TITLE DA.12 TIU v. MIDDLETON, GR. No.

134998, July 19, 1999

MAIN Pre-trial* is an essential device for the speedy disposition of disputes. Hence, parties cannot brush it aside
POINT as a mere technicality. Where the pre-trial brief does not contain the names of witnesses and the synopses
of their testimonies as required by the Rules of Court, the trial court, through its pre-trial order, may bar
the witnesses from testifying. However, an order allowing the presentation of unnamed witnesses may no
longer be modified during the trial without the consent of the parties affected.

TITLE DAU.12 Philippines Transmarine Carrier Inc. v. Court of Appeals | G.R. no 122346
MAIN POINT The trial judge has authority to declare "as in default" parties who fail to appear at the pre-trial
conference. They may also be declared "as in default" for their failure to file their pre-trial briefs at
least three days before the pre-trial conference.

TITLE DE.12 Goldloop Properties Inc. v. Court of Appeals | GR. NO. 99431
MAIN While a dismissal motu proprio by the court for a litigants inaction can be perceived, there must be
POINT sufficient basis on which to anchor a dismissal with prejudice. Moreover, what constitutes
unreasonable length of time is properly left to the discretion of the trial court.

TITLE DEL. 12 Citibank, N.A. v. Chua GR. No. 102300. March 17, 1993
RULING Although the power of attorney does not specifically mention the authority of petitioner's counsel to
appear and bind the petitioner at the pre-trial conference, the terms of said power of attorney are
comprehensive enough as to include the authority to appear for the petitioner at the pre-trial
conference.

TITLE HA.12 Radiowealth Finance Co. v. Spouses Del Rosario, G.R. No. 138739
MAIN POINT Rule 33 of the 1997 Rules
SECTION 1. Demurrer to evidence. - After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence,
the defendant may move for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has
shown no right to relief. If his motion is denied, he shall have the right to present evidence. If the
motion is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed he shall be deemed to have waived
the right to present evidence

TITLE JO.12 California Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. City of Las Pitias | G.R. No. 178461
MAIN A compromise agreement intended to resolve a matter already under litigation is a judicial
POINT compromise. Having judicial mandate and entered as its determination of the controversy, it has the force
and effect of a judgment. It transcends its identity as a mere contract between the parties as it becomes a
judgment that is subject to execution in accordance with the Rules of Court. Thus, a compromise agreement
that has been made and duly approved by the court attains the effect and authority of res judicata, although
no execution may be issued unless the agreement receives the approval of the court where the litigation is
pending and compliance with the terms of the agreement is decreed.

TITLE KU.12 Philippine National Bank v. Banatao, et al. | G.R. No. 149221
MAIN The judgment on compromise rendered by the trial court in this case, and later affirmed by the appellate
POINT court, is final with respect only to the plaintiffs-respondents and defendants-respondents, but not with
respect to the PNB. Hence, the trial court's judgment on compromise which settles the issue of ownership
over the properties in question is but a partial decision that does not completely decide the case and
cannot bind the PNB.

TITLE LA.12 Philippine National Bank v. Manila Oil Refining & By-Products Company, Inc., 43 Phil. 444
(1922)
MAIN Warrants of attorney to confess judgment are not authorized nor contemplated by our law. Provisions in
POINT notes authorizing attorneys to appear and confess judgments against makers should not be recognized in
this jurisdiction by implication and should only be considered as valid when given express legislative
sanction.

TITLE LI.12 Lichauco v. Tan Pho, 51 Phil. 862 (1923)

MAIN In order that a court may enter a nunc pro tunc order, that is to say, an order in writing containing
POINT what was previously ordered verbally, it is necessary that there should be a basis for said nunc pro
tunc order, that is, some circumstance in the record relative to the order which is sought to be
 supplied by the nunc pro tunc, whether said circumstance relates to the whole of the order or to a
point thereof, in such a way that the part not found in the record may be a necessary part, an
inevitable and ordinary consequence of the point appearing therein.

TITLE Briones-Vasquez v. Court of Appeals | G.R. No. 144882

MAIN As a general rule, final and executory judgments are immutable and unalterable except under the three
POINT exceptions named above: a) clerical errors; b) nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any
party; and c) void judgments. The office of a judgment nunc pro tunc is to record some act of the court
done at a former time which was not then carried into the record, and the power of a court to make such
entries is restricted to placing upon the record evidence of judicial action which has been actually taken.

TITLE MA.12 Baguio Citizens Action, Inc. v. City Council | G.R. No. L-27247
RULING: In the case at bar, although it is true that any declaration by the court would affect the squatters, the
latter are not necessary parties because the question involved is the power of the Municipal Council to
enact the Ordinances in question. Whether or not they are impleaded, any determination of the controversy
would be binding upon the squatters.
A declaration on the nullity of the ordinance, would give the squatters no right which they are entitled to
protect. The party most interested to sustain and defend the legality of the Ordinance is the body that passed
it, the City Council, and together with the City Mayor, is already a party in these proceedings.

TITLE SA.12 Matalin Coconut Co., Inc. v. Mun. Council of Malabang, Lanao del Sur
MAIN Under Sec. 6 of Rule 64, the action for declaratory relief may be converted into an ordinary action and the
POINT: parties allowed to file such pleadings as may be necessary or proper, if before the final termination of the
case "a breach or violation of an...ordinance, should take place." In the present case, no breach or violation
of the ordinance occurred. The petitioner decided to pay "under protest" the fees imposed by the ordinance.
Such payment did not affect the case; the declaratory relief action was still proper because the applicability
of the ordinance to future transactions still remained to be resolved, although the matter could also be
threshed out in an ordinary suit for the recovery of taxes paid.

TITLE YA.12 Service Specialists, Inc. v. Sheriff of Manila | G R. No. 74586

RULING Service filed its petition for relief also w/ the RTC Manila but not in the same case but in another case.
This is erroneous. A judgment or order denying relief under Rule 38 is final & not appealable, unlike
an order granting such relief w/c is interlocutory. However, in such an appeal, the appellate ct. is only
to determine the existence of any of the grounds relied upon (fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence) & the merit of the petitioners cause of action or defense, as the case may be. Moreover,
Service merely filed a notice of appeal to the IAC fr. the order of the lower ct. w/c dismissed his
petition for relief. The appeal should have been made to this Court through a petition for review on
certiorari.

TITLE YU.12 Mayor vs. Intermediate Appellate Court GR 74410

MAIN POINT The period for filing a petition for review is fifteen days. If the motion for reconsideration is filed with
and denied by a RTC, the movant has only the remaining period within which to file a petition for
review. Hence, it may be necessary to file a motion with the CA for extension of time to file such
petition for review.

TITLE AL.13 Merino v. Ca, GR l-38337

RULING No. 1. REMEDIAL LAW; APPEAL; DECISIONS OF CFI IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OVER CASES TRIABLE EXCLUSIVELY BY INFERIOR COURTS;
FINAL IN ALL CASES; MOTA DOCTRINE, ABANDONED. We hereby abandon the doctrine
laid down in Mote. We hold that decisions of Courts of First Instance, now Regional Trial Courts, in
the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over cases triable exclusively by courts inferior to them,
shall be final in all cases.
2. ID.; ID.; APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF CFI OVER APPEALED CASE IN THE
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE MUNICIPAL OR CITY COURT; PETITION FOR REVIEW,
PROPER. Section 43 of the Judiciary Law as amended by, Republic Act No. 6031 does not allow an
appeal by record on appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance in an appealed case falling
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the municipality or city court. Judgment of the CA is
hereby set aside and the orders of the Court of First Instance of Manila are hereby reinstated.

TITLE AV.13 De la Cruz v. Paras | G.R. No. L-41053

MAIN The test to determine whether an order or judgment is interlocutory or final is this: "Does it leave
POINT something to be done in the trial court with respect to the mertis of the case? If it does, it is interlocutory;
if it does not, if is final."
TITLE BA.13 UNIVERSAL MOTORS CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS

MAIN As a rule, findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on
POINT appeal, provided, they are borne out by the record or are based on substantial evidence. However, this rule
admits of certain exceptions, as when the findings of facts are conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based; or the appellate court's findings are contrary to those of the trial court.

TITLE CA.13 Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111324, July 5, 1996, 258
SCRA 186 (1996)
MAIN Multiple appeals are allowed in special proceedings, in actions for recovery of property with accounting, in
POINT actions for partition of property with accounting, in the special civil actions of eminent domain and
foreclosure of mortgage. The rationale behind allowing more than one appeal in the same case is to enable
the rest of the case to proceed in the event that a separate and distinct issue is resolved by the court and
held to be final.

TITLE DA.13 NEYPES v. CA, G.R. No. 141524

MAIN A party litigant may either file his notice of appeal within 15 days from receipt of the Regional Trial Courts
POINT decision or file it within 15 days from receipt of the order (the final order) denying his motion for new trial
or motion for reconsideration. Obviously, the new 15-day period may be availed of only if either motion is
filed; otherwise, the decision becomes final and executory after the lapse of the original appeal period
provided in Rule 41, Section 3.

TITLE DAU.13First Aqua Sugar Traders, Inc. v. Bank of the Philippine Islands
MAIN To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal
POINT their cases, the Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice of
appeal in the Regional Trial Court, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or
motion for reconsideration.

TITLE DE.13 Ko v. Philippine National Bank | G.R. Nos. 169131-32

MAIN An order by the Regional Trial Court of dismissal for failure to prosecute has the effect of an adjudication
POINT based on the merits which must be appealed by means of a notice of appeal not a petition for review on
certiorari.

TITLE DEL.13 Basmayor v. Atencio | G.R. No. 160573

RULING In petitions for review or appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the appellate tribunal is limited to
the determination of whether the lower court committed reversible errors. Here, the petitioner ignores
the dismissal of her petition by the Court of Appeals on technical grounds and raises instead issues
unrelated to reasons for the dismissal of her appeal by the Court of Appeals. Petitioner had not alleged
any error in the Court of Appeals resolution that she seeks to correct, except for the ruling that the
Civil Service Commission should be impleaded as respondent. Hence, these deficiencies are sufficient
grounds to deny this petition outright. As the issues raised are not purely questions of law and they are
not cognizable by this Court in a petition for review under Rule 45, we are constrained from exercising
our jurisdiction in this case. Petitioner also seeks this Courts determination of the probative value of
the certification made by Director Cueva. But petitioner ought to remember that this Court is not a trier
of facts. Equally noteworthy, the CSC dismissed the charges of falsification of public document against
Atencio for lack of prima facie evidence and the CSCRO No. XI found the signature of the director
was not forged. Such findings made by an administrative body, which is supported by the records, is
accorded not only respect but even finality. Hence, after a careful scrutiny of the records, we find no
cause to disturb the CSCs findings.

TITLE HA.13 Gamiao v. Plan, G.R. No. L-57102

MAIN POINT A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of
Appeals whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition on
certiorari.

TITLE JO.13 Cebu Stevedoring Co., Inc. v. Ramolete | G.R. No. L-56627
MAIN While it may be desirable in the in interest of an orderly conduct of judicial proceedings that a counsel for a
POINT party should file with the court his formal written appearance in the case, before filing a pleading therein,
or mention in said pleading that he is submitting the same in collaboration with the counsel of record, the
mere circumstance that such acts were not done does not warrant the conclusion that the pleading filed by
such counsel has no legal effect whatsoever.

TITLE KU.13 Agote v. Lorenzo | G.R. No. 142675

MAIN While appeals from judgments of the trial courts in the exercise of their original jurisdiction must be
POINT brought directly to the Supreme Court in cases where the appellant raises only questions of law,
petitioner should have appealed the trial courts ruling to this Court by way of a petition for review on
certiorari in accordance with Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, pursuant to
Rule 41, Section 2 (c) of the same Rules

TITLE LI.13 Mercado vs. Court of Appeals, 162 SCRA 75, No. L-44001 June 10, 1988
MAIN Availability of the right to appeal precludes recourse to the special civil action of certiorari. The
POINT remedy available to the petitioners against such a final judgment, as repeat edly stated, was an
appeal in accordance with the aforementioned Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. But as observed in an
analogous case recently resolved by this Court.x x instead of resorting to this ordinary remedy of
appeal, x x (the petitioners) availed of the extraordinary remedy of a special civil action of certiorari
in the x x (Court of Appeals), under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The choice was clearly wrong. The
availability of the right of appeal obviously precluded recourse to the special civil action of
certiorari. This is axiomatic. It is a proposition made plain by Section 1 of Rule 65 which lays down
as a condition for the filing of a certiorari petition that there be no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

TITLE MA.13 BA Finance Corp. v. Pineda | GR No. L-61628

MAIN It must be remembered that, normally, when an interlocutory order is sought to be reviewed or annulled
POINT by means of any of the extra legal remedies of prohibition or certiorari, it is required that a motion for
reconsideration of the question order must first be filed, such being considered a speedy and adequate
remedy at law which must first be resorted to as a condition precedent for filing of any of such
proceedings (Secs. 1 and 2, Rule 65, Rules of Court)

TITLE SA.13 Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines v. Goimco, G.R No. 13550
MAIN POINT The extraordinary writ of certiorari issues only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[7] Grave abuse of discretion is such
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to an excess or lack of
jurisdiction, meaning that the abuse of discretion must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an
evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in
contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by
reason of passion or hostility.

TITLE YA.13 Cervantes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 166755

MAIN POINT The plain and adequate remedy referred to in Rule 65 Section 1 is a motion for reconsideration of
the assailed Order or Resolution, the filing of which is an indispensable condition to the filing of a
special civil action for certiorari, subject to certain exception.

TITLE YU.13 Ang Biat Huan Sons Industries, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 154837
MAIN POINT As a rule, a petition for certiorari will not lie when an appeal is adequate remedy such as
when an error of judgment or procedure is involved, and, ordinarily, the proper recourse of
aggrieved party from a decision of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under rule 45
of the Rules of Court.
TITLE AL.13 Longino v. General, G.R. No. 147956, February 16, 2005, 451 SCRA 423 (2005)

MAIN POINT The principal purpose for the writ of prohibition is to prevent an encroachment, excess,
usurpation or assumption of jurisdiction on the part of an inferior court or quasi-judicial
tribunal. It is granted when it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice, or
prevent the use of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive or vindictive manner, or
multiplicity of actions. The writs of certiorari and prohibition, for that matter, are intended to
annul or void proceedings in order to insure the fair and orderly administration of justice

TITLE AV.14 Calim v. Guerrero | G.R. No. 156527

MAIN Mandamus will not issue to control or review the exercise of discretion of a public officer where the law
POINT imposes upon said public officer the right and duty to exercise his judgment in reference to any matter
in which he is required to act. It is his judgment that is to be exercised and not that of the court.