RULE 38 -Negligence must be excusable and generally
imputable to the party because if it is imputable to the
1. Purcon v MRM Philippines Inc.
-A petition for relief from judgment is not an available
remedy in the Supreme Court. It is not included in the
list of the Rule 56 cases originally cognizable by the
Supreme Court.
-While Rule 38 uses the phrase “any court,” it refers
only to MTC, MeTC and RTC.
-SC only entertains questions of law. A petition for
relief raises questions of facts on fraud, accident,
mistake, or excusable negligence which are beyond
the concerns of this court.
-The relief afforded by Rule 38 will not be granted to a
party who seeks to be relieved from the effects of the
judgment when the loss of the remedy of law was due
to his own negligence or mistaken mode of procedure
for that matter; otherwise, the petition for relief will be
tantamount to reviving the right of appeal which has
already been lost, either because of inexcusable
negligence or due to a mistake of procedure by
counsel.
2. Yujuico v Atienza
-A petition of relief may be granted upon a showing
that: 1. Through fraud, accident, mistake, or
excusable negligence, a party has been prevented
from taking an appeal, and 2. The party has a good
and substantial cause of action or defense.
-It bears stressing that relief from judgment is
premised on equity. It is an act of grace which is
allowed only in exceptional cases.
3. Cayetano v Ceguerra
-A petition for relief may be taken from order of
execution, inasmuch as Sec. 2 of Rule 38 does not
only refer to judgments but also to orders or any
proceedings.
4. Lopez v. Court of Appeals
-Where a party’s counsel was absent due to asthma
which disabled him and made it difficult for him to talk,
the same could be considered an accident which may
justify the grant of relief from judgment.
5. Agan v. Spouses Nieva
-The mistake contemplated in Rule 38 does not apply
and was never intended to apply to a judicial error
which the court in question might have committed in
the trial. Such errors may be corrected by means of
an appeal.
6. Gomez v. Montalban
counsel, it is binding on the client. What the aggrieved
litigant should do is seek administrative sanctions
against the erring counsel and not seek reversal of
the court’s ruling.
7. Spouses Que v. Court of Appeals
-The Court may grant relief from judgment only “when
a judgment or final order is entered or any other
proceeding is taken against a party in any court
through fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence.” “Mistake” refers to mistake of fact, not of
law, “Fraud” must be extrinsic or collateral, that is, the
kind which prevented the aggrieved party from having
a trial or presenting his case to the court.
“Negligence” must be excusable and generally
imputable to the party because if it is imputable to the
counsel, it is binding on the client.
GR: If negligence is imputable to the counsel, it is
binding on the client.
EX:
1. Where the reckless or gross negligence of counsel
deprives the client of due process of law
2. When the Rule’s application will result in outright
deprivation of the client’s liberty or property
3. Where the interests of justice so require
-For a claim of counsel of gross negligence to
prosper, nothing short of clear abandonment of the
client’s cause must be shown.
-As an equitable remedy, a petition for relief from
judgment is available only as a last recourse, when
the petition has no other remedy.
8. Metrobank v. Alejo
-Rule 38 only applies when the one deprived of his
right is a party to the case.
9. Heirs of Borres v. Abela
-Where a judgment is on its face void ab initio, the
limited period for relief from judgment is vulnerable to
attack in any way and at any time, even when no
appeal has been taken.
10. Spouses Mesina v. Meer
-While Rule 38 uses the phrase “any court,” it refers
only to MTC, MeTC or RTC. As it stands, neither the
Rules of Court nor the Revised Internal Rules of the
Court of Appeals allow the remedy of petition for relief
in the Court of Appeals.
 RULE 45
1. F.A.T. Kee Computer Systems v Online Networks
International Inc.
-A question of law arises while there is doubt as to what
the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a
question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or
falsity of the alleged facts.
-Failure to attach transcript of stenographic notes
(TSN) of the RTC proceedings does not render a R45
petition fatally defective as this was cured by the
subsequent elevation of the case records to SC.
Procedural rules should be liberally construed to
promote their objective and assist the parties in
obtaining just, speedy, and inexpensive determination
of every action or proceeding.
2. Tay Chun Suy v. Court of Appeals
-Factual findings of the trial court, as well as the Court
of Appeals, are entitle to great weight and respect.
Points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not
adequately brought to the attention of the trial court
need not be and ordinarily will not be considered by a
reviewing Court as they cannot be raised for the first
time on appeal.
3. Producers Bank of the Philippines v. Excelsa
Industries
-When two cases were consolidated and a joint
decision was rendered, the cases lost their identities.
Consolidation is a procedural device granted to the
court as an aid in deciding how cases in its dockets are
to be tried so that the business of the court may be
dispatched expeditiously and with economy.
-Three ways of consolidation:
a. Quasi-consolidation-where all except one of several
actions are stayed until one is tried, in which case the
judgment in the one trial is conclusive as to the others
b. Actual consolidation- where several actions are
pending between the same parties stating the claims
which might have been set out originally in one
complaint
c. Consolidation for trial- where several actions are
ordered to be tried together but each retains its
separate character and requires the entry of separate
judgment.
-A petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy to
assail a decision granting the issuance of a writ of
possession. The proper remedy is to file a petition to
set aside the sale and cancel the writ of possession
and the aggrieved party mat then appeal from the order
denying or granting said petition.
4. Union Bank of the Phil. v People of the Phil.
-Certificate against forum shopping can be made either
by a statement under oath in the complaint or initiatory
pleading asserting a claim or relief; it may also be in a
sworn certification annexed to the complaint or
initiatory pleading. In both instances, the affiant is
required to execute a statement tunder oath before a
duly commissioned notary public or any competent
person to administer oath.
5. Steelcase Inc. v Design International Selections
Inc.
-A foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines
without license may still sue before the Philippine
courts a Filipino or Philippine company that had
derived some benefit from their contractual
arrangement because the latter is considered
estopped from challenging the personality of a
corporation after it had acknowledged the said
corporation by entering a contract with it.
6. Estores v. Spouses Supangan
7. Dalton v. FGR Realty
-Sec. 1 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court states that
petitions for review on certiorari shall raise only
questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.
Questions of fact are not reviewable.
GR: The findings of the lower courts are binding on the
court.
EX:
1. When there is grave abuse of discretion
2. When the findings are grounded on speculation
3. When the inference made is manifestly mistaken
4. When judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on
misapprehension of facts
5. When the factual findings are conflicting
6. When the CA went beyond the issues of the case
and its findings are contrary to the admission of the
parties
7. When the CA overlooked undisputed facts which, if
properly considered, would justify a different
conclusion
8. When the facts set forth by the petitioner are not
disputed by the respondent
9. When the findings of the CA are premised on the
absence of evidence and are contradicted by the
evidence on record
8. PNB v Spouses Perez
-The issues that can be raised in a petition for review
on certiorari under R45 are limited only to questions of
law. The test of whether the question is one of law or
of fact is whether the appellate court can determine the
issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the
evidence, in which case, it is a question of law.;
otherwise, it is a question of fact.
-Matters not raised in the trial court or lower courts
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
9. RGM Industries v United Pacific Capital Corp.
-Under R45, only questions of law may be brought for
review.
10. Sarona v. NLRC
-R45 provides the remedy if an appeal by certiorari
from decisions, final orders, or resolutions of the CA in
any case, regardless of the action or proceedings
involved, which would be a continuation of the
appellate process over the original case. Since an
appeal to the SC is not an original and independent
action but a continuation of the proceedings before the
CA, the filing of a R45 petition cannot be barred by the
finality of the NLRC decision.
-GR: SC is not a trier of facts and a R45 petition must
exclusively raise questions of law. Moreover, findings
of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial
bodies are generally accorded not only respect but
finality when affirmed by CA.
-EX: SC will disturb and strike down findings of the CA
and those of labor tribunals if there is a showing that
they are unsupported by evidence on record or there
was a patent misappreciation of facts.
11. Spouses Sta. Maria v CA
-R45 cases are limited to reviewing errors of law.
-GR: Findings of fact of the CA are conclusive.
-EX:
1. When the findings are grounded entirely on
speculation, surmises, or conjectures
2. When the inference made is manifestly mistaken,
absurd, or impossible
3. When there is grave abuse of discretion
4. When the judgment is made based on a
misapprehension of facts
5. When the findings of fact are conflicting
6. When in making the findings, the CA went beyond
the issues of the case or its findings are contrary to the
admissions of both the appellant and the appellee
7. When the findings are contrary to those of the trial
court
8. When the findings are conclusions without citation of
specific evidence on which they are based
9. When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in
the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed
by the respondent
10. When the findings of fact are premised on the
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the
evidence on record
12. Republic of the Phil. v Ortigas and Company
-Appeals from the decisions of the RTC raising purely
questions of law must in all cases be taken to the SC
on a petition for review on certiorari under R45.
-There is a question of law when the appellant raises
an issue as to what law shall be applied on a given set
of facts. There is a question of fact when the court is
required to examine the truth or falsity of the facts
presented.
13. Altres v Empleo (Question of fact v question of
law)
14. Alonso v. Cebu Country Club Inc.
-Sec. 1, R45 demands than an appeal by petition for
review on certiorari be limited to questions of law (here,
there was an issue of mixed question of facts and law)
-The omission of a sworn certification against forum
shopping warrants dismissal of the petition as Sec. 4,
R45 requires that a petition for review should contain,
among others, said certification.
15. Mendoza v. CA
-The jurisdiction of SC in cases brought to it from the
CA is limited to a review and revision of errors of law
allegedly committed by the appellate court.
 RULE 47
1. Phil. Tourism Authority v Phil. Golf Development
and Equipment Inc.
-Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the
prevailing party in the litigation which is committed
outside of the trial of the case, whereby the
unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting
fully his case by fraud or deception practiced on him by
his opponent.
-R47 is allowed only in exceptional cases where the
ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief
or other appropriate remedies are no longer available
through no fault of petitioner.
2. Grande v UP
-R47 applies only to petitions for nullification of
judgments rendered by RTC filed with CA. It does not
pertain to the nullification of decisions of CA.
-Petitions for annulment of judgment are not among the
cases originally cognizable by SC.
-SC has discretionary power to take the cognizance of
a petition over which it has no jurisdiction “if compelling
reasons, or the nature and importance of the issues
raised, warrant the immediate exercise of its
jurisdiction.”
3. Rexlon Realty Group v. CA
-The grounds to annul a judgment of a lower court are
extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
-Extrinsic fraud contemplates a situation where a
litigant commits acts outside of trial of the case “the
effect of which prevents a party fro having a trial, a real
contest, or from presenting all of his case to the court,
or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the
judgment itself but to the manner in which it was
procured so that there is not a fair submission of the
controversy.”
-The overriding consideration is that the fraudulent
scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from
having his day in court.
4. Republic v G Holdings Inc.
-R47 may not be invoked where the party has availed
himself of the remedy of a new trial, appeal, petition for
relief or other appropriate remedy and lost or where he
has failed to avail himself of those remedies through
his own fault ore negligence.
-In a petition for annulment of judgment base don lack
of jurisdiction, the petitioner must show not merely an
abuse of jurisdictional discretion by an absolute lack of
jurisdiction. The concept of lack of jurisdiction as a
ground to annul a judgment does not embrace abuse
of discretion.
-By claiming grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the trial court, the petitioner effectively admits that the
two grounds for which lack of jurisdiction may be validly
invoked to seek the annulment of a judgment—want of
jurisdiction over the parties and want of jurisdiction
over the subject matter—do not exist.
-To render a judgment void, the fraud must be
committed by the adverse party and not by one’s own
counsel.
5. Spouses Manila v Spouses Manzo
-A petition for the annulment of judgments or final
orders of the RTC in civil actions can only be availed of
where the ordinary remedies of a new trial, appeal,
petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no
longer available through no fault of the petitioner.
-R47 is never resorted to as a substitute for a party’s
own neglect in not promptly availing the ordinary or
other appropriate remedies.
-Lack of jurisdiction as a ground for annulment if
judgement refers to either lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the defending party or over the subject
matter of the claim. Petitioner must show not merely an
abuse of jurisdictional discretion but an absolute lack
of 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.
-The principle of laches or stale demands ordains that
the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and
unexplained length of time to do that which may by
exercising due diligence could or should have been
done earlier warrants a presumption that the party
entitled to it has abandoned or declined to assert it.
There is no absolute rule as to what constitutes laches
as each case is to be determined according to its
particular circumstances.
6. Springfield Development Corp. v Presiding
Judge, RTC Misamis Oriental Br. 40, CDO
-RTC has the authority to annul final judgments
rendered by inferior courts and quasi-judicial bodies of
equal ranking with such inferior courts. DARAB, being
a co-equal body with the RTC, its decisions are beyond
the RTC’s control.
-CA does NOT have the authority to annul judgments
or final orders and resolutions of quasi-judicial bodies
like the DARAB.
7. Bulawan v. Aquende
-Annulment of judgment may be availed of even if the
judgment to be annulled has already been executed or
implemented.
-A person need not be a party to the judgment sought
to be annulled, what is essential is that he can prove
his allegation that the judgment was obtained by the
use of fraud and collusion and that he would adversely
be affected.
8. Yu v Yu
-When defendants are deprived of such opportunity to
duly participate in, and even be informed of, the
proceedings due to a deceitful scheme employed by
the prevailing litigant, there exists a violation of their
due process rights. Denial of due process could be a
ground to annul a judgement made by the RTC.
9. Ancheta v Ancheta
-GR: In R47 petition, it is not enough to allege in the
petition that the said remedies were no longer available
through no fault of his own, The petitioner must also
explain and justify the failure to avail such remedies.
-EX: When grounded on lack of jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant/respondent or over the nature
or subject of the action, the petitioner need not allege
in the petition that the ordinary remedy of new trial or
reconsideration of the final order or judgment or appeal
are no longer available through his own fault.
--RATIONALE: This is so because a judgment
rendered by the RTC without jurisdiction is null and
void and may be assailed at any time collaterally or
direct action or resisting such judgment whenever it is
invoked, unless barred by laches.
10. Ramos v. Combong Jr.
-While R47 does not explicitly require that a statement
of material dates should accompany the petition,
nevertheless there must be a manifest showing in the
petition that it was filed within the four-year period (from
discovery of fraud)
11. Escareal v. PAL
RULE 65
1. Yap v. IAC
-Certiorari should not be allowed where the petitioner
has other remedies available.
-When motion to quash is denied, remedy is NOT
certiorari but to go to trial without prejudice to
reiterating the special defenses invoked in said motion.
-The RTC may not control, by certiorari, the respondent
judge’s discretion to determine whether or not probable
cause exists against the accused, ore so if said if said
discretion was not at all tainted with grave abuse of
discretion.
2. Villalon v. Lirio
-R65 is proper only when there is neither an appeal nor
a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law.
-R65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal; it is not
allowed when a party fails to appeal a judgment in the
proper forum especially if one’s own negligence or
error in one’s choice of remedy occasioned such loss
or lapse.
-The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually
exclusive not alternative or successive.
3. Municipality of Cordova, Cebu v Pathfinder
Development Corp.
-GR: R65 not available as a remedy against the final
order when appeal is available
-EX: It may be allowed when:
1. the broader interest of justice demands that certiorari
be given due course to avoid any grossly unjust result
that would otherwise befall the petitioners
AND
2. the order of the RTC evidently constitutes grave
abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction
Citing Francisco Motors Corp. v CA, the following are
exceptions to the GR precluding R65 when there is still
other remedies available:
1. when it is necessary to prevent irreparable damages
and injury to a party
2. where the trial judge capriciously and whimsically
exercise his judgment
3. where there may be danger of a failure of justice
4. where an appeal would be slow, inadequate, and
insufficient
5. where the issue raised is one purely of law
6. where public interest is involved
7. in case of urgency
-It is mere inadequacy, not the absence of all other
legal remedies, and the danger of failure of justice
without the writ that must determine the propriety of
certiorari.
4. Vergara v Suelto
-Where the issuance of an extraordinary writ is also
within the competence of the CA or RTC, it is in either
of these courts that the specific action for the writ’s
procurement must be presented. As a matter of policy,
direct recourse to the SC is not allowed.
5. De Lima v. Guerrero
-A petition for certiorari can be resorted to only after the
court has already and actually rendered its decision.
Without a final order, the SC cannot exercise its power
to review as provided in the Sec. 5, Art. VIII of the 1987
Constitution. The SC lacks jurisdiction to review an
non-existent court action.
-In the absence of a final order, judgment, or ruling on
the Motion to Quash challenging the jurisdiction of the
lower court, there is no occasion for this court to issue
an extraordinary writ of certiorari. Without a judgment
or ruling, there is nothing for this court to declare as
having been issued without jurisdiction or in grave
abuse of discretion.
6. Galang v Geronimo
-In election cases involving an act or omission of a
MTC or RTC, the petition for certiorari shall be filed
exclusively with the Commission on Elections, in aid of
its appellate jurisdiction.
7. People v Espinosa
-Motions for extension to file a R65 petition may be
allowed subject to the Court’s sound discretion and
only under exceptional and meritorious cases. These
exceptions are:
1. most persuasive and weighty reasons
2. to relieve a litigant from an injustice not
commensurate with his failure to comply with the
prescribed procedure
3. good faith of the defaulting party by immediately
paying within a reasonable time from the time of the
default
4. the existence of a special or compelling
ircumstances
5. the merits of the case
6. a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or
negligence of the party favored by the suspension of
the rules
7. a lack of any showing that the review is merely
frivolous and dilatory
8. the other party will not be substantially prejudiced
9. FAME without appellant’s fault
10. peculiar legal and equitable circumstances
attendant to such case
11. substantial justice and fair play
12. importance of the issues involved
13. exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by
all attendant circumstances.
8. Philtranco Services Inc. v PWU-AGLO
-Remedy of an aggrieved party in a decision or
resolution of the Secretary of Labor is to timely file a
motion for reconsideration as a precondition for any
further or subsequent remedy and then seasonably file
a R65 petition
-R65 states that where a motion for reconsideration or
new trial is timely field, whether such motion is required
or not, the petition shall be filed not later than 60 days
counted form the notice of denial of said motion.
-The very nature of certiorari requires the office issuing
the decision or order be given the opportunity to correct
itself. This opportunity for rectification does not arise if
no motion for reconsideration has been filed.
-A R65 petition inherently requires the filing of a motion
for reconsideration, even if the government office may
prohibit altogether the filing of a MR with respect to its
decisions or orders.
9. De Lima v Reyes
-A quasi-judicial function is the “action, discretion of
public administrative officers or bodies who are
required to investigate facts or ascertain existence of
facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them,
as a basis for their official action and to exercise
discretion of a judicial nature.”
-An administrative agency performs QJ if it renders
awards, determines rights of opposing parties, or if
their decisions have the same effect as the judgment
of a court.
-DOJ is not a QJ agency but any question on whether
the SOJ committed a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in affirming,
reversing, or modifying the resolutions of prosecutors
may be the subject of a petition for certiorari under R65.
10. Aguinaldo v Aquino III
-Exceptions to 60-day filing period for R65 petition:
peculiar circumstances of the case plus the importance
of issues involved therein
11. Villanueva v JBC
-In the process of selecting and screening applicants,
the JBC neither acted in any judicial or quasi-judicial
capacity nor assumed unto itself any performance of
judicial or quasi-judicial prerogative. However, since
the formulation of guidelines and criteria, including the
policy that the petitioner assails is necessary and
incidental to the exercise of JBC’s constitutional
mandate, a determination must be made on whether
the JBC has acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing
and enforcing said policy.
RULE 122
1. Rodriguez v People
-The “fresh period” to appeal should equally apply yo
the period of appeal to the period for appeal in criminal
cases under Sec. 6, Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of
Court. The accused will have a fresh 15-day period
counted from the receipt of the denial of a motion for
new trial or reconsideration.
2. Tan v People
-Neither the Constitution nor the Rules of Criminal
Procedure exclusively vests in the SC the power to
hear cases on appeal in which the only an error of law
is involved.
3. Pobre v CA
-It does not mean that since the accused is not entitled
to bail at any stage of the trial, a grant thereof can be
questioned any time and without regard to the period
of filing provided by the Rules of Court. An order
granting bail is an interlocutory order to which a Rule
65 petition for certiorari is a proper remedy.
5. People v Latayada
-When an appellant escapes detention pending
appeal, the appeal is normally dismissed, and the
lower court’s judgment becomes final and executory.
However, this rule does not apply to death cases in
which an automatic review is mandated by ;aw even if
appellant has absconded.
6. Vitto v CA
-An appeal by the accused is considered abandoned
when he fails to properly prosecute his appeal or does
some act inconsistent with its prosecution, such as
when he refuses to submit himself to the jurisdiction of
the authorities.
7. Bernardo v CA
-The private offended party in a criminal case may
appeal the civil aspect of the case despite the acquittal
of the accused.
-As to the criminal aspect, only the Solicitor General
may represent the People on appeal. The private
offended party may not take such appeal.
8. People v Calo
-GR: Only the SolGen may bring or defend actions on
behalf of the Republic or represent the People in
criminal proceedings pending before the CA and SC.
-EX: An offended party in a criminal case, the private
complainant has sufficient legal personality to question
in the appellate court an order granting bail to the
accused.
9. People v Banig
-GR: A judgment of acquittal is final and no longer
reviewable.
-EX: When trial court committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
In such case, the judgment of acquittal may be
questioned through petition for certiorari under R65.

4. Tamayo v Batog

-Except for criminal cases where the penalty imposed

is reclusion perpetua or death, an appeal from the
judgment of the lower court is not a matter of right but
of sound judicial discretion. However, the dismissal of
an appeal on purely technical grounds is frowned upon
as the general policy is to encourage hearings of
appeals on their merits.