Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12

1

POST JUDGMENT REMEDIES (Rules 37-38, 4047, 52-53) Period of filing: Period of filing: Period of filing:
1. Within fifteen (15) 1. Within sixty (60) 1. Extrinsic fraud
(1) Remedies before a judgment becomes final and executory days from receipt of after petitioner learns within four (4) years
notice of judgment or of the judgment or from discovery
(a) Motion for reconsideration (prohibited in a case that falls under
final order (Notice of order, and not more 2. Lack of jurisdiction
summary procedure) (Rules 37, 52);
Appeal); or than six (6) months before barred by
(b) Motion for new trial (Rules 37, 53); and 2. Within thirty (30) days after entry of laches or estoppel
(c) Appeal (Rules 40, 41, 42, 43, 45) from receipt of notice of judgment.
(2) Remedies after judgment becomes final and executory judgment or final order
(Record on Appeal)
(a) Petition for relief from judgment (Rule 38);
(b) Action to annul a judgment (Rule 47);
(c) Certiorari (Rule 65); and Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration (Rule 37)
(d) Collateral attack of a judgment.
(3) 2002 Bar: May an order denying the probate of a will still be overturned
after the period to appeal therefrom has lapsed? Why? (3%) Grounds for a motion for new trial
Answer: Yes, an order denying the probate of a will may be overturned after (1) Fraud (extrinsic), accident, mistake (of fact and not of law) or excusable
the period to appeal therefrom has lapsed. A petition for relief may be filed negligence which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against and by
on the grounds of fraud, accident, mistakes or excusable negligence within reason of which such aggrieved party has probably been impaired in his
a period of sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment or final rights;
order and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or final order
(2) Newly discovered evidence (Berry Rule), which he could not, with
was entered (Rule 38, Sections 1 and 3). An action for annulment may also
reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial, and which
be filed on the ground of extrinsic fraud within four (4) years from its
if presented would probably alter the result.
discovery, and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches
or estoppel (Rule 47, Sections 2 and 3). (3) For the grounds of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence,
(4) 2006 Bar: Jojie filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laguna a attachment of affidavit of merit is required; otherwise, it would be a pro
complaint for damages against Joe. During the pre-trial, Jojie (sic) and her forma motion.
(sic) counsel failed to appear despite notice to both of them. Upon oral
motion of Jojie, Joe was declared as in default and Jojie was allowed to Grounds for a motion for reconsideration
present her evidence ex parte. Thereafter, the court rendered its Decision in (1) The damages awarded are excessive;
favor of Jojie. (2) The evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final order;
(3) The decision or final order is contrary to law (Sec. 1).
Joe hired Jose as his counsel. What are the remedies available to him?
Explain. (5%) When to file
Action to Annul (1) A motion for new trial should be filed within the period for taking an
Motion for New Trial Petition for Relief from
judgment appeal. Hence, it must be filed before the finality of the judgment (Sec. 1).
(Rule 37) Judgment (Rule 38)
(Rule 47) No motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration shall be
Grounds: Grounds: Grounds: allowed. In Distilleria Limtuaco vs. CA, 143 SCRA 92, it was said that the
1. Extrinsic fraud 5. Extrinsic fraud 1. Extrinsic fraud period for filing a motion for new trial is within the period for taking an
2. Accident 6. Accident 2. Lack of jurisdiction appeal.
3. Mistake of fact 7. Mistake of fact over the subject
(2) The period for appeal is within 15 days after notice to the appellant of
4. Excusable negligence 8. Excusable matter
the judgment or final order appealed from. Where a record on appeal is
negligence
required, the appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal
within 30 days from notice of the judgment or final order (Sec. 3, Rule 41).
2

A record on appeal shall be required only in special proceedings and other (3) As a general rule, new trial based on newly discovered evidence is not
cases of multiple or separate appeals (Sec. 3, Rule 40). allowed on appeal. However, this rule admits of an exception, provided the
following requirements are present:
Denial of the motion; effect (a) The new evidence must have been discovered after trial;
(1) If the motion is denied, the movant has a fresh period of fifteen days (b) Earnest efforts were done to look for newly discovered evidence but
from receipt of notice of the order denying or dismissing the motion for fruitless;
reconsideration within which to file a notice of appeal.
(c) If so allowed, it would probably alter the result; and
(2) When the motion for new trial is denied on the ground of fraud, accident,
mistake of fact or law, or excusable negligence, the aggrieved party can no (d) It must be material and not just corroborative or cumulative (Mendoza
longer avail of the remedy of petition for relief from judgment (Francisco vs. vs. Ozamis).
Puno, 108 SCRA 427).
Remedy when motion is denied
(3) The denial of a motion for reconsideration signifies that the grounds (1) The party aggrieved should appeal the judgment. This is so because a
relied upon have been found, upon due deliberation, to be without merit, as second motion for reconsideration is expressly prohibited under the Interim
not being of sufficient weight to warrant a modification of the judgment or Rules (Sec. 5).
final order. It means not only that the grounds relied upon are lacking in
merit but also that any other, not so raised, is deemed waived and may no (2) An order denying a motion for reconsideration or new trial is not
longer be set up in a subsequent motion or application to overturn the appealable, the remedy being an appeal from the judgment or final order
judgment; and this is true, whatever may be the title given to such motion or under Rule 41. The remedy from an order denying a motion for new trial is
application, whether it be second motion for reconsideration or motion not to appeal from the order of denial. Again, the order is not appealable.
for clarification or plea for due process or prayer for a second look, or The remedy is to appeal from the judgment or final order itself subject of the
motion to defer, or set aside, entry of judgment, (Social Justice Society v. motion for new trial (Sec. 9, Rule 37).
Lim, GR No. 187836, 03/10/2015).
Fresh Fifteen (15) -day Period Rule (Neypes Doctrine)
Grant of the motion; effect (1) If the motion is denied, the movant has a fresh period of 15 days from
(1) If a new trial be granted in accordance with the provisions of the rules, receipt of notice of the order denying or dismissing the motion for
the original judgment shall be vacated or set aside, and the action shall reconsideration within which to file a notice to appeal. This new period
stand for trial de novo; but the recorded evidence taken upon the former becomes significant if either a motion for reconsideration or a motion for
trial so far as the same is material and competent to establish the issues, new trial has been filed but was denied or dismissed. This fresh period rule
shall be used at the new trial without retaking the same (Sec. 6). The filing applies not only to Rule 41 governing appeals from the RTC but also to
of the motion for new trial or reconsideration interrupts the period to appeal Rule 40 governing appeals from MTC to RTC, Rule 42 on petitions for
(Sec. 2, Rule 40; Sec. 3, Rule 41). review from the RTC to the CA, Rule 43 on appeal from quasi-judicial
agencies to the CA, and Rule 45 governing appeals by certiorari to the SC.
(2) If the court grants the motion (e.g., it finds that excessive damages have Accordingly, this rule was adopted to standardize the appeal periods
been awarded or that the judgment or final order is contrary to the evidence provided in the Rules to afford fair opportunity to review the case and, in the
or law), it may amend such judgment or final order accordingly (Sec. 3). process, minimize errors of judgment. Obviously, the new 15 day period
The amended judgment is in the nature of a new judgment which may be availed of only if either motion is filed; otherwise, the decision
supersedes the original judgment. It is not a mere supplemental decision becomes final and executory after the lapse of the original appeal period
which does not supplant the original but only serves to add something to it provided in Rule 41 (Neypes vs. CA, GR No. 141524, 09/14/2005).
(Esquivel vs. Alegre, 172 SCRA 315). If the court finds that a motion affects (2) The Neypes ruling shall not be applied where no motion for new trial or
the issues of the case as to only a part, or less than all of the matters in motion for reconsideration has been filed in which case the 15-day period
controversy, or only one, or less than all of the parties to it, the order may shall run from notice of the judgment. This shall not apply to Rules 12, 16,
grant a reconsideration as to such issues if severable without interfering 62, and 64. The period for Rules 40 and 41 are extendible, while those of
with the judgment or final order upon the rest (Sec. 7). Rules 42, 43, and 45 are not extendible.
3

(3) The fresh period rule does not refer to the period within which to appeal (e) There can be amendments of pleadings to conform to the evidence
from the order denying the motion for new trial because the order is not submitted before the trial court (Dayao vs. Shell, 97 SCRA 407);
appealable under Sec. 9, Rule 37. The non-appealability of the order of (f) The liability of solidary defendant who did not appeal is not affected
denial is also confirmed by Sec. 1(a), Rule 41, which provides that no by appeal of solidary debtor (Mun. of Orion vs. Concha, 50 Phil. 679);
appeal may be taken from an order denying a motion for new trial or a
motion for reconsideration. (g) Appeal by guarantor does not inure to the principal (Luzon Metal vs.
Manila Underwriter, 29 SCRA 184);
(4) Appeal from the MTC to the RTC: the fifteen-day period is counted from
the date of the receipt of the notice of denial of motion. (h) In ejectment cases, the RTC cannot award to the appellant on his
counterclaim more than the amount of damages beyond the
(5) The doctrine of finality of judgment dictates that, at the risk of occasional jurisdiction of the MTC (Agustin vs. Bataclan, 135 SCRA 342);
errors, judgments or orders must become final at some point in time. In
Neypes, the Supreme Court, in order to standardize the appeal periods (i) The appellate court cannot dismiss the appealed case for failure to
provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their prosecute because the case must be decided on the basis of the
cases, declared that an aggrieved party has a fresh period of 15 days record (Rule 21, Interim Rules).
counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or (4) Doctrinally-entrenched is that the right to appeal is a statutory right and
motion for reconsideration, within which to file the notice of appeal in the the one who seeks to avail that right must comply with the statute or rules.
RTC. (Heirs of Bihag v. Heirs of Bathan, GR No. 181949, 04/23/2014). The perfection of appeal in the manner and within the period set by law is
not only mandatory but jurisdictional as well, hence, failure to perfect the
same renders the judgment final and executory. (De Leon v. Hercules Agro
Industrial Corporation, GR No. 183239, 06/02/2014).
Appeals in General
(1) The right to appeal is not part of due process but a mere statutory (5) An appeal throws the entire case open for review. An appeal, once
privilege that has to be exercised only in the manner and in accordance accepted by this Court, throws the entire case open to review, and that this
with the provisions of law (Stolt-Nielsen vs. NLRC, GR 147623, Dec. 13, Court has the authority to review matters not specifically raised or assigned
2005). The general rule is that the remedy to obtain reversal or modification as error by the parties, if their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just
of judgment on the merits is appeal. This is true even if the error, or one of resolution of the case. (Barcelona v. Lim, GR No. 189171, 06/032014).
the errors, ascribed to the court rendering the judgment is its lack of (6) The Court did relax the rule respecting the bond requirement to perfect
jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the exercise of power in excess appeal in cases where: (1) there was substantial compliance with the
thereof, or grave abuse of discretion in the findings of facts or of law set out Rules, (2) surrounding facts and circumstances constitute meritorious
in the decision (Association of Integrated Security Force of Bislig-ALU vs. grounds to reduce the bond, (3) a liberal interpretation of the requirement of
CA, GR 140150, Aug. 22, 2005). An appeal may be taken only from an appeal bond would serve the desired objective of resolving
judgments or final orders that completely dispose of the case (Sec. 1, Rule controversies on the merits, or (4) the appellants, at the very least,
41). exhibited their willingness and/or good faith by posting a partial bond during
(2) An interlocutory order is not appealable until after the rendition of the the reglementary period. Clearly therefore, the Rules only allow the filing of
judgment on the merits. Exception: Doctrine of Procedural Void. a motion to reduce bond on two (2) conditions: (1) that there is meritorious
ground and (2) a bond in a reasonable amount is posted. Compliance with
(3) Certain rules on appeal: the two conditions stops the running of the period to perfect an appeal
(a) No trial de novo anymore. The appellate courts must decide the case provided that they are complied with within the 10-day reglementary period.
on the basis of the record, except when the proceedings were not (Sara Lee Philippines, Inc. v. Macatlang, GR Nos. 180147, 180149-50,
duly recorded as when there was absence of a qualified stenographer 180319, 180685, 06/04/2014).
(Sec. 22[d], BP 129; Rule 21[d], Interim RulesI); (7) It is axiomatic that a party who does not appeal or file a petition for
(b) There can be no new parties; certiorari is not entitled to any affirmative relief. An appellee who is not an
appellant may assign errors in his brief where his purpose is to maintain the
(c) There can be no change of theory (Naval vs. CA, 483 SCRA 102);
judgment but he cannot seek modification or reversal of the judgment or
(d) There can be no new matters (Ondap vs. Abuga, 88 SCRA 610); claim affirmative relief unless he has also appealed. Thus, for failure of
respondent to assail the validity of her dismissal, such ruling is no longer in
4

issue. (Immaculate Concepcion Academy v. Camilon, GR No. 188035, complaint for improper venue, lack of cause of action, and res judicata.
07/02/2014). Dismissals based on these grounds do not involve a review of the facts of
(8) When an accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court, he the case but merely the application of the law, specifically in this case, Rule
waives the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the 16 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Considering, therefore, that the
whole case open to the review of the appellate court, which is then called subject appeal raised only questions of law, the CA committed no error in
upon to render such judgment as law and justice dictate, whether favorable dismissing the same. (Samson v. Sps. Gabor, GR No. 182970,
or unfavorable to the appellant. (People v. Torres, GR No. 189850, 07/23/2014).
09/22/2014).
Matters not appealable
(9) 2003 Bar: Defendant X received an adverse Decision of the Regional
(1) No appeal may be taken from:
Trial Court in an ordinary civil case on 02 January 2003. He filed a Notice of
Appeal on 10 January 2003. On the other hand, plaintiff A received the (a) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking
same decision on 06 January 2003, and on 19 January 2003, filed a Motion relief from judgment;
for Reconsideration of the Decision. On 13 January 2003, defendant X filed (b) An interlocutory order;
a Motion withdrawing his notice of appeal in order to file a Motion for New (c) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;
Trial which he attached. On 20 January 2003, the court denied As Motion
to Withdraw Notice of Appeal. Plaintiff A received the Order denying his (d) An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent,
Motion for Reconsideration on 03 February 2003 and filed his Notice f confession or compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or
Appeal on 05 February 2003. The court denied due course of As Notice of any other ground vitiating consent;
Appeal on the ground that the period to appeal had already lapsed. (e) An order of execution;
a. Is the courts denial of Xs Motion to Withdraw Notice of Appeal proper? (f) A judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties
b. Is the courts denial of due course to As appeal correct? or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party
Answer: No, the courts denial of Xs Motion to Withdraw Notice of Appeal is complaints, while the main case is pending, unless the court allows an
not proper, because the period of appeal of X has not yet expired. From 02 appeal therefrom; and
January 2003 when X received a copy of the adverse decision up to 13
January 2003 when he filed his withdrawal of appeal and Motion for New (g) An order dismissing an action without prejudice (Sec. 1, Rule 41).
Trial, only ten (10) days had elapsed and he had fifteen (15) days to do so. (2) A question that was never raised in the courts below cannot be allowed
b. No, the courts denial of due course to As appeal is not correct because to be raised for the first time on appeal without offending basic rules of fair
the appeal was take on time. From January 6, 2003 when A received a play, justice and due process (Bank of Commerce vs. Serrano, 451 SCRA
copy of the decision up to January 19, 2003 when he filed a Motion for 484). For an appellate court to consider a legal question, it should have
Reconsideration, only twelve (12) days had elapsed. Consequently, he had been raised in the court below (PNOC vs. CA, 457 SCRA 32). It would be
three (3) days from receipt of February 3, 2003 Order denying his Motion unfair to the adverse party who would have no opportunity to present
for Reconsideration within which to appeal. He filed his notice of appeal on evidence in contra to the new theory, which it could have done had it been
February 5, 2003, or only two (2) days later. aware of it at the time of the hearing before the trial court. it is true that this
rule admits of exceptions as in cases of lack of jurisdiction, where the lower
court committed plain error, where there are jurisprudential developments
Judgments and final orders subject to appeal
affecting the issues, or when the issues raised present a matter of public
(1) An appeal may be taken only from judgments or final orders that
policy (Baluyot vs. Poblete, GR 144435, Feb. 6, 2007).
completely dispose of the case (Sec. 1, Rule 41). An interlocutory order is
not appealable until after the rendition of the judgment on the merits. (3) The rule under (2) however is only the general rule because Sec. 8,
Rule 51 precludes its absolute application allowing as it does certain errors
(2) There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what
which even if not assigned may be ruled upon by the appellate court.
the law is on certain state of facts and which does not call for an existence
Hence, the court may consider an error not raised on appeal provided the
of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties-litigants. In a
same falls within any of the following categories:
case involving a question of law, the resolution of the issue rests solely on
what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. In the instant (a) It is an error that affects the jurisdiction over the subject matter;
case, petitioner appealed the Order of the trial court which dismissed his (b) It is an error that affects the validity of the judgment appealed from;
5

(c) It is an error which affects the proceedings; multiple or separate appeals where the law or the Rules so require. In such
(d) It is an error closely related to or dependent on an assigned error and cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner.
properly argued in the brief; or (b) Petition for review. The appeal to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in
(e) It is a plain and clerical error. the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in
accordance with Rule 42.
(4) The Supreme Court ruled ruled that an appellate court has a broad
discretionary power in waiving the lack of assignment of errors in the (c) Petition for review on certiorari. In all cases where only questions of law
following instances: are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the SC by petition for review
on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45.
(a) Grounds not assigned as errors but affecting the jurisdiction of the
court over the subject matter:
Material Data Rule (Sec. 1 [a], Rule 50)
(b) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or (1) The record on appeal must show the following material data:
clerical errors within contemplation of law; (a) Date of the receipt of the copy of final order or judgment;
(c) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is (b) Date of filing of the motion for reconsideration or new trial; and
necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the (c) Date of the receipt of the denial of the motion for reconsideration or
case or to serve the interests of a justice or to avoid dispensing new trail.
piecemeal justice; (2) An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion
(d) Matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in thr or on that of the appellee, on the following grounds:
trial court and are matters of record having some bearing on the issue (a) Failure of the record on appeal to show on its face that the appeal was
submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court taken within the period fixed by the Rules;
ignored; (b) Failure to file the notice of appeal or the record on appeal within the
(e) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an period prescribed by the Rules;
error assigned; and (c) Failure of the appellant to pay the docket and other lawful fees as
(f) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the provided in Section 5 of Rule 40 and Section 4 of Rule 41;
determination of a question properly assigned, is dependent (General (d) Unauthorized alterations, omissions or additions in the approved record
Milling Corp. v. Sps. Ramos, GR No. 193723, 07/20/2011). on appeal as provided in Section 4 of Rule 44;
(e) Failure of the appellant to serve and file the required number of copies
Remedy against judgments and orders which are not appealable of his brief or memorandum within the time provided by the Rules;
(1) In those instances where the judgment or final order is not appealable, (f) Absence of specific assignment of errors in the appellants brief, or
the aggrieved party may file the appropriate special civil action under Rule page references to the record as required in Section 13 [a], [c], [d], and
65. Rule 65 refers to the special civil actions of certiorari, prohibition and [f] of Rule 44;
mandamus. Practically, it would be the special civil action of certiorari that (g) Failure of the appellant to take the necessary steps for the correction or
would be availed of under most circumstances. The most potent remedy completion of the record within the time limited by the court in its order;
against those judgments and orders from which appeal cannot be taken is (h) Failure of the appellant to appear at the preliminary conference under
to allege and prove that the same were issued without jurisdiction, with Rule 48 or to comply with orders, circulars, or directives of the court
grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction, all amounting to lack without justifiable cause; and
of jurisdiction. (i) The fact that the order or judgment appealed from is not appealable.

Modes of appeal (Sec. 2, Rule 41) Issues to be raised on appeal


(a) Ordinary appeal. The appeal to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in (1) Whether or not the appellant has filed a motion for new trial in the court
the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of below, he may include in his assignment of errors any question of law or
appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed fact that has been raised in the court below and which is within the issues
from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on framed by the parties (Sec. 15, Rule 44).
appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of
Period of appeal
6

Period of appeal if party (AM No. 01-1-03-SC, June 19, 2001). The period of appeal shall be
PERIOD OF
MODE OF APPEAL files MFR or New Trial interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration. No motion for
APPEAL
(Neypes Rule) extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be
Ordinary Appeal (Rules 40, 41) allowed (Sec. 3). If the record on appeal is not transmitted to the CA within
a) Notice of Appeal Within 15 days from Within 15 days from receipt 30 days after the perfection of appeal, either party may file a motion with
(Rule 40) receipt of judgment of order denying motion for the trial court, with notice to the other, for the transmittal of such record or
or final order, with reconsideration or new trial record on appeal (Sec. 3, Rule 44).
no extension (3) Period of Petition for Review under Rule 42. The petition shall be filed
b) Record on Appeal Within 30 days from The 30-day to file the notice and served within 15 days from notice of the decision sought to be reviewed
(Rule 41) receipt of judgment of appeal and record on or of the denial of petitioners motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in
or final order appeal should be reckoned due time after judgment. The court may grant an additional period of 15
from the receipt of the order days only, provided the extension is sought (a) upon proper motion, and (b)
denying the motion for new there is payment of the full amount of the docket and other lawful fees and
trial or motion for the deposit for costs before the expiration of the reglementary period. No
reconsideration (Zayco vs. further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason
Himlo, GR 170243, April and in no case to exceed 15 days (Sec. 1).
16, 2008) (4) Period of Appeal by Petition for Review under Rule 43. The appeal shall
Petition for Review Within 15 days from Within 15 days from receipt be taken within 15 days from notice of the award, judgment, final order or
(Rule 42) receipt of judgment of the order denying motion resolution, or from the date of its last publication, if publication is required
for reconsideration or new by law for its effectivity, or of the denial of petitioners motion for new trial or
trial reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the governing law of the court
Petition for Review Within 15 days from Within 15 days from receipt or agency a quo. Only one (1) motion for reconsideration shall be allowed.
(Rule 43) receipt of judgment of the order denying motion Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket fee
or final order or of for reconsideration or new before the expiration of the reglementary period, the CA may grant an
last publication trial additional period of 15 days only within which to file the petition for review.
Petition for Review Within 15 days from Within 15 days from receipt No further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason
on Certiorari (Rule receipt of judgment of the order denying motion and in no case to exceed 15 days (Sec. 4).
45) or final order for reconsideration or new
trial (5) Period of Appeal by Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. The
appeal which shall be in the form of a verified petition shall be filed within 15
(1) Period of Ordinary Appeal under Rule 40. An appeal may be taken (from days from notice of the judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, or
MTC to RTC) within 15 days after notice to the appellant of the judgment or within 15 days from notice of the denial of the petitioners motion for new
final order appealed from. Where a record on appeal is required, the trail or motion for reconsideration filed in due time. The Supreme Court
appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within 30 days may, for justifiable reasons, grant an extension of 30 days only within which
after notice of the judgment or final order. The period of appeal shall be to file the petition provided, (a) there is a motion for extension of time duly
interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration. No motion for filed and served, (b) there is full payment of the docket and other lawful fees
extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be and the deposit for costs, and (c) the motion is filed and served and the
allowed (Sec. 2). payment is made before the expiration of the reglementary period (Sec. 2).

(2) Period of Ordinary Appeal under Rule 41). The appeal shall be taken (6) In appeals cognized by the Office of the President, the time during which
within 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. a motion for reconsideration has been pending with the Ministry/agency
Where a record on appeal is required, the appellants shall file a notice of concerned shall be deducted from the period for appeal. (Sps. Rosete v.
appeal and a record on appeal within 30 days from notice of the judgment Briones, GR No. 176121, 09/22/2014).
or final order. However, on appeal in habeas corpus cases shall be taken
within 48 hours from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from Perfection of appeals
7

(1) For Ordinary Appeals from MTC to the RTC (Rule 40) and from the RTC unjust in light of certain circumstances therein. (Baez v. Social Security
to the CA (Rule 41). System, GR No. 189574, 07/18/2014).
(a) A partys appeal by notice of appeal is deemed perfected as to him (4) A counsels failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period is
upon the filing of the notice of appeal in due time; simple negligence. It is not one as gross, palpable, and reckless as to
(b) A partys appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as to him deprive a party of its day in court. Hence, we will not override the finality
with respect to the subject matter thereof upon the approval of the record and immutability of a judgment based only on the simple negligence of a
on appeal filed in due time; partys counsel. IK&G Mining Corporation v. Acoje Mining Company, GR
(c) In appeals by notice of appeal, the court loses jurisdiction only over the No.188364, 02/11/2015).
subject matter thereof upon the approval of the records on appeal filed in
due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties; Appeal from judgments or final orders of the MTC
(d) In either case, prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record (1) An appeal from a judgment or final order of an MTC may be taken to the
on appeal, the court may issue orders for the protection and preservation RTC exercising jurisdiction over the area to which the former pertains. The
of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the title of the case shall remain as it was in the court of origin, but the party
appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order appealing the case shall be further referred to as the appellant and the
execution pending appeal in accordance with Sec. 2, Rule 39, and allow adverse party as the appellee (Sec. 1, Rule 40).
withdrawal of the appeal (Sec. 9, Rule 41). (2) The appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court that
(2) Perfection of Appeal by Petition for Review under Rule 42. (Sec.8) rendered the judgment or final order appealed from. The notice of appeal
(a) Upon the timely filing of a petition for review and the payment of the shall indicate the parties to the appeal, the judgment or final order or part
corresponding docket and other lawful fees, the appeal is deemed thereof appealed from, and state the material dates showing the timeliness
perfected as to the petitioner. The RTC loses jurisdiction over the case of the appeal. A record on appeal shall be required only in special
upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the proceedings and in other cases of multiple or separate appeals (Sec. 3).
time to appeal of the other parties. (3) Procedure (Sec. 7):
However, before the CA give due course to the petition, the RTC may issue (a) Upon receipt of the complete record or the record on appeal, the clerk
orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which of court of the RTC shall notify the parties of such fact.
do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve compromises,
(b) Within 15 days from such notice, the appellant shall submit a
permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal in
memorandum which shall briefly discuss the errors imputed to the lower
accordance with Sec. 2, Rule 39, and allow withdrawal of the appeal.
court, a copy of which shall be furnished by him to the adverse party.
(b) Except in civil cases decided under Rules on Summary Procedure, the
Within 15 days from receipt of appellants memorandum, the appellee
appeal shall stay the judgment or final order unless the CA, the law, or the
may file his memorandum. Failure of appellant to file a memorandum
Rules provide otherwise.
shall be a ground for dismissal of the appeal.
(c) A partys appeal by notice of appeal is deemed perfected as to him upon
the filing thereof in due time, and a partys appeal by record on appeal is (c) Once the filing of the memorandum of the appellee, or the expiration of
deemed perfected as to him upon the approval thereof. In the first case, the the period to do so, the case shall be considered submitted for decision.
court loses jurisdiction over the whole case upon the perfection of the The RTC shall decide the case on the basis of the record of the
appeals taken by the parties who have appealed and the expiration of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda as are filed.
time to appeal of the other parties. In the second case, the court loses
jurisdiction over the subject matter thereof upon the approval of all the Appeal from judgments or final orders of the RTC
records on appeal filed by the parties who have appealed and the expiration (1) Judgment or orders of the RTC may be appealed to the Supreme Court
of the time to appeal of the other parties; and retains jurisdiction over the through any of the following modes:
remaining subject matter not covered by the appeal. Rule 41 (Ordinary Appeal) applies to appeals from the judgment or final
(3) The rule is that failure to file or perfect an appeal within the reglementary order of the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.
period will make the judgment final and executory by operation of law. Filing Rule 42 (Petition for Review) applies to an appeal from the judgment or final
of an appeal beyond the reglementary period may, under meritorious order of the RTC to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of
cases, be excused if the barring of the appeal would be inequitable and its appellate jurisdiction.
8

Rule 45, Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court on purely (j) Those filed under Writs of amparo, habeas data, or kalikasan.
questions of law. (2) 2005 Bar: May the aggrieved party file a petition for certiorari to the
(2) 2004 Bar: Distinguish clearly but briefly: Questions of law and questions Supreme Court under Rule 65 instead of filing petition for review on
of fact. (5%) certiorari under Rule 45 for the nullification of a decision of the Court of
Answer: A question of law is when the doubt of difference arises as to what Appeals in the exercise either of its original or appellate jurisdiction?
the law is on a certain set of facts, while a question of fact is when the doubt Explain.
or differences arise as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts (Ramos vs. Answer: The remedy to nullify a decision of the Court of Appeals is a
Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 19 SCRA 289 [1967]). petition for review on certiorari in the Supreme Court under Rule 45 instead
(3) Section 21, Rule 70 provides that the judgment of the RTC in ejectment of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, except in certain exceptional
cases appealed to it shall be immediately executory and can be enforced circumstances such as where appeal is inadequate. By settled
despite the perfection of an appeal to a higher court. To avoid such jurisprudence, certiorari is not a substitute for lost appeal.
immediate execution, the defendant may appeal said judgment to the CA (3) 2006 Bar: Explain certiorari: As a mode of appeal from the Regional
and therein apply for a writ of preliminary injunction. In this case, the Trial Court or the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. (2.5%)
decisions of the MTCC, of the RTC, and of the CA, unanimously recognized Answer: Certiorari as a mode of appeal is governed by Rule 45 which
the right of the ATO to possession of the property and the corresponding allows appeal from judgment, final order of resolution of the Court of
obligation of Miaque to immediately vacate the subject premises. This Appeals, Sandiganbayan, the RTC or other courts to the Supreme Court via
means that the MTCC, the RTC, and the Court of Appeals all ruled that verified petition for review whenever authorized by law raising only
Miaque does not have any right to continue in possession of the said questions of law distinctly set forth.
premises. It is therefore puzzling how the Court of Appeals justified its
issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction with the sweeping statement Appeal from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals
that Miaque "appears to have a clear legal right to hold on to the premises (1) Under Sec. 11 of RA 9282, no civil proceeding involving matters arising
leased by him from ATO at least until such time when he shall have been under the NIRC, the TCC or the Local Government Code shall be
duly ejected therefrom by a writ of execution of judgment caused to be maintained, except as herein provided, until and unless an appeal has been
issued by the MTCC. (Air Transportation Office v. Court of Appeals, GR No. previously filed with the CTA en banc and disposed of in accordance with
173616, 06/25/2014). the provisions of the Act. A party adversely affected by a resolution of a
Division of CTA on a motion for reconsideration or new trial, may file a
Appeal from judgments or final orders of the CA petition for review with the CTA en banc.
(1) Appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 shall be taken to the SC where the (2) Sec. 11 of RA 9282 further provides that a party adversely affected by a
petitions shall raise only questions of law distinctly set forth. The general decision or ruling of the CTA en banc may file with the SC a verified petition
rule is that the SC shall not entertain questions of fact, except in the for review on certiorari pursuant to Rule 45.
following cases: (3) An appeal directly filed to the Supreme Court from the Court of Tax
(a) The conclusion of the CA is grounded entirely on speculations, Appeals division must be dismissed for failure to comply with the procedure
surmises and conjectures; on appeal. It must be emphasized that an appeal is neither a natural nor a
constitutional right, but is merely statutory. The implication of its statutory
(b) The inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
character is that the party who intends to appeal must always comply with
(c) There is grave abuse of discretion;
the procedures and rules governing appeals; or else, the right of appeal
(d) The judgment is based on misapprehension of facts;
may be lost or squandered. Neither is the right to appeal a component of
(e) The findings of facts are conflicting; due process. It is a mere statutory privilege and may be exercised only in
(f) The CA in making its findings went beyond the issues of the case and the manner prescribed by, and in accordance with, the provisions of law.
the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (Duty Free Philippines v. Bureau of Internal Revenue, GR No. 197228,
(g) The findings are contrary to those of the trial court; 10/08/2014).
(h) The facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main and
reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents;
Review of final judgments or final orders of the COMELEC
(i) The findings of fact of the CA are premised on the supposed absence of
evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or
9

(1) A judgment, resolution or final order of the COMELEC may be brought Administrative cases Rule 43, to the CA 15 days
by the aggrieved party to the SC on Certiorari under Rule 65 by filing the Criminal cases Rule 65, to the SC 30 days
petition within 30 days from notice (Sec. 2, Rule 64).
(3) The Ombudsmans decision imposing the penalty of removal shall be
Review of final orders of the Civil Service Commission executed as a matter of course and shall not be stopped by an appeal
(1) A judgment, final order or resolution of the Civil Service Commission thereto. An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. In case
may be taken to the CA under Rule 43. Note the difference between the the penalty is suspension or removal and the respondent wins such appeal,
mode of appeal from a judgment of the CSC and the mode of appeal from he shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension and
the judgments of other constitutional commissions. shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive
by reason of the suspension or removal. A decision of the Office of the
Review of final orders of the Commission on Audit Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of
(1) A judgment, resolution or final order of the Commission on Audit may be course. (Office of the Ombudsman v. Valencerina, GR No. 178348,
brought by the aggrieved party to the SC on certiorari under Rule 65 by 07/14/2014).
filing the petition within 30 days from notice (Sec. 3, Rule 64). (4) Appeals from decisions in administrative disciplinary cases of the Office
of the Ombudsman should be taken to the CA by way of petition for review
Review of final orders of the Ombudsman under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Rule 43
(1) In administrative disciplinary cases, the rulings of the Office of the which prescribes the manner of appeal from quasi-judicial agencies, such
Ombudsman are appealable to the Court of Appeals. Sec. 27 of RA 6770 as the Ombudsman, was formulated precisely to provide for a uniform rule
(Ombudsman Act of 1987) insofar as it allowed a direct appeal to the SC of appellate procedure for quasi-judicial agencies. Thus, certiorari under
was declared unconstitutional in Fabian vs. Desierto because the statute, Rule 65 will not lie, as appeal under Rule 43 is an adequate remedy in the
being one which increased the appellate jurisdiction of the SC was enacted ordinary course of law. (Ombudsman v. Delos Reyes, GR No. 208976,
without the advice and concurrence of the Court. Instead, appeals from 10/13/2014).
decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary actions should (5) The Court herein ruled that decisions of the Ombudsman are executory
be brought to the CA under Rule 43 (Gonzales vs. Rosas, 423 SCRA 288). pending appeal. Moreover, since there is no vested right in a public office,
(a) The CA has jurisdiction over orders, directives and decisions of the the retroactive application of the AO does not prejudice the rights of the
Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases only. It cannot, therefore, accused. (Villaseor v. Ombudsman, GR No. 202303, 06/04/2014).
review the orders, directives or decisions of the OO in criminal or non- (6) The Ombudsman has defined prosecutorial powers and possesses
administrative cases (Golangco vs. Fung, GR 147640-762, Oct. 12, 2006). adjudicative competence over administrative disciplinary cases filed against
(b) Although as a consequence of Fabian, appeals from the Ombudsman in public officers. The nature of the case before the Office of the Ombudsman
administrative cases are now cognizable by the CA, nevertheless in cases determines the proper remedy available to the aggrieved party and with
in which it is alleged that the Ombudsman has acted with grave abuse of which court it should be filed. In administrative disciplinary cases, an appeal
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction amounting to lack or from the Ombudsmans decision should be taken to the Court of Appeals
excess of jurisdiction, a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 may (CA) under Rule 43, unless the decision is not appealable owing to the
be filed with the SC to set aside the Ombudsmans order or resolution penalty imposed (Gupilan-Aguilar v. Ombudsman, GR No. 197307,
(Nava vs. NBI, 455 SCRA 377). 02/26/2014).
(2) In criminal cases, the ruling of the Ombudsman shall be elevated to the
SC by way of Rule 65. The SCs power to review over resolutions and Review of final orders of the National Labor Relations Commission
orders of the Office of the Ombudsman is restricted on to determining (NLRC)
whether grave abuse of discretion has been committed by it. The Court is (1) The remedy of a party aggrieved by the decision of the National Labor
not authorized to correct every error or mistake of the Office of the Relations Commission is to promptly move for the reconsideration of the
Ombudsman other than grave abuse of discretion (Villanueva vs. Ople, GR decision and if denied to timely file a special civil action of certiorari under
165125, Nov. 18, 2005). The remedy is not a petition for review on certiorari Rule 65 within 60 days from notice of the decision. In observance of the
under Rule 45. doctrine of hierarchy of courts, the petition for certiorari should be filed with
10

the Court of Appeals (St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC, GR 130866, or resolution appealed from, with certified true copies of such material
Sept. 16, 1998). protions of the record referred to in the petition, as well as the documents
(2) In ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the that should accompany the petition, shall be sufficient ground for its
same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it; dismissal as stated in sec. 7, Rule 43 of the Rules.
we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly In the case at bar, the issues raised before the CA would show that the
determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the foregoing documents required by the appellate court (e.g., the writ of
NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on execution, the order nullifying the writ of execution, and such material
the merits of the case was correct. In other words, we have to be keenly portions of the record referred to in the petition and other supporting
aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of papers) are not necessary for the proper disposition of the case. The
the NLRC decision challenged before it. This is the approach that should be original documents submitted with the petition for review are sufficient and
basic in a Rule 45 review of a CA ruling in a labor case. In question form, compliant with the requirements under Sec. 6(c) of Rule 43. Moreover, the
the question to ask is: Did the CA correctly determine whether the NLRC subsequent submission of the documents required by the CA with the MR
committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the case? (Arabit, et al. v. constitutes substantial compliance with such rule. A strict and rigid
Jardine Pacific Finance, Inc., GR No. 181719, 04/21/2014). application of the technicalities must be avoided if it tends to frustrate rather
than promote substantial justice (Heirs of Deleste v. Land Bank of the
(3) The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (SC) in cases brought before it Philippines, GR No. 169913, 06/08/2011).
from the Court of Appeals (CA) via Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil (4) Under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, an appeal from the awards,
Procedure is generally limited to reviewing errors of law. This principle judgments, final orders or resolutions, authorized by any quasi-judicial
applies with greater force in labor cases, where this Court has consistently agency such as the Office of the President, in the exercise of its quasi-
held that findings of fact of the NLRC are accorded great respect and even judicial functions shall be filed to the CA within a period of fifteen (15) days
finality, especially if they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter and are from notice of, publication or denial of a motion for new trial or
supported by substantial evidence. Judicial review by the SC does not reconsideration. The appeal may involve questions of fact, of law, or mixed
extend to a reevaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the questions of fact and law. A direct resort to this Court, however, may be
proper labor tribunal has based its determination. Factual issues are allowed in cases where only questions of law are raised. (Almero v. Heirs of
beyond the scope of the SCs authority to review on certiorari. (Angeles v. Pacquing, GR No. 199008, 11/19/2014).
Bucad, GR No. 196249, 07/21/2014).
(5) The period to appeal decisions of the HLURB Board of Commissioners
is fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof pursuant to Section 15 of PD No.
Review of final orders of the quasi-judicial agencies
957 and Section 2 of PD No. 1344 which are special laws that provide an
(1) Appeals from judgments and final orders of quasi-judicial
exception to Section 1 of Administrative Order No. 18. Concomitantly,
bodies/agencies are now required to be brought to the CA under the
Section 1 of Administrative Order No. 18 provides that the time during
requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43. This rule was adopted
which a motion for reconsideration has been pending with the ministry or
precisely to provide a uniform rule of appellate procedure from quasi-
agency concerned shall be deducted from the period for appeal. Swire
judicial bodies (Carpio vs. Sulu Resource Devt. Corp., 387 SCRA 128).
received the HLURB Board Resolution denying its Motion for
(2) The appeal (by notice of appeal) under Rule 43 may be taken to the CA Reconsideration on July 23, 2007 and filed its appeal only on August 7,
whether the appeal involves a question of fact, a question of law, or mixed 2007. Consequently therefore, Swire had only four days from July 23, 2007,
questions of fact and law. The appeal shall be taken by filing a verified or until July 27, 2007, within which to file its appeal to the OP as the filing of
petition for review with the CA. The appeal shall not stay the award, the motion for reconsideration merely suspended the running of the 15-day
judgment, final order or resolution sought to be reviewed unless the CA period. Thus, while there may be exceptions for the relaxation of technical
shall direct otherwise upon such terms as it may deem just. rules principally geared to attain the ends of justice, Swires fatuous belief
(3) Non-submission of documents does not warrant dismissal of the petition that it had a fresh 15-day period to elevate an appeal with the OP is not the
for review. In filing the petition for review as an appeal from awards, kind of exceptional circumstance that merits relaxation. (Swire Realty
judgments, final orders, or resolutions of any quasi-judicial agency in the Development Corporation v. Yu, GR No. 207133, 03/09/2015).
exercise of its quasi-judicial functions, it is required under Sec. 6(c), Rule (6) 2006 Bar: Explain each mode of certiorari: As a mode of review of the
43 of the Rules of Court that it be accompanied by a clearly legible decisions of the National Labor Relations Commission and the
duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order, Constitutional Commissions. (2.5%)
11

Answer: Certiorari as a mnode of review of the decision of the NLRC is days from knowledge of the judgment, order or other proceeding to be set
elevated to the Court of Appeals under Rule 65, as held in the case of St. aside; and second, within a fixed period of six (6) months from entry of such
Martins Funeral Home v. NLRC (GR No. 130865, 09/16/1998). Certiorari judgment, order or other proceeding. Strict compliance with these periods is
as a mode of review from the Commission of Audit (COA) and COMELEC required because a petition for relief from judgment is a final act of liberality
is elevated to the Supreme Court within 30 days from notice of the on the part of the State, which remedy cannot be allowed to erode any
judgment, decision or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed, as further the fundamental principle that a judgment, order or proceeding must,
provided for under Rule 64 of the Rule of Civil Procedure. In the case of the at some definite time, attain finality in order to put an end to litigation.
Civil Service Commission (CSC), review of its judgments is through (Philippine Amanah Bank v. Contreras, GR No. 173168, 09/29/2014).
petitions for review under Sec. 5, Rule 43.
Grounds for availing of the remedy (petition for relief)
(1) When a judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is
Reliefs from Judgments, Orders and Other Proceedings (Rule 38) thereafter taken against a party in any court through (a) fraud, (b) accident,
(1) A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy that is allowed (c) mistake, or (c) excusable negligence, he may file a petition in such court
only in exceptional cases when there is no other available or adequate and in the same case praying that the judgment, order or proceeding be set
remedy. When a party has another remedy available to him, which may be aside (Sec. 1, Rule 38).
either a motion for new trial or appeal from an adverse decision of the trial (2) When the petitioner has been prevented from taking an appeal by fraud,
court, and he was not prevented by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable mistake, or excusable negligence (Sec. 2).
negligence from filing such motion or taking such appeal, he cannot avail
himself of this petition (Trust International Paper Corp. vs. Pelaez, GR Time to file petition
164871, Aug. 22, 2006). (1) A petition for relief from judgment, order or other proceedings must be
(2) Under Sec. 5, Rule 38, the court in which the petition is filed, may grant verified, filed within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final
such preliminary injunction to preserve the rights of the parties upon the order, or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six (6) months
filing of a bond in favor of the adverse party. The bond is conditioned upon after such judgment or final order was entered, or such proceeding was
the payment to the adverse party of all damages and costs that may be taken; and must be accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud,
awarded to such adverse party by reason of the issuance of the injunction accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts
(Sec. 5). constituting the petitioners good and substantial cause of action or
defense, as the case may be (Sec. 3, Rule 38).
(3) Delayed New Trial. This is not a substitute for lost appeal.
(4) Equitable remedies may be availed of only when petitioner has not been Contents of petition
given the chance to avail of other remedies not because of his own fault. (1) The petition must be verified and must be accompanied with affidavits
(5) A petition for relief from judgment must be filed within 60 days after [Affidavit of Merits] showing fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or proceeding and within six negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the petitioners good and
(6) months from entry of judgment or final order. The double period required substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be (Sec. 3).
under Section 3, Rule 38 is jurisdictional and should be strictly complied
with. A petition for relief of judgment filed beyond the reglementary period is
dismissed outright. Under Section 1, Rule 38, a petition for relief from Annulment of Judgments, or Final Orders and Resolutions
judgment may be filed on the ground of fraud, accident, mistake, or (Rule 47)
excusable negligence. A motion for reconsideration is required before a (1) It is settled that the negligence and mistakes of the counsel are binding
petition for certiorari is filed to grant the court which rendered the assailed on the client. It is only in cases involving gross or palpable negligence of the
judgment or order an opportunity to correct any actual or perceived error counsel or where the interests of justice so require, when relief is accorded
attributed to it by the re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances to a client who has suffered thereby. Furthermore, for a claim of a counsel's
of the case. (Madarang v. Sps. Morales, GR No. 199283, 06/09/2014). gross negligence to prosper, nothing short of clear abandonment of the
(6) A party filing a petition for relief from judgment must strictly comply with client's cause must be shown and it should not be accompanied by the
two (2) reglementary periods: first, the petition must be filed within sixty (60) client's own negligence or malice. It is a correlative duty of clients to be in
12

contact with their counsel from time to time to inform themselves of the (1) The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and
status of their case especially, when what is at stake is their liberty. Hence, lack of jurisdiction. Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was
diligence is required not only from lawyers but also from their clients. As availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition
such, the failure of the lawyer to communicate with his clients for nearly for relief (Sec. 2, Rule 47).
three years and to inform them about the status of their case, does not (2) No annulment of judgments of quasi-judicial agencies is allowed. Rule
amount to abandonment that qualifies as gross negligence. If at all, the 47 can only be taken to the Court of Appeals.
omission is only an act of simple negligence, and not gross negligence that
would warrant the annulment of the proceedings below. (Resurreccion v.
Period to file action
People, GR No. 192866, 07/09/2014).
(1) If based on extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed within four (4) years
(2) The general rule is that a final and executory judgment can no longer be from its discovery; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by
disturbed, altered, or modified in any respect, and that nothing further can laches or estoppels (Sec. 3).
be done but to execute it. A final and executory decision may, however, be
invalidated via a Petition for Relief or a Petition to Annul the same under Effects of judgment of annulment
Rules 38 or 47, respectively, of the Rules of Court. Rule 47 of the Rules of (1) A judgment of annulment shall set aside the questioned judgment or
Court is a remedy granted only under exceptional circumstances where a final order or resolution and render the same null and void, without
party, without fault on his part, has failed to avail of the ordinary remedies of prejudice to the original action being refiled in the proper court. However,
new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies. The same where the judgment or final order or resolution is set aside on the ground of
petition is not available as a substitute for a remedy which was lost due to extrinsic fraud, the court may on motion order the trial court to try the case
the partys own neglect in promptly availing of the same. There is here no as if a timely motion for new trial had been granted therein (Sec. 7, Rule
attempted substitution; annulment of judgment is the only remedy available 47).
to petitioner. Requisite elements for the filing of a petition for annulment of
judgment on the grounds of extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction, and want of
due process, are present in this case All the requisite elements for the filing
of a petition for annulment of judgment on the grounds of extrinsic fraud, Collateral attack of judgments
lack of jurisdiction, and want of due process, are present in this case. (1) A collateral attack is made when, in another action to obtain a different
(Genato Investments, Inc. v. Barre-Toss, GR No. 207443, 07/23/2014). relief, an attack on the judgment is made as an incident in said action. This
(3) 1999 Bar: A filed a complaint for the recovery of ownership of land is proper only when the judgment, on its face, is null and void, as where it is
against B who was represented by her counsel X. in the course of the trial, patent that the court which rendered said judgment has no jurisdiction (Co
B died. However, X failed to notify the court of Bs death. The court vs. CA, 196 SCRA 705). Examples: A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is
proceeded to hear the case and rendered judgment against B. After the a direct attack. It is filed primarily to have an order annulled. An action for
judgment became final, a writ of execution was issued against C, who being annulment of a judgment is likewise a direct attack on a judgment. A motion
Bs sole heir, acquired the property. to dismiss a complaint for collection of a sum of money filed by a
If you were the counsel of C, what course of action would you take? corporation against the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff has no
Answer: As counsel of C, I would move to set aside the writ of execution legal capacity to sue is a collateral attack on the corporation. A motion to
and the judgment for lack of jurisdiction and lack of due process I the same dismiss is incidental to the main action for sum of money. It is not filed as
court because the judgment is void. If X had notified the court of Bs death, an action intended to attack the legal existence of the plaintiff (Co vs. CA,
the court would have ordered the substitution of the deceased by C, the 196 SCRA 705).
sole heir of B (Rule 3, Section 16). The court acquired no jurisdiction over C (2) A non-party may file the petition when he can show that he is adversely
upon whom the trial and the judgment are not binding (Lawas v. Court of affected by the judgment (Islamic vs. CA, 178 SCRA 178).
Appeals, 146 SCRA 173).
I would also file an action to annul the judgment for lack of jurisdiction
because C, as the successor of B, was deprived of due process and should
have been heard before judgment.

Grounds for annulment

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen