Anda di halaman 1dari 5

Liga ng mga brangay national vs atienza

Petition for certiorari under rule 65


Invalid application of rule 65 it can only be invoked with the following requisite:
1. it must be directed against a tribunal board or officer exercising judicial
or quasi judicial function
2. the tribunal board or officer must have acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction or woth grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction
3. there is no appeal or any plain speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law
party is not vested with any judicial or quasi judicial function moreover to issuer
certiorari is not exclusive to the SC but is concurrent with the RTC and CA in certain
cases. Concurrence of jurisdiction however must respect the hierarchy of the courts
unless it is of transcendental importance.

Relucio vs lopez

Babae laban asawa babae gusto na mag accounting of properties sinama


yung kabit. Kabity nag MD not allowed hence appeal. Kabit not an indespensible
party the pleadings were directed towards the husband and the relief sought for is
directed towords the husband

Acampado vs cosmilla

The present petition stems from the Petition for the Declaration of the Nullity of Document filed by
respondents against petitioners before the RTC of Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 6. In their Amended
Complaint6docketed as SPL. Civil Case No. 6644, respondents Spouses Cosmilla alleged that the
sale of their share on the subject property was effected thru a forged Special Power of Attorney
(SPA) and is therefore null and void

Aggrieved, respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration10 on 6 May 2005 seeking for the reversal
of the earlier RTC Decision.

For failure of the respondents, however, to comply with the requirement of notice of hearing as
required under Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Revised Rules of Court, the court a quo denied
the Motion for Reconsideration in Order11 dated 16 May 2005, viz: ."chanRob lesvi rtua lL

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the Motion for Reconsideration is


declared pro forma and the decision sought to be reconsidered is declared final and executory as
the period of appeal has already expired.

SO ORDERED.

Ascribing grave abuse of discretion, respondents elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals by
filing a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus12 with prayer for Preliminary Injunction
and TRO seeking to annul and set aside the RTC Order dated 16 May 2005.

Issue
Petitioners are now before this Court via this instant Petition for Review on Certiorari18 praying that
the Court of Appeals Resolution be reversed and set aside on the ground that: chanRoblesvirtual Lawlib ra ry

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED AND COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN ISSUING
RESOLUTION DATED 28 JUNE 2007 AND RESOLUTION DATED 19 AUGUST 2011 WHICH, IN EFFECT
RECONSIDERED ITS OWN DECISION DATED 27 OCTOBER 2006 DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION, MANDAMUS WITH PRAYER FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND TRO
OF RESPONDENTS.19 ChanRoblesVirtualawl ibra ry

HELD

We resolve to grant the petition.

The Motion for Reconsideration is a contentious motion that needs to comply with the required
notice and hearing and service to the adverse party as mandated by the following provisions of the
Revised Rules of Court: chanRoblesv irt ual Lawlib rary

RULE 15. SEC. 4. Hearing of motion. - Except for motions which the court may act upon without
prejudicing the rights of the adverse party, every written motion shall be set for hearing by the
applicant.

Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in
such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three (3) days before the date of
hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice.

SEC. 5. Notice of hearing. - The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and
shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the
filing of the motion.

SEC. 6. Proof of service necessary. No written motion set for hearing shall be acted upon by the
court without proof of service thereof. ChanRobles Vi rtua lawlib rary

The foregoing requirements — that the notice shall be directed to the parties concerned, and shall
state the time and place for the hearing of the motion — are mandatory, and if not religiously
complied with, the motion becomes pro forma.20 A motion that does not comply with the
requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court is a worthless piece of paper
which the clerk of court has no right to receive and which the court has no authority to act
upon.21 The logic for such requirement is simple: a motion invariably contains a prayer which the
movant makes to the court which is usually in the interest of the adverse party to oppose.22 The
notice of hearing to the adverse party is therefore a form of due process; it gives the other party
the opportunity to properly vent his opposition to the prayer of the movant.23 In keeping with the
principles of due process, therefore, a motion which does not afford the adverse party a chance to
oppose should simply be disregarded.24 Principles of natural justice demand that a right of a party
should not be affected without giving it an opportunity to be heard.25 c ralawred

It is important, however, to note that these doctrines refer exclusively to a motion, since a motion
invariably contains a prayer, which the movant makes to the court, which is to repeat usually in the
interest of the adverse party to oppose and in the observance of due process, the other party must
be given the opportunity to oppose the motion.27In keeping with the principles of due process,
therefore, a motion which does not afford the adverse party the chance to oppose it
should simply be disregarded.28Failure to comply with the required notice and hearing is
a fatal defect that is deleterious to respondents cause.29

FREDERICK F. FELIPE, Petitioners,


vs.
MGM MOTOR TRADING CORPORATION, doing business under the name and style
NISSAN GALLERY-ORTIGAS, and AYALA GENERAL INSURANCE
CORPORATION, Respondents.

This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the 14 January 2010 Decision1 of the Court of
Appeals and its 16 March 2010 Resolution2 in CAG. R. CV No. 89665 affirming the 22
February 2005 Order3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 80 which
dismissed the case for· specific performance and damages on demurrer to evidence.

In his Complaint for Specific Performance and Damages against respondents MGM Motors,
Inc. (MGM Motors) and Ayala General Insurance Corporation (Ayala Insurance), petitioner
Frederick Felipe claimed. that he purchased on installment basis a Nissan Terrano Wagon
through MGM Motors' authorized representative Jane Sarmiento (Sarmiento). Petitioner
allegedly gave a P200,000.00 downpayment and P5,000.00 reservation fee to Sarmiento. He
further issued seven (7) Allied Bank checks, each bearing the amount of P24,165.00 payable
to MGM Motors. On 14 May 1997, MGM Motors delivered the subject vehicle to petitioner.
He then insured the vehicle with Ayala Insurance under Policy No. PC970000440001-00-000
and paid a premium of P40,220.67. On 15 November 1997, the subject vehicle, while parked
along Adriatico Street in Manila, was reportedly lost. He tried to claim from Ayala Insurance
but the latter refused to pay its liability causing damages to petitioner. On the other hand,
MGM Motors refused to produce, despite repeated demands, the document of sale by
installment covering the vehicle. Petitioner allegedly paid additional P200,000.00 on 7 May
1998 as partial payment for the vehicle. The refusal of MGM Motors to produce the
document and its renouncement of the existence of the installment sale; and the subsequent
unlawful insistence on a cash transaction agreement, had caused damages to petitioner.4

Ayala Insurance, for its part, contended that petitioner had no valid cause of action against it.
Ayala Insurance. asserted that petitioner had no insurable interest because he is not the
owner of the vehicle that he had insured with it. Ayala Insurance also counterclaimed for
damages.6

Trial proceeded with petitioner and his father Alberto Felipe (Alberto) testifying on the behalf
of the former. Petitioner's testimony was however stricken off the record because he failed to
return, despite numerous opportunities, to the witness stand for cross-examination. Only two
pieces of evidence were admitted by the trial court: (1) the Official Receipt dated 7 May 1998
issued by MGM Motors wherein it acknowledged receipt of P200,000.00 from petitioner; and
(2) the testimony of his father Alberto that he was present when petitioner paid P200,000.00
to MGM Motors.

MGM Motors and Ayala Insurance filed their respective Motions to Dismiss on demurrer to
evidence.

On 22 February 2005, the RTC dismissed the case. The trial court reasoned that the
evidence admitted by the trial court do not prove the material allegations of petitioner's
complaint, as well as the alleged liability of Ayala Insurance.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration from said Order but it was denied by the trial
court on 23 May 2005.7
ISSUE

THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS DISPOSED OF PETITIONER'S (PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT


THEREIN) APPEAL IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR WITH THE APPLICABLE
DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE TRIBUNAL, THUS COMMITTING ERRORS THAT
WARRANT REVERSAL BY THIS HONORABLE TRIBUNAL THIS HAPPENED WHEN:

THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED THE RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT
FAILED/REFUSED TO GRANT PETITIONER THE RELIEFS PRAYED FOR IN THE
COMPLAINT DESPITE THE FACT THAT WITH THE EVIDENCE THAT HE ADDUCED HE
HAS CLEARLY, CONVINCINGLY AND PREPONDERANTLY PROVEN HIS CAUSES OF
ACTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS (DEFENDANTS). THIS IS TRUE EVEN IF A
CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF HIS EVIDENCE WAS DENIED ADMISSION BY THE
TRIAL COURT.

HELD

We agree:

A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and


is presented after the plaintiff rests his case. It is an objection by one of the parties in an
action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of
law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue.11

Rule 33, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

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.

The essential question to be resolved in a demurrer to evidence is whether the plaintiff has
been able to show that he is entitled to his claim, and it is incumbent upon the trial court
judge to make such a determination.12

A review of the dismissal of the complaint naturally entails a Calibration of the evidence to
determine whether the material allegations of the complaint were sufficiently backed by
evidence.

a perusal of the records show that the trial court correctly dismissed petitioner's complaint on
demurrer to evidence.

Well-established is the rule that the burden of proof lies on the party who makes the
allegations.14 There is no dispute that the only pieces of evidence admitted in court are the
testimony of Alberto and the receipt showing MGM Motors receiving P200,000.00 from
petitioner as partial payment of the subject car. The allegation that the purchase of the
vehicle was on an installment basis was not supported by any evidence. The receipt of a
partial payment does not suffice to prove that the purchase was made on an installment
basis. Petitioner did not present any document to prove said allegation while MGM Motors
produced a sales invoice wherein it was stated that the mode of payment is "COD" or cash
on delivery.

ALBERTO T. LASALA, PREVIOUSLY DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE STYLE PSF SECURITY
AGENCY, Petitioner, v. THE NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY, Respondent.

Lasala, through his company PSF Security Agency, used to provide security guard services to the
NFA. Sometime in 1994, Lasala's employees who were deployed to the NFA filed with the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a complaint for underpayment of wages and nonpayment of
other monetary benefits. The NLRC ruled for the employees and held Lasala and the NFA solidarily
liable for the employees' adjudged monetary award.5 Consequently, the sheriff garnished the NFA's
P383,572.90 worth of bank deposits with the Development Bank of the Philippines.

Believing that it had no liability to Lasala's employees, the NFA filed with the RTC, Branch 220,
Quezon City, a complaint for sum of money with damages and an application for the issuance of a
writ of preliminary attachment against Lasala.6

In response, Lasala filed an answer with counterclaim7 and opposition to the prayer for preliminary
attachment. In his counterclaim, Lasala prayed for the payment of moral damages of
P1,000,000.00; exemplary damages of P500,000.00; attorney's fees of P300,000.00,
compensatory damages of P250,000.00; and unpaid wage differential of P1,500,000.00,
for a total amount of P3,550,000.00.8

Despite the huge award to Lasala the NFA failed to appeal its case to the CA. Atty. Cahucom
did not inform the NFA's management about the trial court's adverse ruling. When asked to
explain, he reasoned out that he only discovered the decision after the lapse of the period for
appeal.11

Having lost its chance to appeal, the NFA filed with the trial court a petition for relief from judgment
(petition for relief) grounded on excusable negligence.12 In its petition, the NFA through Atty.
Cahucom, attributed its failure to appeal to one of the NFA's employees. Allegedly, this employee
received the copy of the trial court's September 2, 2002 decision but did not inform Atty. Cahucom
about it. It was only after the lapse of the period for the filing of a motion for reconsideration and an
appeal that the NFA learned about the adverse ruling.

The trial court did not accept the NFA's reasoning; thus, it denied the petition for relief for
insufficiency in substance.13

In the meantime, then NFA Administrator Arthur C. Yap had assumed his position. One of his first
instructions was the legal audit of all NFA cases. In doing this, the NFA management found out that
the two lawyers (Attys. Mendoza and Cahucom) assigned to the case against Lasala, grossly
mishandled it; hence, causing a huge and unjust liability to the NFA in the amount of
P52,788,970.50.

Thus, on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud, the NFA, now through the OGCC,
filed with the CA a petition and an amended petition14for annulment of judgment (petition for
annulment) of the trial court's September 2, 2002 decision which had granted a substantially higher
award than what Lasala originally prayed for in his counterclaim.

The CA granted the petition and annulled the trial court's September 2, 2002 decision.