We said there is commonality of interest.
that certain rules ought not to be applied with severity and
rigidity if by so doing, the very reason for their existence would Long Answer
be defeated. Hence, when substantial justice plainly requires,
exempting a particular case from the operation of technicalities Indeed, one party’s appeal from a judgment will not inure to the
should not be subject to cavil. In our view, the case at bar benefit of a co-party who failed to appeal; and as against the
requires that we address the issue of the validity of the latter, the judgment will continue to run its course until it
marriage between Filipina and Fernando which petitioner becomes final and executory. To this general rule, however,
claims is void from the beginning for lack of a marriage license, one exception stands out: where both parties have a
in order to arrive at a just resolution of a deeply seated and commonality of interests, the appeal of one is deemed to be
violent conflict between the parties. the vicarious appeal of the other.

From the documents she presented, the marriage license was The Court identified the circumstances indicative of a
issued on September 17, 1974, almost one year after the commonality in the interests of the parties, such as when: a)
their rights and liabilities originate from only one source or title;
Page 36 of 64
b) homogeneous evidence establishes the existence of their Petitioner had until 28 June 2001 to file a petition for review on
rights and liabilities; and c) whatever judgment is rendered in certiorari before this Court. However, petitioner filed on 13
the case or appeal, their rights and liabilities will be affected, August 2001 a special civil action of certiorari 1 month and 25
even if to varying extents. days after the lapse of the 15-day reglementary period.

The adjudication rendered in DBP v. CA and PNB v. CA is Apparently, petitioner resorted to this special civil action after
plain: private respondent has no cause of action against DBP, failing to appeal within the 15-day reglementary period. This
PNB and their transferees, including petitioner, for they are cannot be countenanced. The special civil action of certiorari
corporate entities separate and distinct from Marinduque cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal which petitioner
Mining, and cannot be held liable for the latter’s obligations to already lost. Certiorari lies only where there is no appeal nor
private respondent any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law.

In the case, there is no reason why the question being raised


by petitioner, i.e., whether the appellate court committed a
grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitions, could not
have been raised on appeal.

In addition, the arguments she cited are without merit and are
in fact mere rehash of the issues raised before and judiciously
RULE 45: APPEAL BY CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME resolved by the courts a quo. The issues require a review of
COURT the
factual findings which, verily, could not be done because this
TERESITA PACAÑA CONEJOS vs. COURT OF APPEALS Court is not a trier of facts.
and EUTIQUIO PLANIA
[G.R. No. 149473. August 9, 2002. BELLOSILLO, J.] More importantly, a reading of the records of the case
strengthens our disposition that both the trial and the appellate
FACTS: courts did not abuse their discretion in assessing their factual
findings. We find their conclusions amply supported by the
Respondent Plania and petitioner Conejos agreed to purchase records of the case and grounded in law.
a particular lot where each of them would pay half its price then
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and MA. MILAGROS G.
divide the lot equally between them. After compliance with his
WILSON, vs. CA, MA. LOURDES DEUTSCH, NERCY
obligation in the deal, respondent Plania authorized petitioner
DEMETERIO and EXCEL MANGUBAT
Conejos to sell his part of the land to one Gavan but Plania
[G.R. No. 132396. September 23, 2002. QUISUMBING, J.]
never received the proceeds of the sale. Hence, respondent
Plania filed Complaint for specific performance/rescission with
FACTS:
damages with the MTCC.

The MTCC dismissed the complaint ruling that Plania had The RTC convicted Respondents Nercy Demeterio, Excel
failed to present sufficient evidence to substantiate his Mangubat and Ma. Lourdes Deutsch of the crime of estafa for
allegations. The court noted that the official receipts offered in convincing Milagros G. Wilson to buy a portion of beach
evidence by Plania were not issued in his name but in the property, assuring her that the said property is free from all
name of Conejos. It lent more credence to the testimony of liens, encumbrances and the documents or papers thereto
Conejos that the Memorandum of Agreement had been were all in order, when in truth and in fact the said property
mutually abandoned by the parties was under the coverage of the CARP Law.

The RTC reversed the MTCC Deutsch, Demeterio and Mangubat interposed a timely appeal
to the Court of Appeals
Petitioner Conejos filed a MR but the same was denied, hence
she filed a Petition for Review with the CA. Finding no merit in The CA modified the trial court's judgment affirming that
her arguments, CA affirmed the RTC concluding that there was Demetrio and Mangubat acted in conspiracy and is guilty of
dearth of evidence that the MOA had been mutually estafa, but it acquitted Deutsch whose crime has not been
abandoned by the parties. Petitioner's MR having been denied, proven beyond reasonable doubt.
she filed special civil action of certiorari before SC
Milagros Wilson filed a MR which was denied by the CA. On
ISSUE: W/N a special civil action of certiorari is the proper the other hand, Demeterio and Mangubat filed their MR which
remedy availed by petitioner was denied by the CA as well. Hence, this petition on certiorari
under Rule 45.
RULING: NO. Special civil action of certiorari is not the proper
ISSUES
remedy availed by petitioner

Petitioner's remedy would have been to file a petition for review 1. Whether or not Rule 45 is the proper remedy filed by
on certiorari under Rule 45 before this Court counting 15 days Milagros Wilson
from receipt of the resolution denying her motion for 2. Whether or not the petition filed by Demeterio and
reconsideration. Mangubat is filed on time

RULING:
Page 37 of 64
Petitioner Henry Oaminal filed a complaint for collection
1. NO. Rule 45 is not the proper remedy. (In this case, SC against Respondents Pablito and Guia Castillo with the RTC of
brushed aside technicalities and treated this petition as Ozamis City. The complaint prayed that respondents be
one under Rule 65. However, despite such, the petition is ordered to pay P1,500,000.00 by way of liquidated damages
still unmeritorious.) and P150,000.00 as attorney's fees.

Petitioner Wilson alleges abuse of discretion by the Court of Acting upon the merits of the case, the RTC rendered a
Appeals under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court when it acquitted decision in favor of petitioner, ordering respondents to pay
Ma. Lourdes Deutsch. At the outset, it should be recalled that P1,500,000 by way of liquidated damages and P20,000 by way
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 and the special of attorney’s fees
civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 are two separate and
distinct remedies. Respondents filed with the CA a Petition for certiorari,
prohibition and injunction, with a prayer for a writ of preliminary
Under Rule 45, a petition brings up for review errors of injunction or temporary restraining order (TRO). In the main,
judgment while a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 concerns they raised the issue of whether the trial court had validly
errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to acquired jurisdiction over them.
lack or excess of jurisdiction.
The CA issued a TRO to enjoin the RTC from issuing a writ of
Grave abuse of discretion is not an allowable ground under execution. CA also set aside trial court’s decision, as it did not
Rule 45. However, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule validly acquire jurisdiction over respondents, because the
45 may be considered as one for certiorari under Rule 65 of summons had been improperly served on them.
the Rules of Court, where it is alleged that the respondents
have abused their discretion in their questioned actions, as in Hence, this Petition.
this case.
Petitioner Oaminal contends that the certiorari Petition filed by
Generally, it is the OSG who can bring actions on behalf of the respondents before the CA was improper, because other
state in criminal proceedings, before the Supreme Court and/or remedies in the ordinary course of law were available to them.
the Court of Appeals. Thus, he argues that the CA erred when it took cognizance of
and granted the Petition
In People vs. Santiago, however, we said the action must be
filed in the name of the private complainant and not of the ISSUE: Whether respondents' recourse to a Petition for
People of the Philippines. Certiorari was appropriate when the remedy of appeal was
available?
For the purpose of expeditious but inexpensive disposition of
the case, and granting that Wilson has sufficient interest as a RULING: YES. In this case, recourse to a Petition for Certiorari
"person aggrieved" to file the special civil action of certiorari was appropriate when the remedy of appeal was available.
under Rule 65, we shall consider the allegations in her petition,
pursuant to the underlying spirit of liberal construction of the Well-settled is the rule that certiorari will lie only when a court
rules. Brushing technicalities aside, however, even if we treat has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave
this petition as one under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the abuse of discretion. As a condition for the filing of a petition for
conclusion in our view is the same: the petition is without merit. certiorari, Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
additionally requires that "no appeal nor any plain, speedy and
2. NO. The petition filed by Demeterio and Mangubat is not adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law" must be
filed on time available. It is axiomatic that the availability of the right of
appeal precludes recourse to the special civil action for
A perusal of the statement of material dates in the said petition certiorari
indicates that the petitioners received a copy of the CA
decision as early as November 25, 1997. However, they filed Here, the trial court's judgment was a final Decision that
their Motion, for Reconsideration 4 months from the receipt of disposed of the case. It was therefore a fit subject of an
the decision, way beyond 15 days' period within which to file a appeal. However, instead of appealing the Decision,
motion for reconsideration or an appeal by certiorari under respondents filed a Petition for certiorari
Rule 45.
Be that as it may, a petition for certiorari may be treated as a
Comparatively, a party is given 60 days to petition for certiorari petition for review under Rule 45. Such move is in accordance
under Rule 65. It is clear, therefore, that the decision of the with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the
Court of Appeals has long become final and executory as interest of substantial justice, especially (1) if the petition was
against Demetrio Mangubat. For they allowed 120 days to filed within the reglementary period for filing a petition for
lapse before they filed their motion for reconsideration. Thus, review; (2) errors of judgment are averred; and (3) there is
denial of their petition is in order. Clearly, they have lost their sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules. Besides, it
remedy of appeal. Moreover, after going over the is axiomatic that the nature of an action is determined by the
allegations of the complaint or petition and the character of the
HENRY S. OAMINAL vs. PABLITO M. CASTILLO and GUIA relief sought.
S. CASTILLO
[G.R. No. 152776. October 8, 2003. PANGANIBAN, J.] The present case satisfies all the above requisites. The
Petition for certiorari before the CA was filed within the
FACTS: reglementary period of appeal. A review of the records shows
that respondents filed their Petition, four days after they had
Page 38 of 64
received the RTC Decision. Verily, there were still 11 days to But, to reiterate, the CA does not exercise jurisdiction over
go before the lapse of the period for filing an appeal. Aside appeals from the RTC which raise purely a question of law.
from charging grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction, Appeals of this nature should be elevated to the Supreme
they likewise assigned as errors of the RTC's allegedly Court. Petitioner should have filed directly with this Court a
unconscionable and iniquitous award of liquidated damages. petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
We find the latter issue particularly significant, considering that Court. But it chose to file its notice of appeal to the Court of
the trial court awarded P1,500,000 as liquidated damages Appeals. Accordingly, the appellate court did not err in
without the benefit of a hearing and out of an obligation dismissing petitioner's appeal.
impugned by respondents because of petitioner's failure to
pay. Hence, there are enough reasons to treat the Petition for IMMACULATE CONCEPTION ACADEMY/ DR. JOSE
certiorari as a petition for review PAULO E. CAMPOS vs. EVELYN E. CAMILON
[G.R. No. 188035. July 2, 2014. VILLARAMA, JR., J.]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS. vs. CA, Robert Peuker and Ma.
Luz Trumpeta Esmeralda
[G.R. No. 119393. April 26, 2000] FACTS:

FACTS: Petitioner Immaculate Conception Academy (ICA) is an


educational corporation where respondent Evelyn Camilon was
Private respondents filed with the RTC a petition entitled, "In an employee of ICA for 12 years
the Matter of the Petition for Correction of entry in the Birth
Certificate of the Minor Child Michael Esmeralda Peuker, The ICA's Treasurer, Shirley Enobal, received a complaint from
Robert Peuker and Maria Luz Trumpeta Esmeralda, the father of one student who claimed that his son was denied
petitioners" issuance of an examination permit for nonpayment of tuition
fees despite the fact that the said fees had already been paid
The RTC granted the petition and ordered the Local Civil
Registrar of Mandaluyong to correct the record of birth of Petitioner Campos placed respondent under suspension
Michael Esmeralda Pueker by deleting the entry which states: pending investigation of the case in light of her duties and
“May 1, 1980 - Pres. Roxas, Capiz'” under "Date and Place of responsibilities as Chief Accountant of ICA
Marriage of Parents".
Respondent Camilon denied any involvement in the
Believing that the trial court's judgment is contrary to law and irregularities committed and claimed that she had no intention
evidence, the OSG filed a notice of appeal to the Court of of profiting at the expense of the school or of betraying the
Appeals. Petitioner contended that the trial court committed trust reposed on her by the corporation.
serious error and grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing
the petition for correction of entry for lack of merit and want of Petitioners terminated the services of respondent after finding
jurisdiction. It averred that the lower court did not acquire that respondent was negligent and remiss in her duties as the
jurisdiction over the petition as it is defective in form and superior officer
substance for failure to implead the local civil registrar, and for
lack of publication. Respondent Camilon filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and
other money claims against petitioners
The CA dismissed petitioner's appeal. The appellate court
ruled that the appeal should have been addressed to the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision declaring ICA guilty of illegal
Supreme Court, considering that what was being raised was dismissal since petitioners failed to present substantial
only a question of law. evidence to prove that respondent has been negligent in her
duties as Chief Accountant.
Undaunted, OSG filed the instant petition, alleging that the
appellate court gravely erred in dismissing its appeal Petitioners appealed the decision of the Labor Arbiter to the
NLRC. NLRC reversed the decision of the LA finding
ISSUE: Whether or not OSG erred in filing a notice of appeal respondent's dismissal and preventive suspension legal
before the Court of Appeals
Respondent Camilon appealed to the CA
RULING: YES. OSG erred in filing a notice of appeal before
the CA The CA rendered a Decision affirming the ruling of the NLRC
but with the modification that petitioners are held liable to pay
The resolution of said issue does not require an evaluation of separation pay to respondent.
proof but on a consideration of the applicable legal provisions
and case law. Not agreeing with the ruling, petitioners filed the present
petition claiming that the CA erred in awarding separation pay
We agree with the appellate court's ruling that if an appeal is to respondent who was dismissed because of her gross and
taken from the RTC to the CA and appellant raises only a habitual negligence, a more serious offense than mere
question of law, the appeal should be dismissed for lack of inefficiency at work. Petitioners assert that respondent is not
jurisdiction. The reason is that issues purely of law are entitled to separation pay since her negligence resulted in a
exclusively reviewable by this Court. substantial amount of loss and destruction of official receipts
and schools records. Petitioners also claim that separation pay
In the case at bar, the procedure resorted to by petitioner is cannot be justified on the basis of respondent's length of
incorrect. Petitioner merely filed a notice of appeal which is service considering the gravity of the offense committed.
directed to the CA, and raised therein only a question of law.
Page 39 of 64
ISSUE: Whether or not Respondent Evelyn Camilon is entitled Aggrieved, Van der Kolk appealed the MTCC decision before
to affirmative relief. the RTC, Branch 32, Calbayog City. Counsel for Van der Kolk
received the notice of the RTC Clerk of Court requiring her to
RULING: NO. Evelyn Camilon is not entitled to affirmative file a memorandum on appeal within 15 days from such
relief. receipt. The RTC issued the Order dismissing the appeal for
failure of Van de Kolk to file the memorandum on appeal within
Prefatorily, we note that respondent Evelyn Camilon did not the period mandated by the Rules of Court. It added that the
appeal or file a petition for certiorari to assail the decision of right to appeal is a statutory privilege and one who seeks to
the CA which affirmed the ruling of the NLRC finding her avail the same must comply with the requirements of the
grossly and habitually negligent in her duties for failing to statute or rules. Van der Kolk’s motion for reconsideration of
regularly pre-audit the school cashier's report, check the the above order was denied by the RTC for lack of merit.
entries therein and keep the custody of the petty cash fund
which negligence resulted in the school cashier's Unfazed, Van der Kolk filed a petition for review under Rule 42
misappropriation of school funds and students' tuition fees. before the CA. The CA rendered the assailed decision granting
the not raised petition “on grounds not raised herein but
It is axiomatic that a party who does not appeal or file a petition disclosed by the records." It stated that the MTCC erred in
for certiorari is not entitled to any affirmative relief. An appellee granting the reliefs prayed for by the Heirs of Yabao because
who is not an appellant may assign errors in his brief where his they were not warranted by their complaint.
purpose is to maintain the judgment but he cannot seek
modification or reversal of the judgment or claim affirmative
relief unless he has also appealed. Thus, for failure of The motion for reconsideration filed by the Heirs of Yabao was
respondent to assail the validity of her dismissal, such ruling is denied by the CA in its Resolution. Hence, this petition.
no longer in issue.
Issue: Whether the appellate court can render a decision
Regarding the main issue, whether or not a validly dismissed based on the grounds not raised or assigned as errors
employee is entitled to separation pay, the Supreme Court
ruled in favor of ICA. Separation pay should not be conceded Ruling: Yes.
to the dismissed employee based on gross and habitual
neglect of duty. The Court has allowed the consideration of other grounds not
raised or assigned as errors in several instances. In the case
HEIRS OF PACIANO YABAO, Represented by REMEDIOS
of Manila International Airport Authority v. Rivera Village
CHAN vs. PAZ LENTEJAS VAN DER KOLK Lessee Homeowners Association, Incorporated, the Court
G.R. No. 207266 June 25, 2014 enumerated such instances. Thus:
QUICK SUMMARY:
A complaint for ownership and possession was filed by For instance, the Court has allowed the consideration of other
petitioner against the respondent before the MTCC. MTCC grounds not raised or assigned as errors specifically in the
declared the respondent in default. Thereafter, respondent following instances: (1) grounds not assigned as errors but
appealed the MTCC decision before the RTC. The RTC affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) matters not
dismissed the appeal. Respondent filed a petition for assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical
review under Rule 42 before the CA. The CA granted the errors within the contemplation of the law; (3) matters not
petition on grounds not raised by the respondent. SC ruled that assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is
the Court has allowed the consideration of other grounds not necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution
raised or assigned as errors in several instances. In the of the case or to serve the interest of justice or to avoid
present case, the several errors committed by the MTCC, dispensing piecemeal justice; (4) matters not specifically
justify the reversal of its decision. assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and
are matters of record having some bearing on the issue
Facts: submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower
The case traces its roots to the complaint for ownership and court ignored; (5) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but
possession filed by the Heirs of the late Paciano Yabao (Heirs closely related to an error assigned; and (6) matters not
of Yabao), represented by Remedios Chan, before the MTCC assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination
of Calbayog City (MTCC),against Paz Lentejas Van der Kolk of a question properly assigned is dependent.
(Van der Kolk).
In the case at bench, the Court agrees with the observation,
Van der Kolk filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint. She analysis and conclusion of the CA. The several errors
contended that the predecessors-in-interest of the Heirs of committed by the MTCC, which when taken collectively, justify
Yabao had executed a joint affidavit, wherein they renounced the reversal of its December 4, 2006 Decision.
their hereditary rights over the subject lot and declared that
Faustina Yabao, mother of Van der Kolk, as its true owner. The Court agrees with the CA that the MTCC erred when it
granted the reliefs prayed by the Heirs of Yabao because the
The MTCC issued a Resolution denying the motion to dismiss same were not warranted by the allegations in the complaint.
and holding that there was proper service of summons. In the case at bench, the respondents, as plaintiffs in the
Subsequently, the MTCC rendered its Decision, declaring Van MTCC, merely alleged that they are the heirs of Paciano
der Kolk in default giving the reason that her non-filing of an Yabao without presenting any proof why they are the latter’s
answer within the fresh 10-day period heirs and in what degree or capacity.

Page 40 of 64
K & G MINING CORPORATION vs. AMCI AND ZCMCI
G.R. No. 188364, February 11, 2015 KGMC’s letter-protest was eventually forwarded to the DENR
Panel of Arbitrators. The Panel of Arbitrators of the MGB ruled
QUICK SUMMARY: in favor of KGMC. They found that ZCMCI’s failure to file its
Claiming that the issuance and approval of Mineral Production MPSA proposal with the MGB-DENR made the approval of its
Sharing Agreement in favour of respondent was highly MPSA highly irregular.
irregular, petitioner filed a letter/protest with the Office of the
President. The Panel of Arbitrators of the MGB-DENR ruled in On appeal, however, the MAB reversed the ruling of the Panel
favor of petitioner. On appeal, however, the MAB reversed the of Arbitrators of the MGB. According to the MAB, Article 3,
ruling of the Panel of Arbitrators of the MGB. Petitioner filed paragraph 3.5(b) of DAO 1989-57 did not expressly prohibit the
before the CA a Petition for Extension of Time to File Petition direct filing of an MPSA proposal before the MGB Central
for Certiorari. However, the CA denied extension for its filing Office. Aggrieved, KGMC moved for reconsideration but its
has already prescribed. SC ruled that the perfection of an motion was denied in the MAB Resolution.
appeal within the period and in the manner prescribed by law is
jurisdictional and non-compliance with such legal requirements KGMC filed before the CA a Petition for Extension of Time to
is fatal and has the effect of rendering the judgment final and File Petition for Certiorari. However, the CA denied extension
executory. for the reason that decisions of the MAB are appealable via a
petition for review under Rule 43 and not by way of a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65. Even assuming that certiorari is
Facts: an available remedy, the reglementary period for its filing has
Petitioner KGMC and respondents Acoje Mining Company already prescribed.
Incorporated (AMCI) and Zambales Chromite Mining Company
Incorporated (ZCMCI) are mining corporations. ZCMCI KGMC thereafter filed a Motion for Reconsideration and to
acquired the 60 mining and thereafter filed its application for Admit Petition. The CA denied reconsideration. Hence, the
patent and availment of rights and privileges over the mining present recourse.
claims which was approved by the Bureau of Mines.
Issue: Whether herein petitioner failed to timely file an appeal
ZCMCI entered into an operating agreement with AMCI over
the former’s 60 mining claims. Thereafter, a certain Dominador Ruling: Yes.
Ilagan registered with the DENR his mining claims and
assigned the same to KGMC.
KGMC faults its previous counsel in failing to timely file the
correct mode of appeal from the MAB resolutions and submits
The Mines and Geo-Sciences Bureau (MGB) informed ZCMCI
that it should be excused from the repercussions of his ensuing
that its application for mining lease should be converted into a
omissions as they amounted to gross negligence.
Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) in accordance
with E.O. No. 279.
“It is settled rule that the mistake of a counsel binds the client.”
KGMC filed its letter of intent to avail for itself an MPSA before While there is a recognized exception to the rule that is - where
the MGB of Region III over its mining claims. Three months the lawyer’s negligence was so gross that it results in the grave
thereafter, ZCMCI submitted documents in support of an injustice of depriving his client of the due process of law51 - it is
MPSA application. The technical committee submitted its inapplicable to the present case.
Memorandum recommending that ZCMCI be allowed to apply
for an MPSA. First, a counsel’s failure to perfect an appeal within the
reglementary period is simple negligence. It is not one as
The DENR Secretary issued Department Administrative Order gross, palpable, and reckless as to deprive a party of its day in
No. 82, series of 1990 (DAO 1990-82), providing the court.
procedural guidelines on the award of MPSA through
negotiation. ZCMCI, AMCI and the government, represented Second, in cases where the counsel’s negligence consisted of
by the DENR Secretary, executed an MPSA covering ZCMCI’s his failure to timely file an appeal, any alleged deprivation of
60 mining claims with an approximate area of 540 ha. The due process is negated by the fact that the client had the
MPSA was approved by the Office of the President (OP). opportunity to be heard or was actually heard in the lower
tribunal. This was the ruling in Building Care
Claiming that the issuance and approval of the above MPSA Corporation/Leopard Security & Investigation Agency v.
was highly irregular, KGMC filed a letter/protest with the OP. Macaraeg53 where the Court found no deprivation of due
KGMC claimed that the area covered by the subject MPSA is process because the client was able to fully present and argue
not available since 540 ha thereof is in conflict with KGMC’s her case before the Labor Arbiter (LA). She was accorded the
Prospecting Permit Application covering a total area of 486 opportunity to be heard and thus her failure to appeal the LA’s
ha. KGMC claimed to have been denied of due process decision cannot be deemed as a deprivation of her right to due
because no publication of ZCMCI and AMCI’s MPSA was ever process.
made thus depriving it an opportunity to file an adverse claim.
KGMC was not deprived of due process. So long as a party is
KGMC sought the disapproval of the subject MPSA and its given the opportunity to advocate her cause or defend her
remand to the concerned DENR Regional Office so that its interest in due course, it cannot be said that there was denial
protest and adverse claim can be resolved. On the other hand, of due process. Records show that the case took its regular
ZCMCI wrote to the DENR Secretary stating that the MPSA course in lower tribunals. KGMC had the opportunity to be
has already become final and executory upon its approval by heard, was so heard and actively participated, in the
the President. proceedings before the Panel of Arbitrators and the MAB.
Page 41 of 64
Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Moreover, it is an established doctrine that the perfection of an Procedure provides:
appeal within the period and in the manner prescribed by law is
jurisdictional and non-compliance with such legal requirements Sec. 3. Contents and filing of
is fatal and has the effect of rendering the judgment final and petition; effect of non-compliance with
executory. requirements. The petition shall contain the
full names and actual addresses of all the
RULE 46: ORIGINAL CASES petitioners and respondents, a concise
statement of the matters involved, the factual
LEOPOLDO V. MENDOZA v. CA and MERCHANDISING background of the case, and the grounds
INSPECTION COMPANY, LTD. relied upon for the relief prayed for.
G.R. No. 148505, February 20, 2007 xxx
The petitioner shall pay the
QUICK SUMMARY: corresponding docket and other lawful
Petitioner filed with the NLRC a complaint for constructive fees to the clerk of court and deposit the
dismissal and non-payment of backwages against respondent. amount of P500.00 for costs at the time of
LA found that petitioner was illegally dismissed. NLRC set the filing of the petition.
aside the judgment of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed The failure of the petitioner to
petitioner’s complaint. Petitioner filed with the CA a petition for comply with any of the foregoing
certiorari. The CA dismissed the petition for petitioner’s failure requirements shall be sufficient ground
to pay the docket and other legal fees. SC ruled that a court for the dismissal of the
cannot acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case petition. (Underscoring supplied)
unless the docket fees are paid and non-compliance warrants
the dismissal of a petition. Thus, a court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the subject
matter of a case unless the docket fees are paid. It is clear that
Facts: non-compliance with any of the requirements stated above
Petitioner, alleged in his petition that he was employed as a warrants the dismissal of a petition.
checker by the Overseas Merchandising Inspection Company
Ltd., private respondent. However, for a period of time, While the Rules of Court must be faithfully followed, however,
respondent company did not give him any work assignment they may be relaxed for persuasive and weighty reasons to
due to his union activities. Thus, he filed with the Arbitration relieve a litigant from an injustice commensurate with his
Branch, NLRC, a complaint for constructive dismissal and non- failure to comply with the prescribed procedures. In the instant
payment of backwages. case, however, petitioner has not shown any reason which
justifies relaxation of the Rules.
For its part, respondent company denied the allegations in the
complaint, claiming that petitioner showed disinterest in his It bears stressing that procedural rules are not to be belittled or
work and stopped reporting to the office. Nonetheless, he dismissed simply because their non-observance may have
received his salary and bonus. prejudiced a partys substantive rights. Like all rules, they are
required to be followed except only for the most persuasive
Labor Arbiter Facundo Leda promulgated a Decision of reasons when they may be relaxed. Not one of these
dismissing the charge for unfair labor practice but finding exceptions is present here.
that petitioner was illegally dismissed.
Moreover, petitioner resorted to the wrong remedy. What he
Respondent company then interposed an appeal to the should have filed with this Court is a petition for review on
NLRC. In its Decision, the NLRC set aside the judgment of the certiorari pursuant to Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of
Labor Arbiter and dismissed petitioner’s complaint. Petitioner Civil Procedure, as amended, not a petition for certiorari under
filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the Rule 65 of the same Rules.
NLRC.
DR. ISABELITA VITAL-GOZON, in her official capacity as
Thereupon, petitioner filed with the CA a petition for certiorari. MEDICAL CENTER CHIEF OF THE NATIONAL CHILDREN'S
The appellate court promulgated its Resolution dismissing the HOSPITAL vs.CA and DR. ALEJANDRO S. DE LA FUENTE.
petition for petitioner’s failure to pay the docket and other legal G.R. No. 101428 August 5, 1992
fees.
QUICK SUMMARY:
In his motion for reconsideration, petitioner alleged that when Respondent, considering his re-appointment as a demotion,
he filed the petition through registered mail, he filed a protest to DOH which was ignored. Thereafter, he
enclosed P1,030.00 in cash as docket fee. He thus prayed that brought his case to the CSC. CSC ruled in favour of
he be allowed to pay once more the docketing fee so required. respondent and decided that his transfer is illegal. The
The Court of Appeals issued a Resolution denying petitioners judgment was not enforced hence, respondent instituted in the
motion. Hence, this petition. CA an action of mandamus to compel petitioner to comply with
the final and executory resolution of the CSC. The CA ordered
Issue: Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse petitioners to comply with the resolution. The Solicitor
of discretion when it dismissed his petition for his failure to pay General's Office had instituted the special civil action
the required docket fees. of certiorari at bar. It contends that the CA is not legally
competent to take cognizance of and decide the question of
Ruling: No. damages in a mandamus suit. SC ruled that the courts have
power to try and decide claims for moral, exemplary and other
Page 42 of 64
classes of damages accompanying any of the types or kinds of competent to take cognizance of and decide the question of
cases falling within their specified jurisdiction. damages in a mandamus suit.

Facts: Issue: Whether or not the CA has jurisdiction, in a special civil


action of mandamus against a public officer, to take
In 1987, a reorganization of the various offices of the Ministry cognizance of the matter of damages sought to be recovered
of Health commenced. At the time of the reorganization, Dr. from the defendant officer
Alejandro S. de la Fuente was the Chief of the Clinics of the
National Children's Hospital. Dr. de la Fuente received notice Ruling: Yes.
from the Department of Health that he would be re-appointed
"Medical Specialist II." Considering this is to be a demotion, Dr.
de la Fuente filed a protest with the DOH Reorganization The Solicitor General's Office correctly identifies Section 9,
Board. When his protest was ignored, he brought his case to B.P. 129 as the legal provision specifying the original and
the Civil Service Commission. appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. The Solicitor
General's Office evidently searched said Section 9 for an
explicit and specific statement regarding "actions for moral and
Dr. de la Fuente's case was decided by the Civil Service exemplary damages," and finding none, concluded that the
Commission in a Resolution wherein it was declared that the Court of Appeals had not been granted competence to assume
demotion/transfer of de la Fuente, Jr. from Chief of Clinics to cognizance of claims for such damages. The conclusion is
Medical Specialists II is illegal. incorrect. Section 19, governing the exclusive original
jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts in civil cases, contains no
De la Fuente thereupon sent letters to Dr. Vital-Gozon, the reference whatever to claims "for moral and exemplary
Medical Center Chief of National Children's Hospital, however, damages," and indeed does not use the word "damages" at all;
no one in the DOH Legal Department bothered to reply to Dr. yet it is indisputable that said courts have power to try and
de la Fuente. decide claims for moral, exemplary and other classes of
damages accompanying any of the types or kinds of cases
Three months having elapsed without any word from Vital- falling within their specified jurisdiction. The Solicitor General's
Gozon, Dr. de la Fuente repaired to the CSC and asked it to theory that the rule in question is a mere procedural
enforce its judgment. He was however "told to file in court a one allowing joinder of an action of mandamus and another for
petition for mandamus because of the belief that the damages, is untenable, for it implies that a claim for damages
Commission had no coercive powers — unlike a court — to arising from the omission or failure to do an act subject of
enforce its final decisions/resolutions. a mandamus suit may be litigated separately from the latter,
the matter of damages not being inextricably linked to the
cause of action for mandamus, which is certainly not the case.
So he instituted in the Court of Appeals an action of
"mandamus and damages with preliminary injunction" to
compel Vital-Gozon, and the Administrative Officer, Budget NARCISO ZAPANTA, EDILBERTO CAPULONG AND
Officer and Cashier of the NCH to comply with the final and CLARITA CAPULONG vs.CO KING KI
executory resolution of the CSC. G.R. No. 191694 December 3, 2014

QUICK SUMMARY
The CA required the respondents to answer. However, no Respondent filed a Complaint for Ejectment against petitioners.
answer was filed. About a month afterwards, de la Fuente filed The Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) rendered
with the same Court a "Supplemental/Amended Petition". The a Decision in favour of respondent, declaring petitioners as
second petition described as one for "quo warranto" aside from illegal occupants and not tenants of the subject property. The
"mandamus". The Appellate Court promulgated its judgment PARAD denied the notice of appeal filed by petitioners for
and ordered that petitioners, particularly Dr. Isabelita Vital- having been filed out of time. Aggrieved, petitioners, filed a
Gozon, to comply with the resolution. But de la Fuente's prayer petition for certiorari before the CA which was dismissed
for damages was denied by the Court of Appeals on the because petitioners failed to append a clearly legible duplicate
ground that the petitions (for mandamus) are not the vehicle original/certified true copy of the assailed PARAD Order. SC
nor is the Court the forum for claim of damages. ruled that the requirements for perfecting an appeal must, as a
rule, be strictly followed. Failure to perfect the appeal renders
It was de la Fuente who sought reconsideration of the the judgment of the court final and executory.
judgment. He insisted that the Appellate Court had
competence to award damages in a mandamus action. Facts:

The Court of Appeals promulgated a Resolution, resolving de Respondent Co King Ki (respondent), filed a Complaint for
la Fuente's motion for reconsideration, the Court ordered Ejectment against petitioners, Ernesto, Marciano and one
setting a date for reception of evidence on de la Fuente’s claim Lawrence Smith (defendants) before the Provincial Agrarian
for damages. It based its judgment on Section 3, Rule 65 of the Reform Adjudicator (PARAD). Respondent alleged that he is
Rules of Court, which allows the award of damages in a the owner of a parcel of land located at Lubao, Pampanga.
mandamus petition.
The defendants filed their Answer with Compulsory
In an attempt to nullify the adverse dispositions of the CA, the Counterclaim, averring, among others, that they are qualified
Solicitor General's Office had instituted the special civil action farmer beneficiaries of the subject property and that
of certiorari at bar. It contends that the CA is not legally

Page 43 of 64
respondent was no longer the owner thereof as same was litigation; they help provide a vital system of justice where
already foreclosed by the Philippine Veterans Bank. suitors may be heard following judicial procedure and in the
correct forum. Public order and our system of justice are well
The Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) rendered served by a conscientious observance by the parties of the
a Decision in favor of respondent, declaring defendants as procedural rules.
illegal occupants and not tenants of the subject property, and
directing them to vacate the same. Defendants filed their REICON REALTY BUILDERS CORP. vs. DIAMOND
Motion for Reconsideration which the RARAD denied. DRAGON REALTY AND MANAGEMENT, INC.
[G.R. No. 204796. Feb. 4, 2015. PERLAS-BERNABE, J.]
Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal. The PARAD denied the
notice of appeal filed by defendants for having been filed out of FACTS:
time.
Reicon is the owner of a parcel of land whereby it leased the
subject property to Diamond Dragon for a 20 years pursuant to
Defendants sought reconsideration of the September 18, 2008 a lease contract.
Order while respondent moved for the execution of the
Decision. The PARAD denied the defendants’ Motion for Diamond failed to pay the monthly rentals due. This prompted
Reconsideration and granted respondent’s Motion for Reicon to demand the payment of the accrued rentals and
Execution. terminate the lease contract.

Aggrieved, petitioners, together with Ernesto and Marciano, Diamond filed a complaint for breach of contract with damages
filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. The CA issued a against Reicon alleging that the Contract did not provide for its
Resolution, dismissing the petition for certiorari because unilateral termination by either of the parties.
petitioners failed to append a clearly legible duplicate
original/certified true copy of the assailed PARAD Order in Reicon filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds
violation of Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil (1) lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and (2)
Procedure, as amended. The CA denied petitioners’ motion for that Diamond lack of legal capacity to sue as a juridical person
reconsideration. Hence, this petition. having its certificate of registration revoked by the SEC

Issue: Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for Diamond argued that improper service is not a ground to
certiorari on the basis of a strict application of Section 3, dismiss its complaint. And, it has legal capacity to sue.
Rule46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Moreover, it claimed that its legal existence cannot be attacked
except in a quo warranto petition.
Ruling: No. The RTC ruled that Diamond's legal existence can only be
impugned in aquo warranto proceeding.
Petitioners appeal for the liberal construction of the rules
because they will suffer insurmountably if the case would be Reicon filed its MR which was denied
dismissed based on a technicality. We deny the petition.
Aggrieved, Reicon elevated the matter to the CA via petition for
certiorari taken under Rule 65 of the Rules, ascribing grave
While it is true that when an appeal is filed, the approval of a
abuse of discretion upon Presiding Judge Quinagoran of the
notice of appeal is a ministerial duty of the court or tribunal
RTC in not dismissing Diamond's complaint on the grounds
which rendered the decision, it is required, however, that said
discussed in Reicon's motion to dismiss, particularly the issue
appeal must have been filed on time. It bears reiterating that
respecting Diamond's lack of legal capacity to sue.
appeal is not a constitutional right, but a mere statutory
privilege. Thus, parties who seek to avail themselves of it must
The CA required Reicon to show cause as to why its petition
comply with the statutes or rules allowing it. Perfection of an
for certiorari should not be dismissed for its failure to acquire
appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is
jurisdiction over the person of Diamond, as private respondent,
mandatory and jurisdictional. The requirements for perfecting
as required under Section 4, Rule 46 of the Rules.
an appeal must, as a rule, be strictly followed. Such
requirements are considered indispensable interdictions
In its Compliance, Reicon stated that the address "Suite 305,
against needless delays and are necessary for the orderly
AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Avenue corner Garnet
discharge of the judicial business. Failure to perfect the appeal
Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City" was Diamond's address on
renders the judgment of the court final and executory. Just as a
record in the civil case from which the certiorari petition
losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the
originated. From the institution thereof up to the filing of
prescribed period, so does the winner also have the correlative
Reicon's petition before the CA, Diamond has not submitted
right to enjoy the finality of the decision.
any paper or pleading notifying the RTC of any change in its
address. As such, Reicon maintained that the service of its
Time and again, we held that rules of procedure exist for a petition to Diamond's address as above-indicated should be
noble purpose, and to disregard such rules, in the guise of deemed effective.
liberal construction, would be to defeat such purpose.
Procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere technicalities. The CA dismissed Reicon's certiorari petition without passing
They may not be ignored to suit the convenience of a party. upon its merits based on the grounds of non-compliance with
Adjective law ensures the effective enforcement of substantive the requirements of proof of service of the petition on Diamond
rights through the orderly and speedy administration of justice. pursuant to Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules
Rules are not intended to hamper litigants or complicate
Page 44 of 64
At that time, Ana Aquino and the administrator well knew that
ISSUE: Whether or not Reicon's certiorari petition before the the petitioner, Florencia Anuran, was the surviving spouse of
CA was properly served upon the person of Diamond. Ambrosio Aquino.

RULING: YES. Reicon's certiorari petition before the CA was The court authorized and approved the delivery of all property
properly served upon the person of Diamond. of the estate to the alleged sole heir, Ana Aquino
A punctilious review of the records, particularly of the certiorari
Florencia only knew of the intestate proceeding sometime
petition filed by Reicon before the CA, shows that it contains
the registry numbers corresponding to the registry receipts as after. She entered her appearance in the administration
well as the affidavit of service and/or filing of the person who proceedings and moved that the order be set aside, and that
filed and served the petition via registered mail on behalf of she be declared the sole heir of the deceased.
Reicon. These imply that a copy of Reicon's certiorari petition
had been served to the RTC as well as to Diamond through its Motion to set aside judgment has been denied by the probate
address at "Suite 305 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB court on the ground that the alleged fraudulent order had been
Avenue corner Garnet Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City," in entered more than six months prior to the date of the motion.
compliance with Section 13, Rule 13 of the Rules on proof of Hence, the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the motion to
service as well as with Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 46 above- set it aside
quote
Florencia promptly instituted this separate action, wherein the
On this score, the Court notes that Diamond declared the
trial court after declaring the order null and void, in that it had
aforesaid address as its business address in its complaint
before the RTC, and that there is dearth of evidence to show been procured by fraudulent
that it had since changed its address or had moved out.
Hence, Reicon cannot be faulted for adopting the said address Respondent opposed to the separate action on the ground of
in serving a copy of its certiorari petition to Diamond in light of res judicata and prescription
the requirement under Sections 3 and 4, Rule 46 of the Rules
as above-cited, which merely entails service of the petition ISSUE: Whether or not the separate action is barred by res
upon the respondent itself, not upon his counsel. judicata and prescription

The underlying rationale behind this rule is that a certiorari RULING: YES. The separate action is not barred by res
proceeding is, by nature, an original and independent action, judicata and prescription
and, therefore not considered as part of the trial that had
resulted in the rendition of the judgment or order complained
As to the contention of the Ana Aquino on prescription of this
of. Hence, at the preliminary point of serving the certiorari
action, it is a sufficient answer to say that the evidence clearly
petition, as in other initiatory pleadings, it cannot be said that
an appearance for respondent has been made by his counsel. discloses that it was instituted promptly and without
unreasonable delay after the discovery of the fraud perpetrated
Thus, the CA erred when it dismissed Reicon's certiorari by the defendant, acting in collusion with the administrator, and
petition outright for noncompliance with Section 3, Rule 46 of within less than three years from the date of the entry of the
the Rules as well as the rule on service upon a party through order. Section 3 of Rule 47 provides that "An action for relief on
counsel under Section 2, Rule 13 of the Rules. The service of the ground of fraud" must be brought within four years after the
said pleading upon the person of the respondent, and not upon right of action accrues, "but the right of action in such cases
his counsel, is what the rule properly requires, as in this case. shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery of the
fraud."
RULE 47: ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENTS OR FINAL
ORDERS AND RESOLUTIONS On the contention of res judicata, the court finds that the
dismissal of the motion cannot be relied upon to sustain a
FLORENCIA ANURAN vs. ANA AQUINO and RUFINA contention that the question of the validity and legality of the
ORTIZ original order is res ad judicata.
[G.R. No. 12397. April 2, 1918.CARSON, J.]
The courts have inherent plenary power over their own
FACTS: judgments until they become final in the sense that they are
unappealable and subject to execution as of right at the
Petitioner Florencia Anuran, is the widow of Ambrosio Aquino. instance of the prevailing party; but that thereafter no court has
Defendant Ana Aquino, on the other hand, is the natural child inherent power to alter, amend or vacate such a judgment in
of the sister of deceased Ambrosio Aquino order to correct errors of law or fact, other than mere clerical
errors.
On the death of Ambrosio Aquino, one Norberto Capina was
appointed administrator of his intestate estate. In the course of Other apparent exceptions were limited to cases wherein
the administration proceedings the sister of the deceased, Ana judgments were vacated on the ground that they were void
Aquino, acted in collusion with the administrator, fraudulently because of lack of jurisdiction or irregularity in their entry
represented to the court that Ambrosio Aquino had died apparent on the face of the record, or because vitiated by
intestate, leaving no heirs other than herself. fraud.

Page 45 of 64
It is well settled that equity will enjoin a party from enforcing a 1. Whether or not the fraud alleged was extrinsic to
judgment which he has obtained by means of fraud. Fraud will warrant the invalidation of a final judgment
vitiate a judgment, and a court of equity may declare it a nullity. 2. Whether or not a judgment otherwise final may be
This form of relief is expressly recognized in section 2, Rule 47 annulled not only on the ground of extrinsic fraud but
of Rules of Court also of lack of jurisdiction

There is no other means whereby the defeated party may


procure final and executory judgment to be set aside with a RULING:
view to the renewal of the litigation, unless (a) the judgment is
void for want of jurisdiction or for lack of due process of law, or 1. NO. Fraud alleged was not extrinsic to warrant the
(b) it has been obtained by fraud. Lack of due process and invalidation of a final judgment
fraud are the grounds, which justify the decision of the probate
court a nullity. Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing
party in the litigation which is committed outside of the trial of
ANTONIO DEMETRIOU, ET AL. vs. CA, HON. JUDGE the case, whereby the defeated party has been prevented from
RHODIE A. NIDEA, and HILDA RALLA-ALMINE exhibiting fully his side of the case, by fraud or deception
[G.R. No. 115595. Nov. 14, 1994. MENDOZA, J.] practiced on him by his opponent

FACTS: Intrinsic fraud takes the form of "acts of a party in a litigation


during the trial such as the use of forged or false document or
Petitioners are the co-owners of the disputed property. They perjured testimony, which did not affect the presentation of the
acquired two-thirds of the Property from Miriam Catherine case, but did prevent a fair and just determination of the case"
Ralla by virtue of two deeds of absolute sale.
The use of the alleged false affidavit of loss by private
That at the time of the sale of the Property to the petitioners, respondent is similar to the use during trial or forged
there was a ten-year lease contract over the property which instruments or perjured testimony.
was scheduled to expire on 15 July 1991, for this reason, the
petitioners decided to await the termination of the lease before The use of a forged instrument constituted only intrinsic fraud
registering the sale and obtaining a new title in their name for while perhaps it prevented a fair and just determination of a
case, the use of such instrument or testimony did not prevent
After the expiration of the lease contract, father of petitioner the adverse party from presenting his case fully and fairly. In
learned from the Register of Deeds that by an order of Judge the case at bar, petitioners were not really kept out of the
Rhodie A. Nidea, the owner's duplicate copy in the possession proceedings because of the fraudulent acts of the private
of the petitioner had been declared of no further force and respondent. They could have rebutted or opposed the use of
effect and that a new second owner's duplicate copy of said the affidavit and shown its falsity since they were theoretically
title has been issued to the private respondent where she parties in the case to whom notice had been duly given.
falsely and fraudulently alleged that "the owner's duplicate
copy was lost and/or destroyed during the devastation brought 2. YES. A judgment otherwise final may be annulled not
by typhoon "Sisang" but in reality was in the possession of only on the ground of extrinsic fraud but also of lack of
petitioners jurisdiction

The RTC issued an order ordering the Register of Deeds to A judgment otherwise final may be annulled not only on the
issue a second owner's duplicate copy of transfer certificate. ground of extrinsic fraud but also because of lack of jurisdiction
Register of Deeds issued a new second owner's duplicate copy of the court which rendered it.
to the private respondent. This decision became final and
executory If a certificate of title has not been lost but is in fact in the
possession of another person, the reconstituted title is void and
Despite repeated demands by petitioners and despite the court rendering the decision has not acquired jurisdiction
protracted attempts at settlement, private respondent refused
to deliver or turn over to the petitioners the second owner's In case a certificate of title, considered lost or destroyed be
duplicate copy found or recovered, the same shall prevail over the
reconstituted certificate of title." It was, therefore, error for the
The CA ruled that the fraud alleged was, if at all, only intrinsic Court of Appeals to dismiss the petition for annulment of
and not extrinsic in character. An action to annul a final judgment of the petitioners.
judgment on the ground of fraud will lie only if the fraud is
extrinsic or collateral in character. CA dismissed the petition for MARCELINO ARCELONA, TOMASA ARCELONA-CHIANG
annulment of judgment of the petitioners. and RUTH ARCELONA vs. CA and MOISES FARNACIO
[G.R. No. 102900. Oct.2, 1997. PANGANIBAN, J]
Hence, this petition.
FACTS
ISSUES:

Page 46 of 64
Petitioners Marcelino Arcelona, Tomasa Arcelona-Chiang and As a rule, if a defendant has not been summoned, the court
Ruth Arcelona are natural-born Filipinos who are now acquires no jurisdiction over his person, and a personal
naturalized Americans residing in California, U.S.A. Together judgment rendered against such defendant is null and void. A
with their three sisters — Pacita Arcelona-Olanday, Maria decision that is null and void for want of jurisdiction on the part
Arcelona-Arellano and Natividad Arcelona-Cruz (hereinafter of the trial court is not a decision in the contemplation of law
collectively referred to as Olanday, et al.) are co-owners pro- and, hence, it can never become final and executory
indiviso of a fishpond which they inherited from their deceased
parents. Petitioners are co-owners of a fishpond. Private respondent
does not deny this fact, and the CA did not make any contrary
A contract of lease over the fishpond was executed between finding. The fishpond is undivided; it is impossible to pinpoint
Cipriano Tandoc and the Olanday, et.al. Private Respondent which specific portion of the property is owned by Olanday, et
Moises Farnacio was appointed in turn by Tandoc as caretaker al. and which portion belongs to petitioners. Thus, it is not
tenant of the same fishpond. After the termination of the lease possible to show over which portion the tenancy relation of
contract, the lessee (Tandoc) surrendered possession of the private respondent has been established and ruled upon in civil
leased premises to the lessors Olanday. case. Indeed, petitioners should have been properly impleaded
as indispensable parties
Private Respondent Farnacio instituted civil case "peaceful
possession, maintenance of security of tenure plus damages” A tenant, in an action to establish his status as such, must
against Olanday, et al., before the RTC RTC ruled in favor of implead all the pro-indiviso co-owners; in failing to do so, there
Respondent Farnacio. The Olanday et.al. elevated the case to can be no final determination of the action. In other words, a
IAC which affirmed the RTC decision. tenant who fails to implead all the co-owners cannot establish
with finality his tenancy over the entire co-owned land
Petitioners then filed with CA a petition for annulment of the
aforesaid judgment against private respondent and the Clearly, the decision of the RTC cannot bind petitioners and
implementing sheriff. CA ruled in favor of Farnacio. Hence, this cannot adjudicate the entire co-owned property, not even that
petition for review portion belonging to Olanday et al., ownership of the property
being still pro-indiviso. Obviously, the failure to implead
Petitioners contend that CA erred in decreeing that the sole petitioners barred the lower court from making a final
and only ground for annulment of judgment is extrinsic fraud, adjudication. Without the presence of indispensable parties to
and in thereby ignoring various Supreme Court rulings that a a suit or proceeding, a judgment therein cannot attain finality.
final judgment may also be annulled. Petitioners also argue
that, being co-owners of the subject property, they are Ergo, res inter alios judicatae nullum aliis praejudicarium
indispensable parties. Inasmuch as they were not impleaded in faciunt. A person who was not impleaded in the complaint
the civil case, the questioned judgment of the lower court is cannot be bound by the decision rendered therein, for no man
void insofar as the petitioners are concerned for want of shall be affected by a proceeding in which he is a stranger.
jurisdiction over their persons and for lack of due process.
Petitioners do not see any reason why a person who was not In American jurisprudence, the nullity of a decision arising from
made a party at all could not assail the same proceedings lack of jurisdiction may be determined from the record of the
involving his property and affecting his rights and interests. case, not necessarily from the face of the judgment only. We
believe that this rule should be applied to this case,
ISSUE: May a final judgment be annulled on the ground of lack considering that in the assailed trial court's decision, referrals
of jurisdiction (over the subject matter and/or over the person were made to crucial evidence which if scrutinized would
of indispensable parties) and denial of due process, aside from readily reveal that there were indispensable parties omitted.
extrinsic fraud?
In sum, we hold that the nullity of a judgment grounded on lack
RULING: YES. A final judgment may be annulled on the of jurisdiction may be shown not only by what patently appears
ground of lack of jurisdiction and denial of due process. on the face of such decision but also by documentary and
testimonial evidence found in the records of the case and upon
In the case of Macabingkil vs. People's Homesite and Housing which such judgment is based.
Corporation, the court held that to set aside a final and
executory judgment, there are three remedies available to a Equally important, the finding of estoppel and laches by CA is
litigant: first, a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of not supported by the evidence on record. The silence of
the Rules of Court 25 on grounds of fraud, accident, mistake petitioners can easily be explained by the fact that they were
and excusable negligence filed within sixty (60) days from the not in the country during the pendency of the subject civil case.
time petitioner learns of the judgment but not more than six Such absence from the country was never rebutted by private
(6) months from the entry thereof; second, a direct action to respondent. Even in the proceedings antecedent to this case
annul the judgment on the ground of extrinsic fraud; and third a before us now, petitioners were merely represented by their
direct action for certiorari or collateral attack to annul a attorney-in-fact. Moreover, they were not at all impleaded as
judgment that is void upon its face or void by virtue of its own parties in the judgment sought to be voided. Neither were they
recitals. properly served summons. The indelible fact is that they were
completely ignored.

Page 47 of 64
There is no laches nor finality of any decision to speak of since Petitioner filed a verified petition against the respondent with
the decision under question is herein pronounced null and void the CA under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, as amended, for
for having been rendered without jurisdiction. the annulment of the order of the RTC of Cavite in Special
Proceedings
Petitioners are not estopped from instituting this case.
Requisites of estoppel: a) lack of knowledge and of the means The petitioner alleged, inter alia, that the respondent
of knowledge of the truth as the facts in question; (b) reliance, committed gross misrepresentations in her address hence,
in good faith, upon the conduct or statements of the party to be deprived her of her right to be heard in the said case Thus,
estopped; and (c) action or inaction based thereon of such according to the petitioner, the order of the trial court in favor of
character as to change the position or status of the party the respondent was null and void (1) for lack of jurisdiction over
claiming the estoppel, to his injury, detriment, or prejudice. her person; and (2) due to the extrinsic fraud perpetrated by
the respondent.
The herein facts ineluctably show the absence of the first
element in this case. Inasmuch as there is no proof that The CA issued a Resolution dismissing stating that the
petitioners had knowledge of the pending tenancy case filed by ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or
private respondent, it is only fair that they should not be held in other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no
estoppel for failing to intervene in and to question the fault of petitioner. Neither is there any averment or allegation
jurisdiction of the trial court. that the present petition is based only on the grounds of
extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
Lastly, We hold that intervention is not the only remedy to
assail a void final judgment. There is no procedural rule The petitioner filed a motion for the reconsideration of the said
prescribing that petitioners' intervention in the hearing for the resolution, appending thereto an amended petition, which was
issuance of a writ is the only way to question a void final denied by the CA. Hence, a petition for review on certiorari with
judgment. As already stated, petitioners were not aware of this Court
such hearing. Besides, as already discussed, a direct action is
available in assailing final judgments grounded on extrinsic ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in
fraud, while a direct or a collateral action may be used to show dismissing the original petition and denying admission of the
lack of jurisdiction. amended petition

MARIETTA B. ANCHETA vs. RODOLFO S. ANCHETA RULING: YES. The Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the
[G.R. No. 145370. March 4, 2004. CALLEJO, SR., J.] original petition and denying admission of the amended
petition.
FACTS:
In a case where a petition for the annulment of a judgment or
Petitioner and respondent are married couple. In the final order of the RTC filed under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court
meantime, the respondent Rodolfo Ancheta intended to marry is grounded on lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
again. Respondent filed a petition with the RTC declaration of defendant/respondent or over the nature or subject of the
nullity of his marriage with the petitioner on the ground of action, the petitioner need not allege in the petition that the
psychological incapacity. ordinary remedy of new trial or reconsideration of the final
order or judgment or appeal therefrom are no longer available
Respondent well knew that the petitioner was already residing through no fault of her own. This is so because a judgment
at the resort Munting Paraiso in Bancal, Carmona, Cavite, he, rendered or final order issued by the RTC without jurisdiction is
nevertheless, alleged in his petition that the petitioner was null and void and may be assailed any time either collaterally
residing at No. 72 CRM Avenue corner CRM Corazon, BF or in a direct action or by resisting such judgment or final order
Homes, Almanza, Las Piñas, Metro Manila.” in any action or proceeding whenever it is invoked, unless
barred by laches
The clerk of court issued summons to the petitioner at the
address stated in the petition. The sheriff served the summons In this case, the original petition and the amended petition in
and a copy of the petition by substituted service on the the Court of Appeals, in light of the material averments therein,
petitioner's son. were based not only on extrinsic fraud, but also on lack of
jurisdiction of the trial court over the person of the petitioner
The trial court granted the motion filed by respondent and because of the failure of the sheriff to serve on her the
declared the petitioner in default, and allowed the respondent summons and a copy of the complaint.
to adduce evidence ex-parte. The trial court issued an Order
granting the petition and declaring the marriage of the parties Even a cursory reading of the material averments of the
void ab initio. original petition and its annexes will show that it is, prima facie
meritorious; hence, it should have been given due course by
Sometime after, respondent and Teresita H. Rodil were the Court of Appeals.
married in civil rights before the municipal mayor of Indang,
Cavite

Ramos vs. Combong, Jr., 473 SCRA 499

Page 48 of 64
G.R. No. 144273 October 20, 2005 dates should accompany the petition, nevertheless, there must
be a manifest showing in the petition that it was filed within the
Quick summary: The first case (11085) declared Ramos et.al four-year period. Consequently, the CA was right in dismissing
as owners of half portion of a property. The decision was the petition, as it had no basis for determining the timeliness of
affirmed by CA. The second case (402) involved revival and the filing of the petition.
enforcement of judgment of the first case. RTC granted such
motion and declared the title of Ramos et.al to the property null Extrinsic fraud exists when there is a fraudulent act committed
and void. Petitioners Ramos et.al appealed to CA but it denied by the prevailing party outside of the trial of the case, whereby
their petition for their failure to state the material dates showing the defeated party was prevented from presenting fully his side
that it was filed on time and to attach an affidavit of merit. SC of the case by fraud or deception practiced on him by the
affirmed CA. Rule 47 does not explicitly require that a prevailing party. Fraud is regarded as extrinsic where it
statement of material dates should accompany the petition, prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his
nevertheless, there must be a manifest showing in the petition entire case to the court, or where it operates upon matters
that it was filed within the four-year period. pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which
it is procured. The overriding consideration when extrinsic
fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing
FACTS litigant prevented a party from having his day in court.

A decision in Civil Case No. 11085 declared petitioners SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. and
Rodolfo Ramos, Emma R. Millado and Norma R. Erie as HEIRS OF PETRA CAPISTRANO PIIT vs. HONORABLE
owners pro indiviso of one-half portion of the western side of PRESIDING JUDGE
Lot 196, while private respondents Teresita Medina, Teodoro G.R. NO. 142628 February 6, 2007
Medina and Jesus Medina were declared owners of the other
half on the eastern portion. QUICK SUMMARY:
Petitioners filed with the RTC a petition for annulment of the
The foregoing decision was affirmed by the then Intermediate DARAB Decision which ordered them to pay the farmer-
Appellate Court in AC-G.R. CV No. 62059, which decision beneficiaries the value of their properties. The petition was
became final and executory per Entry of Judgment. dismissed by the RTC. CA affirmed RTC’s decision and ruled
that RTC does not have jurisdiction to annul the DARAB
On the other hand, in Civil Case No. 402, which is an action for
Decision. SC ruled that the DARAB is a co-equal body with the
“revival and enforcement of judgment and for cancellation of
RTC and its decisions are beyond the RTC’s control.
titles and reconveyance with damages,” the trial court granted
private respondents’ Motion for Partial Judgment Based on the
FACTS:
Pleadings with Reservation of Right to Present Evidence on
Damages. The trial court ordered the enforcement and revival
Petra Capistrano Piit previously owned a parcel of
of the decision in AC-G.R. CV No. 62059, and declared
land. Springfield Development Corporation, Inc. also bought
petitioners’ titles over the property null and void. The trial court
parcels of land and developed these properties into a
also ordered the reconveyance of the one-half portion of the
subdivision project.
property to private respondents and the issuance of a new title
in their names.
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), placed the properties
The CA affirmed the trial court’s order. Petitioners elevated the under the coverage of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
CA’s decision to this Court but the petition was denied. There being an opposition from the heirs of Petra Piit, a case
was filed before DARAB. DARAB Provincial
Petitioners filed a petition for annulment of judgments in Civil Adjudicator rendered a decision declaring the nature of the
Case Nos. 11085 and 402 before the CA. CA dismissed the property as residential and not suitable for agriculture. The
petition for their failure to state the material dates showing that Regional Director filed a notice of appeal, which the Provincial
it was filed on time and to attach an affidavit of merit. Adjudicator disallowed. The decision became final
and executory and Springfield proceeded to develop the
ISSUE: Whether or not in a petition for annulment of judgment property.
under rule 47 of the 1997 rules of civil procedure there is still a
need to state the material dates to show timeliness of the filing The DAR Regional Director then filed a petition for relief from
thereof judgment of the DARAB Decision. DARAB granted the
petition. The DARAB also ordered the heirs of Piit and
HELD: YES. Section 3 of Rule 47 lays down the period within Springfield to pay the farmer-beneficiaries the amount
which to bring an action for annulment of judgment based on corresponding to the value of the property since the property
extrinsic fraud, to wit: SEC. 3. Period for filing action.—If based has already been developed into a subdivision.
on extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed within four (4) years
from its discovery; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it Springfield and the heirs of Piit (petitioners) filed with the RTC
is barred by laches or estoppel. Based on the foregoing of Cagayan de Oro City a petition for annulment of the DARAB
provision, petitioners should have filed an annulment of Decision. Petitioners contend that the DARAB decision was
judgment based on extrinsic fraud within four years from rendered without affording petitioners any notice and
discovery of the alleged fraudulent acts committed by private hearing. The RTC issued an Order dismissing the case for lack
respondents. of jurisdiction.
A perusal of the petition filed before the CA shows that there is
no indication of the dates or time from whence petitioners Petitioners filed with the CA a special civil action
discovered private respondents’ alleged fraudulent acts. While for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition with prayer for the
Rule 47 does not explicitly require that a statement of material issuance of writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary
Page 49 of 64
restraining order. According to petitioners, what it sought CA to annul judgments or final orders and resolutions of quasi-
before the RTC is an annulment of the DARAB Decision and judicial bodies like the DARAB indicates its lack of such
not certiorari. CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit, ruling authority.
that the RTC does not have jurisdiction to annul the DARAB
Decision because it is a co-equal body. Intestate Estate of the Late Nimfa Sian vs. Philippine
National Bank
ISSUE: Whether the RTC has jurisdiction to annul a final G.R. No. 168882. January 31, 2007
judgment of the DARAB.
SUMMARY
RULING: NO. Respondent PNB filed a petition for annulment of judgment of
the RTC on the ground of denial of due process as the
Note must be made that the petition for annulment of the mortgage liens were cancelled without oral arguments, and
DARAB decision was filed with the RTC before the advent of without granting its motion for substitution. The CA granted the
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, the applicable law is petition for annulment which was affirmed by the SC as denial
B.P. Blg. 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, of due process is another ground for annulment recognized by
enacted on August 10, 1981. jurisprudence even though not expressly mentioned by the
Rules.
Significantly, B.P. Blg. 129 does not specifically provide for any
power of the RTC to annul judgments of quasi-judicial FACTS
bodies. However, in BF Northwest Homeowners Association,
Petitioner filed a case for cancellation of mortgage liens on 3
Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, the Court ruled that
titled properties against Maybank. PNB filed a motion for
the RTCs have jurisdiction over actions for annulment of the
substitution and motion to dismiss as the properties involved
decisions of the National Water Resources Council, which is a
here were already transferred from Maybank to PNB by virtue
quasi-judicial body ranked with inferior courts, pursuant to its
of a dacion en pago between the banks. In one resolution, the
original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition,
RTC made the following pronouncements: (1) the motion for
and mandamus, under Sec. 21(1) of B.P. Blg. 129, in relation
substitution by PNB is denied; (2) the motion to dismiss on the
to acts or omissions of an inferior court. This led to the
ground of lack of certification against forum shopping is denied;
conclusion that despite the absence of any provision in
(3) noting that the parties by joint manifestation agreed to
B.P. Blg. 129, the RTC had the power to entertain petitions for
submit the petition for resolution, granted the cancellation of
annulment of judgments of inferior courts and administrative
mortgage liens without oral arguments.
or quasi-judicial bodies of equal ranking. This is also in
harmony with the pre-B.P. Blg. 129 rulings of the Court PNB filed a petition to annul judgment of the RTC as it was
recognizing the power of a trial court (court of first instance) to denied due process. The CA granted the petition. Hence, this
annul final judgments. Hence, while it is true, as petitioners present petition.
contend, that the RTC had the authority to annul final
judgments, such authority pertained only to final judgments Petitioner argued that deprivation of due process is not a
rendered by inferior courts and quasi-judicial bodies of equal ground for petition for annulment of judgment.
ranking with such inferior courts.
ISSUE
The foregoing statements beg the next question, i.e., whether
the DARAB is a quasi-judicial body with the rank of an Whether petition for annulment may be granted on the ground
inferior court such that the RTC may take cognizance of an of deprivation of due process.
action for the annulments of its judgments. The answer is no. RULING
The DARAB is a quasi-judicial body created by Executive
Order Nos. 229 and 129-A. R.A. No. 6657 delineated its Short Answer
adjudicatory powers and functions. Further, the prevailing 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, expressly provides for Yes. While the Rules of Court only state lack of jurisdiction and
an appeal from the DARAB decisions to the CA. extrinsic fraud as the grounds for petition for annulment of
judgment, jurisprudence adds another one, which is denial of
The rule is that where legislation provides for an appeal from due process.
decisions of certain administrative bodies to the CA, it means
that such bodies are co-equal with the RTC, in terms of rank Long Answer
and stature, and logically, beyond the control of the latter.
Although Section 2 of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court provides
Given that DARAB decisions are appealable to the CA, the
that annulment of a final judgment or order of an RTC may be
inevitable conclusion is that the DARAB is a co-equal body
based “only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of
with the RTC and its decisions are beyond
jurisdiction,” jurisprudence recognizes as additional ground
the RTCs control. The CA was therefore correct in sustaining
therefor denial of due process.
the RTCs dismissal of the petition for annulment of the DARAB
Decision dated October 5, 1995, as the RTC does not have Arcelona v. Court of Appeals teaches:
any jurisdiction to entertain the same.
There is no question that a final judgment may be annulled.
This brings to fore the issue of whether the petition for There are, however, certain requisites which must be
annulment of the DARAB judgment could be brought to the established before a judgment can be the subject of an action
CA. As previously noted, Section 9(2) of B.P. Blg. 129 vested for annulment. Under the present procedure, aside from the
in the CA the exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for reliefs provided in these two sections (Secs. 1 & 2, Rule 38),
annulment of judgments, but only those rendered by there is no other means whereby the defeated party may
the RTCs. The silence of B.P. Blg. 129 on the jurisdiction of the procure final and executory judgment to be set aside with a
Page 50 of 64
view to the renewal of the litigation, unless (a) the judgment is Rules of Court, limits the scope of the remedy of annulment of
void for want of jurisdiction or for lack of due process of judgment to the following: Section 1. Coverage.— This Rule
law, or (b) it has been obtained by fraud. shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of
judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of
On the one hand, extrinsic fraud is the ground to annul a Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new
voidable judgment; the declaration of nullity of a patently void trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies
final judgment, on the other, is based on grounds other than are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. The
extrinsic fraud. To say, then, that petitioners can avail remedy cannot be resorted to when the RTC judgment being
themselves only of the ground of extrinsic fraud and no other is questioned was rendered in a criminal case. The 2000 Revised
to fail to appreciate the true meaning and ramifications of Rules of Criminal Procedure itself does not permit such
annulment/nullity recourse, for it excluded Rule 47 from the enumeration of the
provisions of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure which
Llamas vs. CA
have suppletory application to criminal cases. Section 18, Rule
G.R. No. 149588, September 29, 2009, Nachura, J:
124 thereof, provides: Sec. 18. Application of certain rules in
civil procedure to criminal cases.—The provisions of Rules 42,
Facts: Petitioners were charged before the Regional Trial 44 to 46 and 48 to 56 relating to procedure in the Court of
Court (RTC) of Makati with, the crime of "other forms of Appeals and in the Supreme Court in original and appealed
swindling" in the Information. That on or about the 20th day of civil cases shall be applied to criminal cases insofar as they
November, 1978, in the municipality of Parañaque, Metro are applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this
Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Rule.
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and
confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one
Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the established
another, well knowing that their parcel of land known as Lot
rule is that the statute in force at the time of the
No. 11, Block No. 6 of the Subdivision Plan (LRC) Psd 67036,
commencement of the action determines the jurisdiction of the
Cadastral Survey of Parañaque, LRC Record No. N-26926,
court. In this case, at the time of the filing of the information,
Case No. 4869, situated at Barrio San Dionisio, Municipality of
the applicable law was Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, approved
Parañaque, Metro Manila, was mortgaged to the Rural Bank of
on August 14, 1981.
Imus, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell
said property to one Conrado P. Avila, falsely representing the
same to be free from all liens and encumbrances whatsoever, Republic vs. Technological Advocates for Agro-Forest
and said Conrado P. Avila bought the aforementioned property Programs Association, Inc. (TAFPA, INC.)
for the sum of ₱12,895.00 which was paid to the accused, to 612 SCRA 76, G.R. No. 165333 February 9, 2010
the damage and prejudice of said Conrado P. Avila in the
aforementioned amount of ₱12,895.00. FACTS:
After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered its Decision 3 on
June 30, 1994, finding petitioners guilty beyond reasonable Respondent TAFPA and DENR entered into a contract for
doubt of the crime charged. On appeal, the Court of Appeals, community organizing activities, social investigation, and
affirmed the decision of the trial court. Petitioners filed before information education campaign at the San Isidro Tinago
this Court, on February 11, 2000, their petition for review. The Reforestation Sub-Project in Zamboanga del Norte.
Court, however, on March 13, 2000, denied the same for Respondent later submitted its Accomplishment Reports and
petitioners’ failure to state the material dates. Requests for Billing. However, DENR informed respondent that
by reason of the latter’s delay in the submission of its reports, it
owed the DENR, the amount of P1,192,611.00 as penalty for
With the consequent issuance by the trial court of the April 19,
delay, as stated in the contract, deductible from its collectibles
2001 Warrant of Arrest,8 the police arrested, on April 27, 2001,
of P802,350.64. Thus, respondent was still liable to the DENR
petitioner Carmelita C. Llamas for her to serve her 2-month jail
in the sum of P390,260.36.
term. The police, nevertheless, failed to arrest petitioner
Francisco R. Llamas because he was nowhere to be found. Respondent filed with the RTC a special civil action for
Petitioner Francisco moved for the lifting or recall of the Mandamus praying that a writ be issued commanding the
warrant of arrest, raising for the first time the issue that the trial DENR to pay respondent’s unpaid claims.
court had no jurisdiction over the offense charged. There being
no action taken by the trial court on the said motion, petitioners The RTC rendered a Decision in favor of TAFPA. Thereafter,
instituted, the instant proceedings for the annulment of the trial RTC made an Entry of Final Judgment stating that the decision
and the appellate courts’ decisions. The Court initially had become final and executory, there being no appeal filed by
dismissed on technical grounds the petition in the September any party before any appellate court.
24, 2001 Resolution, but reinstated the same, on motion for
reconsideration. Respondent thus filed an urgent motion for execution with the
RTC which was granted.
Issue: WON the petition for annulment of judgement and The OSG filed a Manifestation and Motion asking the RTC to
certiorari with injuction must be granted. set aside the Decision on the ground of lack of due process.
The RTC denied the motion.
Decision
Undeterred, the OSG filed a Notice of Appeal but the RTC
disapproved it.
No. In People v. Bitanga (525 SCRA 623 [2007]), the Court
explained that the remedy of annulment of judgment cannot be Aggrieved, petitioner sought recourse before the CA via a
availed of in criminal cases, thus—Section 1, Rule 47 of the petition for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules

Page 51 of 64
of Court, seeking the annulment of the decision of the RTC
based on the following grounds: (1) That the action lies within
the jurisdiction of the COA and not before the courts; (2) That Petitioner-spouses Arcenas filed in the RTC a case against
private respondent did not exhaust administrative remedies respondent bank for breach of contract of lease.
against petitioner, hence, no cause of action against petitioner;
The RTC set the case for pre-trial.
and (3) Respondent is not entitled to be paid its money claim
against petitioner. After numerous postponements, the pre-trial was finally
scheduled. However, despite due notice, petitioner-spouses
CA denied the petition opining that the RTC acquired
Arcenas and their counsel failed to appear. Thus, respondent
jurisdiction. The CA added that the rule on due process was
bank presented evidence on its counterclaim, rested its case
not violated as petitioner was given all the opportunity to
and submitted the same for decision. On the same day, the
participate in the proceedings before the RTC, which it in fact
RTC issued an Order submitting the case for decision.
did, and was duly notified of all court processes, orders, and
decision. Hence, the petition. Petitioner-spouses filed a Manifestation with Motion stating
ISSUE: Whether CA erred in dismissing the petition for therein their reasons for failure to attend the pretrial and
hearing. However, the RTC denied petitioner’s manifestation
annulment of judgment on the ground that notice to the
and motion.
deputized counsel was notice to the OSG

RULING: NO. In this recourse, petitioner is no longer Thereafter, petitioners filed with the CA a Petition for
annulment of order under Rule 47 seeking to annul the Order
questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC based on the above
of non-suit issued by the RTC on the ground of extrinsic fraud.
arguments. Petitioner now questions the propriety of the notice
sent to the deputized counsel of the OSG, arguing that notice CA: The CA dismissed the petition on the ground that
to its deputized counsel is not notice to the OSG. Hence, petitioners, failed to avail of the appropriate remedies without
absent such notice, the decision of the RTC did not become sufficient justification before resorting to the petition for
final and executory. Moreover, the failure of the RTC to serve annulment of order. The CA ruled that assuming that
the OSG copies of legal notices, orders, and judicial processes petitioners were able to substantiate their allegations of fraud,
constitutes lack of due process. they could have filed a petition for relief under Rule 38 of the
Rules of Court and prayed that the assailed Order be set
What petitioner is seeking is for this Court to nullify the
aside, but they did not. Thus, they cannot benefit from their
decision and orders of the RTC via the present petition after
inaction.
petitioner has effectively lost its right to question the said
decision and orders, the same having become final and Hence, this petition.
executory.
ISSUE:
An action to annul a final judgment is an extraordinary remedy,
which is not to be granted indiscriminately by the court. Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the petition for
annulment of order filed by petitioners.
Under Section 2, Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the
only grounds for annulment of judgment are extrinsic fraud and HELD:
lack of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for
annulment of judgment refers to either lack of jurisdiction over No. The CA did not err in dismissing the petition for annulment
the person of the defending party or over the subject matter of of order filed by petitioners.
the claim. It is absence of, or no, jurisdiction; that is, the court
should not have taken cognizance of the petition because the
law does not vest it with jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 47 impose the conditions for the
It should be stressed that in a petition for annulment of availment of the remedy of annulment of judgment.
judgment based on lack of jurisdiction, petitioner must show
not merely an abuse of jurisdictional discretion, but an absolute Section 1, Rule 47 provides that it does not allow a direct
lack of jurisdiction. In the present case, the CA has put to rest recourse to a petition for annulment of judgment if other
the issue of whether the RTC had jurisdiction over appropriate remedies are available, such as a petition for new
respondent’s cause of action. trial, appeal or a petition for relief. If petitioner fails to avail of
these remedies without sufficient justification, she cannot
The petitioner’s contention that service of the questioned resort to the action for annulment of judgment under Rule 47,
Orders to deputized special attorneys of the OSG would not for otherwise, she would benefit from her inaction or
bind the OSG so that the Orders did not attain their finality negligence.
when the Motion was filed, does not have a leg to stand on. It
is a well-settled principle that the acts of the authorized Deputy Petitioners were declared non-suited for failure to appear at the
bind the principal counsel. Thus, service on the Deputy is pre-trial conference, and respondent bank was allowed to
service to the OSG. present evidence on its counterclaim. Such Order was
received by the secretary of petitioner's counsel. Petitioner did
not move to set aside the RTC's order of non-suit.
SPOUSES OSCAR ARCENAS AND DOLORES ARCENAS
VS. QUEEN CITY DEVELOPMENT BANK & CA While petitioner’s counsel claimed that he belatedly learned of
G.R. No. 166819 June 16, 2010 such Order of non-suit, yet no motion to lift the order of non-
Peralta, J.: suit was filed. Petitioner did not take any remedial action to lift
the order of non-suit when she had the opportunity to do so.
FACTS:
Page 52 of 64
Eventually, the RTC granted private respondent’s petition.
It was only 2 months after the RTC Order when petitioner and Inasmuch as petitioner was unaware of the proceedings, the
her husband filed a pleading captioned as Manifestation and same order became final and executory. Thereafter, the RTC
Motion, wherein they prayed for the reconsideration of the RTC Caloocan issued another Order directing the issuance of a Writ
and for further pre-trial conference. The RTC denied such of Possession in favor of private respondent.
Manifestation and Motion as the same was filed beyond the
reglementary period. Petitioner then filed with the CA a Petition Petitioner learned of the auction sale when the Sheriff of the
for annulment of order of non-suit under Rule 47 of the Rules RTC Caloocan left a Notice to Vacate in the subject premises.
of Court on the ground of extrinsic fraud. The CA denied the Petitioner claimed that it was very much surprised at the
petition as petitioner failed to avail of the appropriate remedies auction sale of Lot 13-B-1 because it had been religiously
provided by the Rules to which the SC agree. paying its real property taxes. In fact, it had in its possession a
Certification issued by the Office of the City Treasurer of
Moreover, since petitioner claimed that there was extrinsic Caloocan stating that the real property taxes due on the Lots
fraud committed by respondent bank's counsel, she could have have been duly paid by petitioner.
filed a petition for relief under Rule 38 within the period
provided for by the Rules of Court, but she did not. Section 2, Notwithstanding the representations made by petitioner with
Rule 47 clearly states that extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid the RTC of Caloocan and Office of the City Treasurer, the RTC
ground for annulment of order if it was availed of, or could have proceeded to implement the Writ of Possession over both the
been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief. Lots.
Thus, extrinsic fraud is effectively barred if it could have been
raised as a ground in an available remedial measure. After withdrawing its petition for certiorari under Rule 65,
petitioner filed with the CA a Petition for Annulment of
Petitioner tries to justify her failure to avail of the appropriate Judgment praying, among others, for the annulment and
remedies on a promise of settlement. However, such promise setting aside of the Orders and the Writ of Possession issued
was not an excuse for petitioner's counsel not to lift the order of by the RTC of Caloocan.
non-suit and to file a petition for relief.
CA: The CA dismissed the petition on the ground that the
GENATO INVESTMENTS, INC. Vs. Barrientos Petition for Annulment of Judgment that petitioner filed is not
G.R. No. 207443 July 23, 2014 the proper remedy, as it had other available remedies to
Perez, J.: question the Orders of the RTC Caloocan. The CA, stated that
where the land subject of the case was already registered in
FACTS: the name of the buyer in the auction sale, the proper remedy to
annul said transfer was to file an action for reconveyance on
A TCT is registered under the name of petitioner and covers the ground of fraud. The CA added that the Petition
two adjacent parcels of land, Lot No. 1-A and Lot No. 13-B-1. for Certiorari petitioner had earlier filed but later withdrew
Due to alleged deficiency in real property taxes due, the Office showed that other remedies were available to petitioner. MR
of the City Treasurer of Caloocan sold at public auction Lot No. was denied.
13-B-1, in which private respondent Laverne Realty & Dev.
Corp. emerged as the highest bidder. Hence, this petition.

The Office of the City Treasurer, through the City Treasurer of ISSUE:
Caloocan, issued a Certificate of Sale of Delinquent Property
to Purchaser and eventually a Final Deed of Conveyance over Whether or not petition for annulment of judgment is the proper
Lot 13-B-1 in favor of private respondent. remedy.

Petitioner was not made aware of any of the proceedings HELD:


before the Office of the City Treasurer, as the Notice of Levy
and Warrant of Levy issued by the Office of the City Treasurer Yes. Petition for annulment of judgment is the proper remedy.
were sent to petitioner at an inexistent office in Tondo and
were, thus, returned unserved. It is undisputed that the Order of the RTC became final and
executory. The general rule is that a final and executory
Private respondent filed with the RTC of Caloocan for the judgment can no longer be disturbed, altered, or modified in
consolidation of the ownership of the property covered by any respect, and that nothing further can be done but to
petitioner’s TCT and the issuance of a new TCT in private execute it. A final and executory decision may, however, be
respondent’s name notwithstanding the fact that the invalidated via a Petition for Relief or a Petition to Annul the
delinquency sale only involved Lot No. 13-B-1. same under Rules 38 or 47, respectively, of the Rules of Court.

The RTC issued an Order setting the initial hearing on the Under Rule 38, the verified petition must be filed within sixty
Petition, and directing that copies of the said order be posted (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order,
at the subject premises and furnished petitioner. However, the or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six (6)
records of the case, particularly the Certificate of Posting and months after such judgment or final order was entered.
the Process Server's Returns will show that the order was not However, it is uncontested that petitioner learned about the
posted at the subject premises, and that petitioner did not proceedings in more than six (6) months after the Order had
receive any copies of the Order because the orders were serve become final and executory. Thus, the remedy under Rule 38
at inexistent offices. of the Rules of Court was clearly unavailing.

Page 53 of 64
The only remedy left to petitioner in this case is a petition for accordance with Section 10 of Rule 47. It brushed aside the
annulment of judgment under Rule 47, which it, in fact, filed. RTC’s ruling that Nena availed of the wrong remedy because
according to the CA, regardless of the caption of the pleading,
The SC disagrees with the reasoning of the CA and Nena had a cause of action accruing from the violations of her
respondents that petitioner in this particular case should have rights.
filed either an action for reconveyance or annulment of the
auction sale, because to do so would have required the court Hence, this petition.
hearing the action to modify or interfere with the judgment or
order of another co-equal court, especially in this case where ISSUE:
the said judgment or order had attained finality. Well-
entrenched in our jurisdiction is the doctrine that a court has no Whether or not petition for annulment of judgement under Rule
power to do so, as that action may lead to confusion and 47 is the proper remedy.
seriously hinder the administration of justice.

The SC have repeatedly ruled that a Petition for Annulment of HELD:


Judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court is a remedy
granted only under exceptional circumstances where a party, No. Petition for annulment of judgement under Rule 47 is not
without fault on his part, has failed to avail of the ordinary the proper remedy.
remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other
appropriate remedies. The same petition is not available as a The averments of respondent Nena's complaint a quo do not
substitute for a remedy which was lost due to the party’s own make out an action for annulment of judgment or final order. It
neglect in promptly availing of the same. was inaccurate for both the CA and the RTC to characterize it
as a Rule 47 petition.
There is here no attempted substitution; annulment of
judgment is the only remedy available to petitioner. While the non-compliance with the requisites laid down in Rule
47 is glaring - there is neither any averment in the complaint
Regarding the previous filing of a Petition for Certiorari under showing prima facie compliance with the aforementioned
Rule 65 such is of no moment as petitioner timely withdrew the requisites nor even a reference to Rule 47 - the first thing the
same before any relief could be afforded by the CA. lower courts should have considered is the subject of the
complaint.
ESTRELLA MEJIA-ESPINOZA AND NORMA MEJIA
DELLOSA VS. NENA A. CARIÑO Nena is challenging the MTC's order granting the issuance of
G.R. No. 193397January 25, 2017 the writ of execution, the writ of execution itself, as well as the
Jardeleza, J.: sheriffs notice of levy and notice of sale on her real property.
Clearly, these are not the judgments or final orders
FACTS: contemplated by Rule 47.

Two consolidated ejectment case filed before the MTC was A final order or resolution is one which is issued by a court
decided in favor of petitioner Estrella Mejia-Espinoza against which disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or
private respondents Nena Carino. The case went all the way to terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing
the SC and eventually an entry of judgment was rendered in else to be done but to enforce by execution what has been
favor of petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner filed a motion for detem1ined by the court. Rule 47 does not apply to an action to
issuance of a writ of execution before the MTC, which annul the levy and sale at public auction. Neither does it apply
respondent opposed. to an action to annul a writ of execution because a writ of
execution is not a final order or resolution, but is issued to
The MTC granted the order. The writ was served on carry out the mandate of the court in the enforcement of a final
respondent and the writ was executed by the Sheriff. order or of a judgment. It is a judicial process to enforce a final
Respondent Nena voluntarily vacated the subject property. order or judgment against the losing party.
Thus, the subject property was peacefully turned over to
petitioner. The proper remedy for Nena was to file a motion to nullify the
writ of execution and notices of levy and sale before the MTC,
Nena filed a complaint captioned as "Annulment of Court's instead of instituting a new complaint before the RTC. This is
Processes with prayer for the issuance of a TRO, Preliminary because the execution of a decision is merely incidental to the
Injunction and/or Prohibition, and Damages" before the RTC. jurisdiction already acquired by a trial court. Ostensibly, Nena's
Nena argued that she was deprived of the opportunity to ask complaint before the RTC may be viewed as one for prohibition
for reconsideration of the order granting Espinoza's motion for and damages insofar as it also prayed for the issuance of a
issuance of writ of execution because she was not furnished a permanent injunction and award of damages. While a petition
copy of the order. for prohibition may be an available remedy to assail the actions
of a sheriff who performs purely ministerial functions, in excess
RTC: The RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of or without jurisdiction, the filing of the aforementioned motion
action. The RTC held, among others, that Nena availed of the with the MTC is still a precondition to such action. This is
wrong remedy. Instead of a petition for annulment under Rule because the motion is the "plain, speedy, and adequate
47, Nena should have filed a petition for relief from judgment remedy in the ordinary course of law."
under Rule 38.
Therefore, while the RTC is partially correct in dismissing the
CA: On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC. It held that Nena complaint for being the wrong remedy, it incorrectly identified a
correctly filed the petition for annulment with the RTC in petition for relief under Rule 38 as the proper recourse. The
Page 54 of 64
correct remedy is a motion to nullify court processes filed with
the MTC. No. An action for annulment of judgment is not the proper
remedy of a third-party claimant of properties levied and sold
MATEO ENCARNACION Vs. THOMAS JOHNSON under execution sale.
G.R. No. 192285 July 11, 2018
Jardeleza, J.: Petitioners failed to comply with the first requirement for
petition for annulment of judgment, that is, the remedy is only
FACTS: available when petitioner can no longer resort to the ordinary
remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief, or other
A default judgment for breach of contract was rendered by the appropriate remedies through no fault of the petitioner.
Supreme Court of British Columbia against petitioners Narvin
and Mary and in favor of respondent Thomas. Thereafter, The remedy of annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so
respondent filed an action for recognition and enforcement of exceptional in nature that it may only be availed of when the
foreign judgment before the RTC of Olongapo City. The RTC ordinary or other appropriate remedies provided by law are
ordered the service of summonses by publication upon wanting without fault or neglect on the petitioner's part. It is a
Respondents Narvin and Mary. Despite publication, Narvin and condition sine qua non that one must have availed of the
Mary still failed to file their answer. Accordingly, the RTC proper remedies before resorting to the action for annulment of
declared them in default, and subsequently rendered a judgment.
judgment in default in accordance with the judgment of the
Supreme Court of British Columbia. The SC notes that the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal,
and petition for relief were not available to Mateo for the
Properties of petitioner petitioner Mateo, Mary’s father, were reason that he was not a party to Civil Case selling his
levied and sold at public auction wherein respondent placed as property. Mateo was neither able to participate in the original
the highest bidder for 10M. Petitioner Mateo filed an Affidavit of proceedings nor resort to the other remedies because he was
Third Party Claim before the RTC claiming that he is the owner not a real party in interest or an indispensable party thereto.
of the parcels of land which were being levied upon. The There are, however, other appropriate remedies available to
records, however, are not clear as to what action was taken by him that he could have resorted to.
the RTC on Mateo's third party claim.
Section 16, Rule 39 provides for the remedies of a third-party
More than two years after the RTC Order (February 17, 2005 claimant of an alleged wrongfully levied property. Based on this
Order) clarifying the Writ of Execution authorizing the levy of section, a third-party claimant has the following cumulative
properties of petitioner Mateo, Mateo filed a petition for remedies: (a) he may avail of "terceria" by serving on the
annulment of judgment before the CA. He alleged that he is the levying officer making the levy an affidavit of his title, and
owner of the properties being levied; that he was not made a serving also a copy to the judgment creditor; (b) he may file a
party to the case; and that the inclusion of his properties in the case for damages against the bond issued by the judgment
levy and execution sale were made without notice to him. debtor within 120 days from the date of the filing of the bond;
Mateo, nonetheless, admitted before the CA that he has no and (c) he may file "any proper action" to vindicate his claim to
standing to question the proceedings on the action for the property.
recognition and enforcement of judgment. He asserts that he is
only questioning Order which deprived him of his properties. In this case, the proper recourse for petitioners is to vindicate
and prove their ownership over the properties in a separate
During the pendency of the proceedings before the CA, Mateo action as allowed under Section 16, Rule 39.
died and was substituted by his heirs (petitioners), including his
daughter Mary. In their Memorandum, petitioners amended RULES 48, 49, AND 50
their argument to aver that all the proceedings should be
annulled on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic D. M. WENCESLAO AND ASSOCIATES, INC. VS. CITY OF
fraud. PARAÑAQUE, PARAÑAQUE CITY ASSESSOR,
PARAÑAQUE CITY TREASURER AND PARAÑAQUE CITY
CA: The CA denied the petition. It upheld the jurisdiction of the COUNCIL
RTC over the action of recognition of foreign judgment. The CA G.R. No. 170728 August 31, 2011
ruled that the remedy of annulment of judgment is not proper Villarama, Jr., J.:
because the February 17, 2005 Order is not a final order as it
merely seeks to clarify the RTC's further amended writ of FACTS:
execution; the proper remedy is to move to quash the writ of
execution and if unsuccessful, to file a petition Petitioner filed with the RTC a Complaint for collection of
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. MR was excess real property taxes and damages with prayer for the
denied. issuance of a TRO and/or preliminary injunction seeking to
restrain respondents from enforcing the foreclosure sale. The
Hence, this petition. RTC denied petitioner's prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction. Thus, to prevent its properties from
ISSUE: being auctioned, petitioner paid under protest.

Whether or not an action for annulment of judgment is the Respondents filed a motion to dismiss based on the ground,
proper remedy of a third-party claimant of properties levied and among others, that the cause of action is barred by prior
sold under execution sale judgment or by the statute of limitations.

HELD:
Page 55 of 64
The RTC issued an Order granting the motion to dismiss. It appeal must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failure
found that petitioner's cause of action was really based on to do so often leads to the loss of the right to appeal.
Section 253 of the LGC. As such, petitioner's cause of action PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS VS. CA, RTC,
had already prescribed inasmuch as the allegations in the TRAYELLER KIDS INC., CELY L. GABALDON-CO &
complaint show that the alleged overpayment of real property JEANNIE L. LUGMOC
tax occurred in 1995-1999 and 2001-2002 while the complaint G.R. No. 218901 February 15, 2017
was only filed in February 4, 2003. Caguioa, J.:

CA: On appeal to the CA, the CA dismissed the petition in a FACTS:


resolution stating that petitioner failed to pay the required
docketing fees. The CA considered that the appeal is deemed A complaint for sum of money was filed by petitioner PBCOM
abandoned. MR was denied. against private respondents.

Hence, this petition. Private respondents moved for the dismissal of the Complaint
alleging, among others, that the RTC had no jurisdiction over
ISSUE: the case because PBCOM failed to pay the correct docket
fees.
Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing petitioner's appeal
for late payment of docket fees. On September 29, 2010, the RTC issued an Order directing
PBCOM to pay additional docket fees within fifteen days from
HELD: receipt.

No. The CA did not err in dismissing petitioner's appeal for late PBCOM paid the additional docket fees but filed its
payment of docket fees. Compliance with the RTC only on November 11, 2010.

The rule that appellate court docket and other lawful fees must The RTC dismissed petitioner’s complaint for failing to comply
be paid within the period for taking an appeal is stated in with the September 29, 2010 Order. MR was denied.
Section 4, Rule 41 …
Petitioner timely filed a Notice of Appeal.
Likewise, Section 3, Rule 41, of the same Rules state …
RTC: The RTC issued an Order (Assailed Order), denying due
In this case, petitioner received a copy of the trial court's Order course to petitioner PBCOM's Notice of Appeal on the ground
on May 14, 2004. Thus, pursuant to Section 3, Rule 41, in that said appeal is not the proper remedy.
relation to Section 1, Rule 22, it had until May 31, 2004 within
which to perfect its appeal by filing within that period the notice Without filing a motion for reconsideration, PBCOM filed a
of appeal and paying the appellate docket and other legal Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with the CA.
fees. On May 17, 2004, petitioner filed its notice of appeal
within the reglementary period. The SC notes, however, that it CA: The CA denied PBCOM's Petition for Certiorari and
paid the required docket fees only on October 20, 2004, or late Mandamus and affirmed the order of the RTC. The CA
by almost five months. reasoned that, apart from availing itself of a wrong mode of
appeal, PBCOM failed to comply with the mandatory
It bears stressing that payment of docket and other fees within requirement of a motion for reconsideration.
this period is mandatory for the perfection of the appeal.
Otherwise, the right to appeal is lost. This is so because a Hence, this petition.
court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action
only upon the payment of the correct amount of docket fees ISSUE:
regardless of the actual date of filing of the case in court. The
payment of appellate docket fees is not a mere technicality of Whether or not the dismissal of the RTC based on the ground
law or procedure. It is an essential requirement, without which of improper remedy is proper.
the decision or final order appealed from becomes final and
executory as if no appeal was filed. HELD:

Here the appellate docket fee is not paid in full within the No. The dismissal of the RTC based on the ground of improper
reglementary period, the decision of the trial court becomes remedy is not proper.
final and no longer susceptible to an appeal. For once a
decision becomes final, the appellate court is without In Salvan v. People, the SC held that the power of the RTC to
jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. dismiss an appeal is limited to the instances specified in the
Rule 41, Sec. 13. In other words, the RTC has no jurisdiction to
Moreover, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 50, the CA, on its own deny a notice of appeal on an entirely different ground - such
motion or that of the appellee, may dismiss the appeal on the as "that an appeal is not a proper remedy."
ground that appellant failed to pay the docket and other lawful
fees. Section 1(c), Rule 50 provides that … The authority to dismiss an appeal for being an improper
remedy is specifically vested upon the CA and not the RTC.
The right to appeal is not a natural right. It is also not part of Rule 50, Section 1 (i) states that …
due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and may be
exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the The Court's pronouncement Ortigas & Company Limited
provisions of law. Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to Partnership v. Velasco is apropos:
Page 56 of 64
member to prepare the decision of the Court, but in no way is
“… Dismissals of appeal may also be had upon the grounds that decision binding unless and until signed and promulgated.”
specified by Rule 50; but it is the Court of Appeals, not the trial
court, which is explicitly authorized to dismiss appeals on said The SC adds that at any time before promulgation,
grounds. Generally, these grounds do not include matters the ponencia may be changed by the ponente. Indeed, if any
which go into the merits of the cause or to the right of the member of the court who may have already signed it so
plaintiff or defendant to recover. …” desires, he may still withdraw his concurrence and register a
qualification or dissent as long as the decision has not yet
In fine, the assailed RTC Order, denying due course to been promulgated. A promulgation signifies that on the date it
PBCOM's notice of appeal on the ground that it was a wrong was made the judge or judges who signed the decision
remedy, is a patent nullity. The RTC acted without or in excess continued to support it.
of its jurisdiction.
Thus, an unpromulgated decision is no decision at all. At the
On the issue of no MR was filed before resorting to Rule 65: very least, they are part of the confidential internal
deliberations of the Court which must not be released to the
While it is a settled rule that a special civil action for certiorari public. A decision becomes binding only after it is validly
under Rule 65 will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is promulgated. Until such operative act occurs, there is really no
filed before the respondent court; there are well-defined decision to speak of, even if some or all of the Justices have
exceptions established by jurisprudence, such as where the already affixed their signatures thereto. During the intervening
order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no period from the time of signing until the promulgation of the
jurisdiction. decision, any one who took part in the deliberation and had
signed the decision may, for a reason, validly withdraw one's
RULE 51: JUDGMENT vote, thereby preserving one's freedom of action.

LIMKAICHONG vs. COMELEC AKLAN COLLEGE INC. vs. PERPETUO ENERO, ARLYN
G.R. No. 178831-32 July 30, 2009 CASTAGADOR, NUENA SERMON & JOCELYN ZOLINA
Peralta, J.: G.R. No. 178309
January 27, 2009
FACTS: Nachura, J.:

Biraogo observed that the the Supreme Court Decision dated FACTS:
April 1, 2009 which reversed COMELEC Second Division’s
decision disqualifying Limkaichong from running as a A case for illegal dismissal was filed by respondents against
congressional candidate in the First District of Negros Oriental petitioners before the Labor Arbiter.
due to lack of citizenship requirement is a complete turn-
around from the ruling embodied in the Decision written by Labor Arbiter (LA): The LA rendered a decision holding
Justice Ruben Reyes which, although unpromulgated, was petitioner guilty of illegal dismissal and ordered petitioner to
nonetheless signed by fourteen Associate Justices and pay respondents backwages, 13th month pay, service incentive
approved by the Court en banc on July 15, 2008. Biraogo leave (SIL) pay, moral damages and exemplary damages.
decried the absence of an explanation in the Decision dated
April 1, 2009 for the said departure or turn-around. NLRC: On appeal, the NLRC reversed the LA holding that
respondents were validly dismissed from service. However, it
ISSUE: ordered petitioner to pay respondents 13th month pay and SIL
pay. Both petitioner and respondent filed their respective MRs
Whether or not an unpromulgated decision is considered a but these were denied.
decision of the Court.
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari before the CA,
HELD: seeking to partially annul the Decision of the NLRC insofar as it
held petitioner liable to pay respondents' 13th month pay and
No. An unpromulgated decision is not considered a decision of SIL pay despite the finding that respondents were validly
the Court. dismissed from service. Respondents did not file an appeal
from the decision of the NLRC.
The Court in Belac vs. Commision on Elections, held that a
decision must not only be signed by the Justices who took part CA: The CA rendered the assailed Decision holding that, for
in the deliberation, but must also be promulgated to be failure of the dismissed teachers to question the NLRC's denial
considered a Decision, to wit: of the MR, the Decision and the Resolution became final and
executory as to them, thus, limiting the issue to be resolved to
“A true decision of the Court is the decision signed by the that presented by petitioner, i.e., the propriety of the award of
Justices and duly promulgated. 13th month pay and SIL pay to the dismissed teachers.

... In consonance with this practice, before a decision is signed The CA held that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of
and promulgated, all opinions and conclusions stated during discretion in awarding respondents 13th month pay and SIL
and after the deliberation of the Court, remain in the breasts of pay. However, it modified the award to conform to the
the Justices, binding upon no one, not even upon the Justices dismissed teachers' employment history. Petitioner’s MR was
themselves. Of course, they may serve for determining what denied.
the opinion of the majority provisionally is and for designating a
Hence, this petition.
Page 57 of 64
DICK GO vs. CA and SECURITY BANK & TRUST CO.
Petitioner avers that it was improper for the CA to increase the G.R. No. 112550 February 05, 2001
monetary award on the subject benefits in favor of respondents
who did not file an appeal from the decision of the NLRC. FACTS:

ISSUE: The National Steel Corporation issued two checks as payment


Whether or not the CA correctly modified the subject benefits for customs duties and taxes. Both checks bore the notation:
(13th month pay and SIL). "For Payee's Account" and were made payable to the Collector
of Customs. These checks were subsequently deposited in the
HELD: Security Bank and Trust Company in the account of a certain
Robert Santos. Thus, the NSC was required to pay customs
Yes. The CA correctly modified the subject benefits (13th duties a second time.
month pay and SIL).
When SBTC discovered the anomaly, SBTC conducted an
As a rule, a party who does not appeal from the decision may internal investigation, which revealed the participation of
not obtain any affirmative relief from the appellate court other petitioner Dick Go, Assistant Manager in the accounting
than what he has obtained from the lower tribunal, if any, department, and co-accused Lauchengco and Fermin in the
whose decision is brought up on appeal. Due process prevents opening of the Robert Santos accounts, the deposit in said
the grant of additional awards to parties who did not appeal. As accounts of the two checks and the siphoning of the proceeds
an exception, he may assign an error where the purpose is to of the checks.
maintain the judgment on other grounds, but he cannot seek
modification or reversal of the judgment or affirmative relief Two criminal informations for estafa through falsification of
unless he has also appealed or filed a separate petition. commercial documents were filed against petitioner, Eduardo
Lauchengco and Generoso Fermin. At the same time, a
In this case, the CA is not precluded from affirming, reversing complaint for sum of money was filed against petitioner
or modifying the decision of the NLRC on the propriety of together with Spouses Herminio and Clara Lauchengco, Luisito
payment of 13th month pay and SIL pay to the respondents. It Honorio, Danilo Fiesta, B.S. Santos and Eugene Gan. The two
is the propriety of the award of these benefits which were criminal cases were tried jointly with the civil case.
precisely the issues raised by petitioner in its appeal before the
said appellate court. RTC: The lower court rendered judgment acquitting petitioner
Dick Go and his co-accused of the crime of estafa for failure of
Section 8, Rule 51 provides that only those issues assigned as the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
errors will be considered in the appealed decision … The court likewise dismissed SBTC's complaint for recovery of
sum of money against petitioner and his co-defendants, as well
The appealing party is legally required to indicate in his brief an as petitioner's counterclaim.
assignment of errors, and only those assigned shall be
considered by the appellate court in deciding the case. CA: On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the decision of
However, this is not without qualification, for the appellate court the trial court.
is accorded a broad discretionary power to waive the lack of
proper assignment of errors and to consider errors not In reversing and setting aside the decision of the lower court,
assigned. The CA may reverse the decision of the lower the CA affirmed the lower court's factual findings but made
tribunal on the basis of grounds other than those raised as "corrections and deletions" therein. In addition to the
errors on appeal. corrections and deletions in the lower court's factual findings,
the CA added "additional facts to complete the story.”
The CA committed no reversible error in increasing the
amounts of the 13th month pay and the SIL pay in order to Hence, this petition.
correct the error committed by the NLRC in the computation.
The instant controversy falls squarely under the third exception Petitioner contends that the CA made additional findings not
wherein the CA may reverse the decision of the lower tribunal supported by the evidence on record and that it abused its
on the basis of grounds other than those raised as errors on discretion in disregarding the factual findings of the lower court.
appeal, that is, matters not assigned as errors on appeal but He argues that the CA’s reversal of the decision of the lower
consideration of which is necessary in arriving at a just court was based on unsupported conclusions and despite the
decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve the absence of contrary evidence; and that it misappreciated the
interest of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice. facts, thereby necessitating a review of factual matters by the
SC.
A just, fair and complete resolution of the case necessarily
entails the correct computation of these benefits. To avoid ISSUE:
dispensing piecemeal justice, the full period of employment of
respondents was rightfully considered by the CA in the Whether or not the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in
computation of the 13th month pay and the SIL pay. disregarding the factual findings of the lower court.

Moreover, the CA sufficiently explained the need to increase HELD:


the award of 13th month pay and SIL pay. It modified the award
after finding that the computation of the amount given by the Yes. The CA committed grave abuse of discretion in
NLRC in its Decision does not conform to the dismissed disregarding the factual findings of the lower court.
employees' employment history.

Page 58 of 64
Factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed then filed another motion for execution before the RTC. Judge
by the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive and may not Querubin, instead of acting on the motion, wrote a letter to the CA
be reviewed on appeal; except: (1) when the inference made is inquiring as to what final orders and decisions he should enforce
manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is a and held in abeyance the resolution of the motion for execution.
grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the finding is grounded
entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the The CA in response declared that the RTC should execute the
judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on misapprehension decision dismissing the complaint and ordering petitioner to
of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when surrender possession of the property. Judge Querubin thus issued
the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the two orders. The first order granted the motion for execution of
issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions private respondents. The second order denied the Motion for
of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings of the Execution by counsel for private respondents.
Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8)
when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of Natalia Realty, perceiving an inconsistency between the two orders,
specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the Court filed a motion for reconsideration urging the RTC to reconcile the
of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not first order granting the motion for execution of private respondents
disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, with the second order denying the two motion of Navarro. Judge
would justify a different conclusion; and (10) when the findings Caballes granted the motion for reconsideration.
of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of
evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record. Private respondents thus filed an urgent manifestation with prayer
for issuance of Writ of Execution with the CA claiming that the order
While the CA characterized the lower court's factual findings as of Judge Caballes was a complete reversal of the orders and
"accurate" and observed that the antecedent facts as found by decisions of the CA. The CA issued a resolution reiterating its order
the lower court were "not disputed" by the parties, it reached a for the execution of the decision dismissing the complaint and
different conclusion as regards petitioner's civil liability. ordering petitioner to surrender possession of the property.

The issue, therefore, is whether, on the basis of the same Natalia Realty thus filed the present petition for certiorari
factual findings, petitioner can be held civilly liable. Stated questioning the jurisdiction of of the CA to set aside the order of
differently, the issue is whether from the evidence adduced Judge Caballes granting the motion for reconsideration of
before the lower court, there is sufficient proof as to the petitioner. Natalia Realty contends that the jurisdiction of CA had
indispensable participation of petitioner in the opening of the already been terminated when its resolution dismissing the appeal
accounts in the name of one allegedly inexistent and fictitious of Navarro became final.
Robert Santos, the depositing of the PNB checks in said
accounts, and the siphoning of the proceeds of said checks as ISSUE
charged in private respondent's complaint. Whether the CA had jurisdiction to set aside the order of Judge
Cabilles granting the MR filed by petitioner.
Go is not civilly liable, because Go's role in the opening of the
Robert Santos account was in line with his duties as assistant RULING
manager of the accounting department.
YES. There is a distinction between the jurisdiction of a court
Oral testimonies, based on documentary evidence validates to modify its judgment and its jurisdiction to enforce its
the trial court's finding that bank tellers were negligent in judgment. The jurisdiction of the court to amend, modify or alter its
depositing the checks made payable to the Collector of judgment terminates when the judgment becomes final. This is the
Customs into the Robert Santos account principle of immutability of final judgment that is subject to only few
exceptions, none of which is present in this case. On the other
Finally, that testimonies pointing to Go as the one who hand, the jurisdiction of the court to execute its judgment continues
appropriated the proceeds of the checks were hearsay. even after the judgment has become final for the purpose of
enforcement of judgment.
Natalia Realty vs. CA and Antonio Martinez et al
G.R. No. 126462, November 12, 2002 Judge Caballes’ refusal to enforce the final orders and decision was
not only in total disregard of his ministerial duty, it was also in
FACTS blatant defiance of the resolution of the CA that has also long been
final and executory. Judge Caballes also disobeyed the resolution
Natalia Realty filed an action for recovery of possession of two
of the CA directing Judge Querubin to enforce the orders listed in
parcels of land against private respondents before the RTC of the Resolution. Well settled is the rule that the RTC cannot
Rizal. The RTC dismissed the case for failure to prosecute and impede the execution of the decision of a higher court. For the
ordered petitioner to surrender possession of portions of the sole purpose of enforcing its final order, the CA still had
property. Natalia Realty filed a motion for reconsideration which
jurisdiction to command Judge Caballes to comply with its
was denied for having been filed beyond the reglementary period. order and to cite him in contempt in case he refused to do so.
Natalia Realty filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. The CA
The CA retained the jurisdiction to enforce its final orders.
dismissed the petition and an entry of judgment was issued stating
that the dismissal has become final and executory.
People vs. Melchor Cabalquinto
G.R. NO. 167693, September 19, 2006
Felipe Navarro, claiming to be the original counsel of private
respondents filed with the RTC a motion for the issuance of a writ FACTS
of execution. The RTC denied the motion ruling that to place private
respondents in possession of the property would violate the The RTC of QC convicted Melchor Cabalquinto on two counts for
decision of the SC in Natalia Realty vs. DAR. Private respondents the rape of his eight-year old daughter, AAA. The CA affirmed the
Page 59 of 64
decision of the trial court. The SC found no reason to disturb the 1996, the HDMF had once again amended the law’s IRR, this time
CA and RTC findings. The mother of AAA then wrote a letter to the limiting waiver from Fund coverage only to “distressed employers”.
Chief Justice expressing anxiety over the posting of full text
decisions of the SC on its Web Page. The mother submitted that Mercury filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the RTC to
confidentiality and the best interest of the child must prevail over declare null and void the 1996 amendment to the IRR. The RTC
public access to information and pleaded that her daughter's case, dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust administrative
as well as those of a similar nature, be excluded from the Web remedies. Mercury assailed the dismissal of its petition before the
Page. SC via petition for review on certiorari. The SC likewise denied the
petition.
ISSUE
Whether it is proper to post the full text of decisions of similar cases The following year, the SC, in Chinabank v. HDMF, nullified the
on the SC Web Page in cases involving child sexual abuse. 1995 Amendment. On the strength of the ruling in Chinabank,
Mercury applied anew for a waiver from fund coverage for the years
RULING 1996 up to 2000. But HDMF again denied the application. Mercury
NO. The OSG submits that the posting of the full text of decisions in filed before the RTC a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and
cases involving child abuse on the SC Web Page violates the right mandamus but the same was dismissed. Mercury then filed an
to privacy of the aggrieved parties. The fact that the aggrieved child original petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus against
may have consented, through a parent or guardian, to a public HDMF before the CA.
hearing of the case does not negate the expectation of privacy
which the child may later invoke because child victims cannot be The CA ordered HDMF to entertain Mercury’s application but only
presumed to have intended their initial agreement to extend beyond for the years 1997 up to present. The CA held that the law of the
the termination of their case to the posting of the decision reached case doctrine applies but only to the application for exemption for
by the Court on the Web Page. fund coverage for the year 1996 and not to the applications for the
succeeding years in view of the subsequent ruling of the SC in the
The OSG suggests the adoption of a system of coding which could China Bank. Hence, the CA thus HDMF’s denial of the request for
include the use of pseudonyms in sexual assult cases and other waiver from fund coverage for the year 1996 contending that the
cases of a similar nature. Short of withdrawing the full text of SC’s decision in the petition for review on certiorari can no longer
decisions in such cases from the Web Page, the OSG proposes be disturbed as the law of the case between the parties.
that the Court instead replace the material information, such as the
name of the child-victim, in its decisions. Hence this present petition for review.

Taking these opinions into account and in view of recent ISSUE


enactments which unequivocally express the intention to maintain Whether the law of the case doctrine applies to Mercury’s
the confidentiality of information in cases involving violence against application for exemption from fund coverage for the year 1996.
women and their children, in this case and henceforth, the SC shall
withhold the real name of the victim- survivor and shall use fictitious RULING
initials instead to represent her. Likewise, the personal
circumstances of the victims-survivors or any other information NO. The doctrine of the law of the case does not apply to the
tending to establish or compromise their identities, as well those of present case vis a vis the decision of the SC in the petition for
their immediate family or household members, shall not be review on certiorari filed by petitioner. The present case is not a
disclosed. subsequent proceeding of the previous decision. This is an entirely
new one which was commenced by Mercury’s filing of an original
Mercury Group of Companies vs. Home Development Mutual petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus before the CA
Fund against HDMF.
G.R. No. 171438, December 19, 2007
At all events, the doctrine “is merely a rule of procedure and does
not go to the power of the court, and will not be adhered to where
FACTS its application will result in an unjust decision.” To sustain
respondent’s refusal to grant a waiver of Fund coverage to
The Home Development Mutual Fund Law which created the Pag- petitioner on the basis of amendments to implementing rules which
IBIG Fund System mandates coverage in the fund for all had previously been declared null and void by the SC would
employees covered by the SSS and the GSIS and their employers. certainly be unjust.
The law however provides for a waiver or suspension from
coverage in the fund to employers who have their own retirement Even assuming that the present proceeding may be considered a
AND/OR employee-housing plans. Upon the effectivity of the law in subsequent proceeding of the petition for certiorari before the SC,
1980 up to 1995, Mercury Group of Companies was annually the doctrine of the law of the case will still not apply because the
granted waiver from coverage because it has a superior said case was not resolved on the merits. The order of the SC
retirement/provident plan. denying petitioner’s petition for review found no reversible error in
the order of the RTC dismissing petitioner’s case primarily on
In 1995, the guidelines and procedure for applications for waiver of a procedural ground that is failure to exhaust administrative
fund Coverage was amended. In 1996, Mercury applied for renewal remedies.
of waiver from fund but the Home Development Mutual Fund
(HDMF) disapproved Mercury’s application on the ground that its Philippine Hawk Corporation vs. Vivian Tan Lee
retirement/provident and housing plan is not superior to Pag-IBIG G.R. No. 166869, February 16, 2010
Fund‘s. The amended IRR provides that to qualify for waiver, a
company must have retirement/provident AND housing plans. In
FACTS
Page 60 of 64
Vivian Tan Lee filed a complaint for damages based on quasi-delict
against Philippine Hawk Corporation. The case arose from a FACTS
vehicular accident involving a bus owned by petitioner which Atty. Hernandez filed a petition seeking the probate of the
collided with a motorcycle driven by respondent’s husband with holographic will of the late Herminia Montinola. Matilde Sanson, the
respondent on board. The accident caused the death of only surviving sister of the deceased but who was not named in the
respondent's husband and caused respondent physical injuries. said will, filed her Opposition to Probate of Will, alleging that the
testatrix was not in full possession of her mental faculties to make
The RTC held petitioner Philippine Hawk Corporation and its driver testamentary dispositions and that undue influence was exerted
solidarily liable for the sum of P745,575 representing loss of upon the person and mind of the testatrix by the beneficiaries
earnings and actual damages plus P50,000 as moral damages. named in the will.

Petitioner on appeal to the CA, assigned as error the award of The probate court rendered its decision allowing the probate of the
damages by the trial court on the ground that it was based merely disputed will. Matilde appealed the decision to the CA which
on suppositions and surmises. affirmed the decision of the trial court in toto. Petitioner then filed
with the CA a motion for new trial attaching the Affidavit of Merit of
The CA however affirmed the decision of the RTC with her son Gregorio Sanson, alleging that witnesses have been
modifications, awarding P168,019 as actual damages, P10,000 as located whose testimonies could shed light as to the ill health of
temperate damages, P100,000 as moral damages, P590,000 as testatrix as well as undue influence exerted on the latter.
unearned income, and P50,000 as civil indemnity.
The CA denied the motion for new trial on the ground that the
Petitioner filed the present petition for review arguing that since it Affidavit of Merit attached to the Motion for New Trial alleged that
was the only one that appealed the decision of the RTC, the CA efforts were exerted to locate unnamed witnesses only after the
erred in awarding other kinds of damages in favor of respondent. court's decision was handed down, and the testimony of the
unnamed witnesses are merely corroborative since the fact of
ISSUE grave illness of the testatrix as well as the undue influence exerted
Whether the CA erred in awarding other kinds of damages since it were already brought to light during the trial.
was petitioner that appealed the decision of the RTC.
ISSUE
RULING Whether petitioners filed a valid motion for new trial.
NO. Section 8, Rule 51 of provides that “no error which does not
affect the jurisdiction over the subject matter or the validity of the RULING
judgment appealed from or the proceedings therein will be NO. The motion for new trial is pro-forma for non-compliance with
considered unless stated in the assignment of errors, or closely Section 1, Rule 53 which provides that "… a motion for new trial
related to or dependent on an assigned error and properly argued may be filed on the ground of newly discovered evidence which
in the brief, save as the court pass upon plain errors and clerical could not have been discovered prior to the trial in the court below
errors.” by the exercise of due diligence and which is of such a character as
would probably change the result...”
The basic procedural rule is that only errors claimed and assigned
by a party will be considered by the court, except errors affecting its It could not be said that the evidence sought to be presented is new
jurisdiction over the subject matter. To this exception has now been having been discovered only after the trial. It is apparent from the
added errors affecting the validity of the judgment appealed from or allegations of affiant that efforts to locate the witnesses were
the proceedings therein. Also, even if the error complained of by a exerted only after the decision of the appellate court was handed
party is not expressly stated in his assignment of errors but the down. The trial lasted for about four years so that petitioner had
same is closely related to or dependent on an assigned error and ample time to find said alleged witnesses who were admittedly
properly argued in his brief, such error may now be considered by known to her. The evidence which the petitioner now propose to
the court. These changes are of jurisprudential origin. present could have been discovered and presented during the
hearing of the case, and there is no sufficient reason for concluding
The procedure in the SC being generally the same as that in the that had the petitioner exercised proper diligence she would not
CA, unless otherwise, it has been held that the CA is clothed with have been able to discover said evidence.
ample authority to review matters, even if they are not assigned as
errors on appeal, if it finds that their consideration is necessary in In addition, the SC agrees with the CA that since the alleged illness
arriving at a just decision of the case. Also, an unassigned error of the testatrix as well as the charges of undue influence exerted
closely related to an error properly assigned or upon which the upon her had been brought to light during the trial, any new
determination of the question raised by error properly assigned is evidence on this point is merely corroborative and cumulative which
dependent, will be considered by the appellate court is generally not a ground for new trial.
notwithstanding the failure to assign it as error.

It may also be observed that under Sec. 8 of this Rule, the Jorge Bernardo et al vs. CA and Planters Development Bank
appellate court is authorized to consider a plain error, although it G.R. No. 86237, December 17, 1991
was not specifically assigned by the appellant, otherwise it would
be sacrificing substance for technicalities.
FACTS
RULES 52 AND 53
Petitioners executed a real estate mortgage in favor of Planters
Development Bank to secure the payment of a loan in the sum of
Heirs of the late Matilde Montinola-Sanson vs. CA and Eduardo
P1.2M. When the petitioners failed to pay their obligation, Planters
Hernandez
G.R. No. 76648, February 26, 1988 instituted extra-judicial foreclosure of the mortgage and an auction
Page 61 of 64
sale was conducted with Planters as the highest bidder. The one- In its comment, the SolGen recommended that Edilberto Cuenca
year period having expired without the petitioners exercising their be entitled to a new trial, proceeding from the impression that the
right of redemption, ownership of the five parcels of land was sworn statement a certain Rodolfo Cuenca (brother of petitioner
transferred to Planters. and president of complainant corporation) is an admission against
interest which may ultimately exonerate petitioner from criminal
Thereafter, Planters sent a letter of demand to the petitioners to liability. SolGen had this to say: "Ordinarily, it is too late at this
vacate the premises, but the demand was rejected. It then filed a stage to ask for a new trial. However, the sworn statement of
petition for the issuance of a writ of possession. Rodolfo Cuenca is a declaration against his own interests which
casts doubt on the culpability of his brother Edilberto Cuenca.
The RTC granted the petition for the issuance of the writ of Hence, the alleged confession of guilt should be given a hard look
possession. Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari by the Court. The People is inclined to allow petitioner to establish
before the CA but the CA dismissed the petition. Hence, petitioners the genuineness and due execution of his brother's affidavit in the
filed this petition for review under Rule 45 submitting that the writ of interest of justice and fair play.”
possession should not have been issued alleging that they had
already repurchased the property from Planters. To prove their ISSUE
claim, they presented to the CA an exchange of letters which they
insist has established a meeting of minds between them and Whether the SC may entertain a Motion for New Trial on the ground
Planters relative to their repurchase of the subject properties. of newly discovered evidence.

The petitioners ask the SC to consider four letters which they have RULING
attached to this petition, claiming these to be newly-discovered
evidence that would substantiate their allegation that they made a YES. Although in Goduco v. CA decided in 1965, the SC ruled that
down payment of P300k to the private respondent for the it is not authorized to entertain a motion for reconsideration and/or
repurchase of the subject properties. new trial predicated on allegedly newly discovered evidence, the
rationale of which being "the judgment of the CA is conclusive as to
ISSUE the facts, and cannot be reviewed by the SC…for only questions of
Whether the letters may be considered as newly-discovered fact are involved therein", the rule now appears to have been
evidence which would warrant a new trial. relaxed, if not abandoned, in subsequent cases like Helmuth v.
People and People v. Amparado.
RULING
In both cases, the SC, opting to brush aside technicalities, granted
NO. As defined, newly-discovered evidence is evidence which new trial to the convicted accused concerned on the basis of
could not have been discovered prior to the trial in the court below proposed testimonies or affidavits of persons which the Court
by the exercise of due diligence and which is of such character as considered as newly discovered and probably sufficient evidence to
would probably change the result. reverse the judgment of conviction. Being similarly circumstanced,
there is no nagging reason why herein petitioner should be denied
The decision of the CA was promulgated on September 12, 1988 the same benefit.
while the letters are dated October 24, 1988, and November 12,
1988. As they were not existing at the time the CA rendered its Emilio Gonzales III vs. Office of the President
decision, and indeed prior to the trial, they could not by any kind of G.R. No. 196231, January 28, 2014
diligence have been discovered at all during that period. It is clear
that they do not qualify as newly-discovered evidence under the FACTS
definition as they came into existence only after the trial.
Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzales was dismissed from service
A no less important consideration is that the Rules of Court allow by the Office of the President (OP) which found him guilty of Gross
only two occasions when a party may file a motion for new trial on Neglect of Duty and Inefficiency. Gonzales filed a Petition for
the ground of newly-discovered evidence. That motion may be filed Certiorari before SC seeking to declare as unconstitutional Sec 8(2)
only with the trial court under Rule 37 or with the CA under Rule 53 of RA 6770 which grants the President the power to dismiss a
but never with the SC. Deputy Ombudsman of the Office of the Ombudsman.

Edilberto Cuenca vs. Court of Appeals The SC in its decision upheld the constitutionality of Sec 8(2) of RA
G.R. No. 109870, December 01, 1995 6770 and ruled that the President has disciplinary jurisdiction over a
Deputy Ombudsman and a Special Prosecutor. The SC however
FACTS reversed the OP ruling that found Gonzales guilty of Gross Neglect
of Duty and Grave Misconduct constituting betrayal of public trust.
Edilberto Cuenca was convicted for violation of the Trust Receipts The SC thus ordered the reinstatement of Gonzales.
Law. After the CA affirmed his conviction, he filed a petition for
review before the SC which was denied. The Office of the President filed a motion for reconsideration of the
2012 decision of the SC insofar as reinstatement of Gonzales is
Petitioner thereafter filed a Motion for Leave to file Motion for New concerned.
Trial alleging that “the motion for new trial shall be grounded on
newly discovered evidence and shall be supported by affidavits of ISSUE
an officer of complainant corporation who will exculpate petitioner.” Whether the SC may, on a motion for reconsideration filed by the
Petitioner also filed a "motion to admit attached motion for new Office of the President for the purpose of challenging the order of
trial". The SC required the SolGen to comment on the motion. the SC reinstating Gonzales, likewise rule on the constitutionality of
Sec 8(2) of RA 6770.

Page 62 of 64
RULING 4. Cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers
and consuls;
YES. At the outset, the SC notes that Gonzales did not file a motion 5. Cases involving decisions, resolutions or orders of the
for reconsideration of the SC’s 2012 decision; only the OP, through Civil Service Commission, Commission on Elections, and
the OSG, moved for the reconsideration. This omission, however, Commission on Audit;
poses no obstacle for the Court’s review of its ruling on the whole 6. Cases where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal
case since a serious constitutional question has been raised and is of a judge, officer or employee of the judiciary, disbarment
one of the underlying bases for the validity or invalidity of the of a lawyer, or either the suspension of any of them for a
presidential action. If the President does not have any period of more than one (1) year or a fine exceeding
constitutional authority to discipline a Deputy Ombudsman and/or a P10,000.00 or both;
Special Prosecutor in the first place, then any ruling on the legal 7. Cases where a doctrine or principle laid down by the
correctness of the OP’s decision on the merits will be an empty court en banc or in division may be modified or reversed;
one. 8. Cases assigned to a division which in the opinion of at
least three (3) members thereof merit the attention of the
Since the validity of the OP’s decision on the merits of the dismissal court en banc and are acceptable to a majority of the
is inextricably anchored on the final and correct ruling on the actual membership of the court en banc; and
constitutional issue, the whole case – including the constitutional 9. All other cases as the court en banc by a majority of its
issue – remains alive for the Court’s consideration on motion for actual membership may deem of sufficient importance to
reconsideration. merit its attention.

The SC votes to grant Gonzales’ petition to declare Section 8(2) of


RA 6770 unconstitutional with respect to the Office of the In Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, the Court
Ombudsman. conceded that it is not infallible. Should any error of judgment be
perceived, it does not blindly adhere to such error, and the
RULE 56: ORIGINAL AND APPEALED CASES parties adversely affected thereby are not precluded from
seeking relief therefrom, by way of a motion for reconsideration.
Firestone Ceramics vs CA In this jurisdiction, rectification of an error, more than anything
334 SCRA 465 (2000) else, is of paramount importance.

FACTS:
On March 8, 2000, the Third Division voted 4-1 to deny
petitioners' motion to transfer these cases to the Banc. Thus, on
This case involves a 99-hectare land presumptively belonging to March 14, 2000, the Court deliberated on the consulta and
the Republic of the Philippines, which land had been thereafter, voted 9-5 to accept the cases for the Banc to pass
adjudicated to private individuals by a court alleged to be upon in view of the finding that the cases above entitled are of
without jurisdiction. sufficient importance to merit its attention. Evidently, the action
of the Court under the premises is a legitimate and valid
The assailed decision does not indicate the classification of the exercise of its RESIDUAL POWER within the contemplation of
land in question, when the herein private respondents obtained paragraph 9 of the Resolution En Banc of November 18, 1993,
their decree of registration thereover. which reads: "All other cases as the court en banc by a majority
of its actual membership may deem of sufficient importance to
Since the validity of the said decision and the original certificate merit its attention."
of title as well as transfer certificates of title issued pursuant
thereto hinges on the classification of subject area at the time it
Untenable is the contention of Justice Panganiban that the Chief
was so adjudicated, determination of the validity of the
Justice and the eight (8) Associate Justices who voted to treat
disposition thereof is in order.
these consolidated cases as En Banc cases, have not given any
Petitioner filed Motions to Refer to the Court En Banc these cogent or compelling reason for such action. Considering that
consolidated cases paragraph 9 of the Resolution of this Court dated November 18,
1993, has been cited to support the majority opinion, it is
ISSUE: decisively clear that these consolidated cases have been found
to be of sufficient importance to merit the attention and
WON the SC should hear the case en banc disposition of the entire Court en banc and therefore, the prayer
of the Republic of the Philippines and the private petitioners for
HELD: the Court en banc to hear and resolve their pending motions for
reconsideration, is meritorious. The aforesaid finding by the
YES. Under Supreme Court Circular No. 2-89, as amended by Court constitutes a reason cogent and compelling enough to
the Resolution of November 18, 1993: the following are warrant the majority ruling that the Court En Banc has to act
considered en banc cases: upon and decide petitioners' motions for reconsideration.

1. Cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any It bears stressing that where, as in the present cases, the
treaty, international or executive agreement, law, Court En Banc entertains a case for its resolution and
executive order, or presidential decree, proclamation, disposition, it does so without implying that the Division of origin
order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question; is incapable of rendering objective and fair justice. The action of
2. Criminal cases in which the appealed decision imposes the Court simply means that the nature of the cases calls for en
the death penalty; banc attention and consideration. Neither can it be concluded
3. Cases raising novel questions of law; that the Court has taken undue advantage of sheer voting

Page 63 of 64
strength. It was merely guided by the well-studied finding and
sustainable opinion of the majority of its actual membership —
that, indeed, subject cases are of sufficient importance meriting
the action and decision of the whole Court. It is, of course,
beyond cavil that all the members of this highest Court of the
land are always embued with the noblest of intentions in
interpreting and applying the germane provisions of law,
jurisprudence, rules and Resolutions of the Court — to the end
that public interest be duly safeguarded and rule of law be
observed.

In the two consolidated cases under consideration, however, the


Motions for Reconsideration of the petitioners, Republic of the
Philippines and Firestone Ceramics, Inc., et al., are pending and
unresolved.

Taking into account the importance of these cases and the


issues raised, let alone the enormous value of the area in
litigation, which is claimed as government property, there is
merit in the prayer of petitioners that their pending motions for
reconsideration should be resolved by the Court En Banc.

WHEREFORE, these consolidated cases are considered and


treated as en banc cases

Page 64 of 64

Похожие интересы