Anda di halaman 1dari 10

RULE 37

MERALCO vs. La The records indicate that Meralco was not certain at this juncture what remedy to adopt: a motion to set aside the judgment by default or a motion for
Compana Food new trial? Meralco chose to play it safe by using the "and/or" option. It must be clarified that under the Rules, what an aggrieved party seeks to set
Products, Inc aside is the order of default, an interlocutory order which is not appealable, and not the judgment by default, which is a final disposition of the case and
appealable to the Court of Appeals.

On the other hand, as a motion for new trial grounded on fraud, Meralco's motion fails to convince. The fraud it claims is in the ex-parte motion of La
Campana to declare it in default. Meralco claims that the reason for the ex-parte motion was "to deprive the defendant of the opportunity to oppose it,
knowing that defendant actually filed its answer."

"Fraud, as a ground for new trial, must be extrinsic or collateral, that is, it is the kind of fraud which prevented the aggrieved party from having a trial or
presenting his case to the court, or was used to procure the judgment without fair submission of the controversy." Meralco's failure to go to trial in this
case is solely attributable to its failure to comply with the Rules of Court.
Soloria vs. De La Cruz Failure to attend trial for lack of advance notice, has been held in previous cases to constitute an "accident" within the meaning of Section 1, Rule 37,
of the Rules of Court which, in turn, is a proper and valid ground to grant a new trial.
Where the movant has been deprived of his day in court through no fault or negligence on his part and because no notice of hearing was furnished him
in advance so as to enable him to prepare for trial, the judgment or order is absolutely null and void for denying him his day in court.
Viking Industrial Corp vs. The mistake referred to above is one which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against. Here, the mistake petitioner committed is a mistake of
CA law. Its lawyer believed that he should not file an answer because his client is erroneously impleaded. Had petitioner’s counsel reviewed more closely
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, he would not have committed a mistake which, unfortunately, binds his client. Clearly, petitioner’s counsel, instead
of ignoring respondent’s petition, should have filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the court has not acquired jurisdiction over its person as the
summons (with a copy of the petition) served upon it is defective.
Victoriano Salazar vs. We consider it natural and logical that Victoriano Salazar believed, and that such belief was well founded, that the action brought against him by
Cayetana Salazar Cayetana Salazar had been ended in fact by virtue of the aforesaid compromise and that he was, therefore, relieved from the duty of filing his answer.
Perhaps technically such belief would be erroneous, but it was, without doubt, excusable and the causes were reasonable why he did not answer.
Philippine Phospate The “mistake” that is allowable in Rule 37 is one which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against. Negligence to be “excusable” must also be
Fertilizer Corp. vs. CIR one which ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against and by reason of which the rights of an aggrieved party have probably been
impaired. The test of excusable negligence is whether a party has acted with ordinary prudence while transacting important business. In this case, it
cannot be said that petitioner did not act with ordinary prudence in claiming its refund with the CTA, in light of its previous cases with the CTA which
did not require invoices and the non-mandatory nature of CTA Circular No. 1-95.
Bernaldez vs. Francia In order that a particular piece of evidence may be regarded as newly discovered for purposes of granting a new trial, it is essential to show that the
offering party exercised reasonable diligence in seeking to locate such evidence before or during trial but had nonetheless failed to secure it.

The evidence offered by petitioners, TCT No. 180189, does not satisfy the aforementioned requisites.The Court notes that although petitioners found
out about the existence of said TCT only after trial, they could have easily discovered the same before or during the trial of the case had they bothered
to check the TCT of respondents lot to ascertain whether or not it overlapped with their own lot. In any case, TCT No. 180189 is hardly material to their
case, considering that respondents TCT is of a different number: TCT No. 180199.
Capuz vs. Court of For the grounds stated under Rule 37 Sec. 1(a) – fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence – what is required in filing for a motion for new trial
Appeals is to be supported by affidavit of merits, which may be rebutted by affidavits. However, the allegations contained in an affidavit of merit required to be
attached to a motion to lift an order of default or for a new trial need not be embodied in a separate document but may be incorporated in the petition
itself. “Stated otherwise, when a motion to lift an order of default contains the reasons for the failure to answer as well as the facts constituting the
prospective defense of the defendant and it is sworn to by said defendant, neither a formal verification nor a separate affidavit of merit is necessary.”
Capuz was correct when it argued that his verified motion to lift the order of default and to set aside the motion can be treated as a motion for new trial
without submitting a separate affidavit of merit considering that the motion was verified.
Dulos realty and The appellate court err in treating petitioner’s motion for reopening/ clarification and reconsideration as a motion for new trial. Under Section 1 (c) of
Development Rule 37 of the Rules of Court, before it was amended on July 1, 1997, motion for new trial was aimed to convince the court that its ruling was erroneous
Corporation vs. Court of and improper for being contrary to the law or the evidence. However, apparent from petitioner’s motion and the subsequent hearing thereon was
Appeals petitioner’s intention to make the trial court reconsider its decision to conform with the law and the evidence by reiterating the decision of the HLURB.
That private respondent had already abandoned the premises is not a newly found evidence for admittedly, petitioner knew of it before the trial court
rendered its decision.
Alfarero vs. Sevilla A motion for new trial should be made within the period for perfecting an appeal. Instead, what the record shows is that petitioners (Alfareros), in effect,
only asked for a new trial after the appellate court had rendered its decision on appeal. Such a situation is definitely not permissible under the Rules. It
is well accepted that a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence may indeed be filed after judgment, but within the period for perfecting
an appeal.
Habaluyas Enterprises Starting June 1, 1986 no motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration may be filed in the Metropolitan and Municipal
Inc., vs. Japson Courts, RTC’s and the I.A.C., except in cases pending in the Supreme Court.
National Commercial The requirement of notice is mandatory. The absence of a notice of hearing is fatal and, in cases of motions to reconsider a decision, the running of
Bank of Saudi Arabia vs. the period to appeal is not tolled by their filing or pendency. The motion for reconsideration, however, being fatally defective for lack of notice of hearing,
CA cannot be cured by a belated filing of a notice of hearing.More so in the case at bar where the Motion to Set the "Motion for Reconsideration" was filed
after the expiration of the period for filing an appeal.
Security Bank and Trust A motion for reconsideration is not pro forma just because it reiterated the arguments earlier passed upon and rejected by the appellate court. The
Co. vs. Cuenca Court has explained that a movant may raise the same arguments, precisely to convince the court that its ruling was erroneous. Moreover, there is no
clear showing of intent on the part of petitioner to delay the proceedings. The Court explained that a pro forma motion had no other purpose than to
gain time and to delay or impede the proceedings. Hence, as in this case, “where the circumstances of a case do not show an intent on the part of the
movant merely to delay the proceedings, Court has refused to characterize the motion as simply pro forma.
Gagui vs. Dejero To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal 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.
Esquivel vs. Alegre Petitioners claim that the decision of respondent court in the supplemental complaint revised the decision in the original complaint tantamount to an
amendment or reversal of said original decision of respondent court penned by a previous presiding judge therein.

There is a difference between an amended judgment and a supplemental judgment. In an amended and clarified judgment, the lower court makes a
thorough study of the original judgment and renders the amended and clarified judgment only after considering all the factual and legal issues. The
amended and clarified decision is an entirely new decision which supersedes the original decision. It can be said that a supplemental decision does not
take the place or extinguish the existence of the original. As its very name denotes, it only serves to bolster or adds something to the primary decision.
A supplement exists side by side with the original. It does not replace that which it supplements.

In the instant case no restudy was made by respondent court of the original decision but only on the issues raised in the supplemental complaint. The
supplemental decision cannot stand alone as a judgment on the merits as there was no declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties. It
only declared the supplemental defendants as successors-in-interest of the defendants in the original complaint, “such that whatever is the result of the
appealed case shall be legally binding upon them.
Rule 40
US vs. Gomez The legislature may confer upon persons, boards, officers, and commissions the right to finally decide may questions affecting various interest of the
people of the state. If a remedy is granted, the law will be valid, even though no appeal to the courts is provided. The right of appeal is a purely statutory
right; it is not an inherent right. The right to appeal was not at common law, and it is not now, a necessary element of due process of law. Here, Gomez
cannot argue that Act No. 310, the basis for revoking his license, is void for not providing an appeal. The law has vested the Board with the power to
determine the qualification and the competency of an individual to practice medicine. Moreover, the decision of the Board is appealable to the Director
of Health, such already constitute due process of law.
Gonzales vs. CA No. An appeal to a higher court, being merely a statutory right and not ordinarily a necessary part of due process, may only be taken when the law so
provides. The right to appeal being purely statutory, the parties cannot, even by mutual agreement, confer such right when the same does not exist by
statutory authority. Since the law does not provide for appeal in contests for the position of city vice-mayor, no appeal to the Court of Appeals or to the
Supreme Court will lie from a decision of the Court of First Instance in contests for said position.
Eastern Mediterranean The NLRC has no jurisdiction to review cases decided by the POEA Administrator involving disciplinary actions. Under the Migrant Workers and
Maritime Ltd. vs Surio Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, the Labor Arbiter shall have jurisdiction over money claims involving employer-employee relationship. Here, the
petitioners should have appealed the adverse decision of the POEA to the Secretary of Labor instead of to the NLRC.
Almeda vs CA The right to appeal is a statutory right and one who seeks to avail of this right must strictly comply with the statutes or rules as they are considered
indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for an orderly discharge of judicial business. Almeda admits that his notice of appeal was filed
five (5) days late but explains that his former counsel who took over from another former counsel must have overlooked its due date. A careful scrutiny
of the records readily discloses the lack of merit in petitioner's reason for the late filing of his notice of appeal. It was only after the notice had been filed
that he effected a change of counsel.
Ybanez vs CA Annulment of judgment may either be based on the ground that a judgment is void for want of jurisdiction or that the judgment was obtained by extrinsic
fraud. Here, there is nothing in the records that could cogently show that the RTC lacked jurisdiction. Clearly then, when the RTC took cognizance of
petitioner’s appeal from the adverse decision of the MTC in the ejectment suit, it (RTC) was unquestionably exercising its appellate jurisdiction as
mandated by law.

As to the second ground, the kind of fraud that justifies the annulment of a judgment is extrinsic fraud. This refers to some act or conduct of the prevailing
party which has prevented the aggrieved party from having a trial or presenting his case to the court, or was used to procure judgment without a fair
submission of the controversy. Extrinsic fraud refers to acts outside the trial. It must be distinguished from intrinsic fraud which refers to acts of a party
at a trial which prevented a fair and just determination of the case and which could have been litigated and determined at the trial or adjudication of the
case. Examples of intrinsic fraud are falsification and false testimony.
SMI Fish Industries, Inc. Respondent NLRC exceeded its jurisdiction when it ordered the reinstatement of private respondents, thereby modifying the decision of the labor arbiter
vs NLRC awarding separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. As pointed out by Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier in her partial dissent, since private
respondents did not appeal from the decision of the labor arbiter, they are presumed to be satisfied with the adjudication therein. Accordingly, with the
finality of the decision as to private respondents, the issue of payment of separation pay instead of reinstatement has been laid to rest. It is a well-
settled procedural rule in this jurisdiction, and we see no reason why it should not apply in this case, that an appellee who has not himself appealed
cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than those granted in the decision of the court below.
Universal Motors Corp. As a rule, findings of fact of the CA are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal, provided, they are borne out by the record or are based
vs CA 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. Here, the apparent conflict between the
findings of the appellate court and that of the trial court is due to the fact that evidence was presented ex parte in the lower court while the evidence of
the private respondents was presented only on appeal.
PNB vs Perez The notice of pre-trial seeks to notify the parties of the date, time and place of the pre-trial and to require them to file their respective pre-trial briefs
within the time prescribed by the rules. Its absence, therefore, renders the pre-trial and all subsequent proceedings null and void. Absence of the notice
of pre-trial constitutes of a violation of a persons constitutional right to due process. In the case at bar, the order issued by the trial court merely spoke
of a hearing on March 8, 2006 and required PNB to prepare and complete x x x a statement of account. The said order does not mention anything
about a pre-trial to be conducted by the trial court.
Citibank vs Sabeniano Perfection of appeal is governed by Rule 41 Sec 9, as well as its effects. The perfection of the appeal and its effects pertains only as to the party who
filed such appeal. Here, both parties sought a review with the SC, however, Modesta, in filing directly with the SC, sought an extension to file the Petition
for Review, which was, however, not acted upon. This resulted to the decision of the CA becoming final due to the failure of Modesta in filing such
Petition.
Bote vs Veloso Section 15, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court limits the questions that may be raised on appeal: Section 15. Questions that may be raised on appeal.―
Whether or not the appellant has filed a motion for new trial in the court below, he may include in his assignment of errors any question of law or fact
that has been raised in the court below and which is within the issues framed by the parties.Section 15, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court limits the questions
that may be raised on appeal: Section 15. Questions that may be raised on appeal.― Whether or not the appellant has filed a motion for new trial in
the court below, he may include in his assignment of errors any question of law or fact that has been raised in the court below and which is within the
issues framed by the parties. It is settled jurisprudence that an issue which was neither averred in the complaint nor raised during the trial in the court
below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal as it would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process. The issue of whether
or not the spouses Veloso were builders in good faith is a factual question that was never alleged, let alone proven. Understandably, Bote did not
present such evidence before the trial court because good faith was not an issue then. It was only on appeal that the spouses Veloso belatedly raised
the issue that they were builders in good faith. Justice and fair play dictate that the spouses Veloso’s change of their theory of the case on appeal be
disallowed and the instant petition granted.
SMALL CLAIMS
Neypes vs CA A party litigant may either file his notice of appeal within 15 days from receipt of the Regional Trial Courts 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.
This fresh period rule shall also apply to Rule 40 governing appeals from the Municipal Trial Courts to the Regional Trial Courts. Petitioners here filed
their notice of appeal on July 27, 1998 or five days from receipt of the order denying their motion for reconsideration on July 22, 1998. Hence, the notice
of appeal was well within the fresh appeal period of 15 days.
Crisologo vs CA Inaction to a notice of appeal does not result to losing the right to appeal. Upon filing of the notice of appeal and payment of docket fees the appeal is
perfected. The notice of appeal does not require the approval of the court. The function of the notice of appeal is merely to notify the trial court that the
appellant was availing of the right to appeal, and not to seek the courts permission that he be allowed to pose an appeal.
Badillo vs Tayag In appeals from the MTC to the RTC, failure to pay the appellate docket fees within the fifteen-day reglementary period bestows on the appellate court
a directory, not a mandatory, power to dismiss an appeal. Payment of appellate fees from the RTC to the CA and from the CA to the SC is mandatory
according to the Rules. The payment of the appellate docket fee is not a mere technicality of law or procedure. It is an essential requirement, without
which the decision or final order appealed from would become final and executory as if no appeal was filed at all. Here, the case involves an appeal
from MTC to RTC. When the NHA filed a Notice of Appeal on February 22, 2000 -- two days before the appeal period lapsed it perfected its appeal and
the MTC thereby lost its jurisdiction.
Universal Far East Corp. The trial court granted the execution pending appeal on May 30, 1983, or more than four months after Ching's appeal was perfected, on the ground of
vs CA Ching's insolvency. The SC held that the trial court had jurisdiction to issue the order of execution pending appeal because the motion for execution
was filed before Ching had perfected his appeal and it was resolved before the trial court which on Ching's appeal and elevated the record to the
Appellate Court.
Estella vs CA The record on appeal as a requisite for the perfection of an appeal has been eliminated under Section 39 of BP Blg. 129 (Judiciary Reorganization Act
of 1980) and Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines. Since the appellate court based its outright dismissal of petitioners’ appeal
on the non-transmittal of the record on appeal pursuant to Section 3, Rule 46 of the Revised Rules of Court, then clearly, said dismissal was erroneous.
Banting vs Maglapuz Appeal by petition for review under Rule 42 filed with the CA is the appropriate remedy from decisions or final orders issued by the RTC in the exercise
of its appellate jurisdiction. An order of the RTC dismissing an appeal from a decision of the MeTC for failure of appellant to file a memorandum on
appeal is one such final order. It is appealable by petition for review under Rule 42.
Gonzales vs Gonzales The nature of Sec. 7 (b) Rule 40 as regards the filing of the Memorandum of Appeal is jurisdictional in character, or is designed for the protection or
benefit of the appealing party, and is mandatory. It should be filed within the required period. Parties are not prohibited as adopting on appeal their
memorandums in the lower courts, but such should be manifested within the period required. In appeals from inferior courts to the RTC, the appellant’s
brief is mandatory for the assignment of errors is vital to the decision of the appeal on the merits. This is because on appeal only errors specifically
assigned and properly argued in the brief or memorandum will be considered except those affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter as well as plain
and clerical errors. Otherwise stated, an appellate court has no power to resolve an unassigned error, which does not affect the court’s jurisdiction over
the subject matter, save for a plain or clerical error.
Herrera vs Bollos In the case at bar, the MTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction and the RTC reversed the dismissal but rendered judgment ejecting the defendants
from the parcel of land involved and condemning them to pay damages and attorney’s fees. This is erroneous. In case of reversal, the case shall be
remanded to the MTC for further proceedings. The RTC in reversing the appealed case dismissing the action cannot decree the eviction of defendants
and award damages.
RULE 41
Miranda vs CA "A definitive judgment (is) one that 'decides finally the rights of the parties upon the issue submitted, by specifically denying or granting the remedy
sought by the action."' Judge Mendoza's judgment for recovery with accounting of the properties of the decedent's estate was and is a definitive and
final judgment on the merits, although almost eleven years later, the accounting ordered has yet to be rendered.
Kho vs Camacho Jurisprudence provides that while issues that involve pure questions of law are within the exclusive jurisdiction of SC, however, Rule 41 of the ROC
does not authorize the Trial Court to disallow an appeal on the ground that there is no question of fact, but only a question of law, involved. Whether
an appeal involves only question of law or both questions of fact and law, this question should be left for the determination of an appellate court and
not by the court which rendered the subject decision appealed from. Thus, following the above pronouncements, what Judge Leviste should have done
under the circumstances was to sustain his approval of the notice of appeal and leave it to the Court of Appeals to certify the case to the proper tribunal
if warranted. Indeed, Judge Leviste had absolutely no authority to disapprove the notice of appeal. Under the present rules, his role is to approve or
disapprove the record on appeal (when required) and the appeal bond, but not a notice of appeal. A notice of appeal does not require the approval of
the trial court.
Sevilleno vs Carilo Here, the issue brought by petitioners to the Court of Appeals involves the jurisdiction of the RTC over the subject matter of the case. Issues which deal
with the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of a case are pure questions of law. As petitioners appeal solely involves a question of law, they
should have directly taken their appeal to this Court by filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not an ordinary appeal with the Court of
Appeals under Rule 41.
Foster-Gallego vs Sps A prospective intervenors right to appeal applies only to the denial of his intervention. Not being a party to the case, a person whose intervention the
Galang court denied has no standing to question the decision of the court. Petitioner thus had no legal personality to join Gallego in assailing the decision of
the trial court. Petitioner could question only the trial courts orders denying his intervention and striking off from the records his answer-in-intervention,
not the decision itself.
Franco-Cruz vs CA “x x x the commencement of the period to appeal x x x should x x x be reckoned x x x from the respective dates each of the parties received a copy of
the decision. Therefore, each party has a different period within which to appeal, unless, of course, all of them received their copies on the same date
and none filed a motion for reconsideration.” Since each party has a different period within which to appeal, the timely filing of a motion for
reconsideration by one party does not interrupt the other or another party’s period of appeal.
Ordinarily, the negligence of counsel binds the client. However, this Court has recognized exceptions: (1) where reckless or gross negligence of counsel
deprives the client of due process of law; (2) when its application will result in outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or property; or (3) where the
interests of justice require. In the case at bar, the application of the rule would result in petitioner being held liable for the damages suffered by
respondents even without them having established the basis of her liability, thus depriving her of due process of law.
Eda vs CA An appeal is not perfected merely by the payment of the appeal fee. Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Civil Procedure categorically states that an
appeal by notice of appeal is deemed perfected as to him upon the filing of the notice of appeal in due time. In other words, an appeal filed out of time
cannot be perfected.
Gov. of Kingdom of 1. The general rule is for the Court of Appeals to dismiss an appeal when no appellant’s brief is filed within the reglementary period prescribed
Belgium vs CA by the rules;
2. The power conferred upon the Court of Appeals to dismiss an appeal is discretionary and directory and not ministerial or mandatory;
3. The failure of an appellant to file his brief within the reglementary period does not have the effect of causing the automatic dismissal of the
appeal;
4. In case of late filing, the appellate court has the power to still allow the appeal; however, for the proper exercise of the court’s leniency it is
imperative that:
a. The circumstances obtaining warrant the court’s liberality;
b. That strong considerations of equity justify an exception to the procedural rule in the interest of substantial justice;
c. No material injury has been suffered by the appellee by the delay;
d. There is no contention that the appellees’ cause was prejudiced;
e. At least there is no motion to dismiss filed.
5. In case of delay, the lapse must be for a reasonable period; and
6. Inadvertence of counsel cannot be considered as an adequate excuse as to call for the appellate court’s indulgence except:
a. Where the reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law;
b. When application of the rule will result in outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or property; or
c. Where the interests of justice so require.
Tan vs Link The dismissal of an appeal as the inevitable aftermath of the late payment of the appellate docket fee has been mandated since the effectivity of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure under Section 4 of Rule 41. The payment of docket fees is a requirement in filing an ordinary appeal from the decision
or final order of the RTC, as provided in Rule 41, Section 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The use of the word “shall” underscores the mandatory
character of the Rule.
The payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of the appeal. Without such payment, the appellate court does
not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and the decision sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory.
De Leon vs CA The grounds for dismissal of an appeal under Section 1 of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court are discretionary upon the CA. This can be seen from the very
wording of the Rules which uses the word may instead of shall. The SC has previously held that Rule 50, Section 1 which provides specific grounds for
dismissal of appeal manifestly confers a power and does not impose a duty. What is more, it is directory, not mandatory. With the exception of Sec.
1(b), the grounds for the dismissal of an appeal are directory and not mandatory, and it is not the ministerial duty of the court to dismiss the appeal.
The CA rightly exercised its discretion when, in denying petitioners motion to dismiss, it ruled that the citations contained in the appellants brief were in
substantial compliance with the rules. Where the citations found in the appellants brief could sufficiently enable the appellate court to locate expeditiously
the portions of the record referred to, there is substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 13(c) and (d), Rule 44 of the Rules of Court.
Such determination was properly within the appellate court’s discretion.
Spouses Campos vs The general rule that an assignment of error is essential to appellate review and only those errors assigned will be considered applies in the absence
Republic of certain exceptional circumstances. As exceptions to the rule, the Court has considered grounds not raised or assigned as errors in instances where:

(1) grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(2) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical errors within the contemplation of the law;
(3) matters not assigned as errors on appeal, whose consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case or to
serve the interest of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice;
(4) matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters of record having some bearing on the issue
submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored;
(5) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are closely related to the assigned error/s; and
(6) matters not assigned as errors on appeal, whose determination is necessary to rule on the question/s properly assigned as errors.

The present case falls into the exceptions. There is no error by the CA in resolving the issues on the nature and duration of the petitioners’ possession
and on the alienable character of the subject land. These issues were apparently not raised by the Republic in its appeal before the CA, but are crucial
in determining whether the petitioners have registrable title over the subject land.
De Liano vs CA Section 13, Rule 44 of the Revised Rules of Court governs the format to be followed by the appellant in drafting his brief, as follows:
a) Subject index [digest of the arguments, page references, table of cases alphabetically arranged, textbooks and statutes cited with references to the
pages]; b) Assignment of errors; c) Statement of the case; d) Statements of facts; e) Issues of fact or law; f) Arguments; g) Relief; h) Appendix [copy of
the judgment or final order appealed from].
A statement of the case gives the appellate tribunal an overview of the judicial antecedents of the case, providing material information regarding the
nature of the controversy, the proceedings before the trial court, the orders and rulings elevated on appeal, and the judgment itself.
Statement of facts comprises the very heart of the appellants brief. The facts constitute the backbone of a legal argument; they are determinative of the
law and jurisprudence applicable to the case, and consequently, will govern the appropriate relief.
Here, petitioner submitted an Amended Appellants Brief to cure the infirmities of the one first filed on its behalf by its lawyer. On closer scrutiny, the
amended brief was as defective as the first. Where the first brief lacked an assignment of errors but included a statement of issues, the amended brief
suffered a complete reversal: it had an assignment of errors but no statement of issues. The statement of facts lacked page references to the record,
a deficiency symptomatic of the first. Authorities were cited in an improper manner, that is, the exact page of the report where the citation was lifted
went unspecified. The amended brief did not even follow the prescribed order: the assignment of errors came after the statement of the case and the
statement of facts.
Ordinary appealed civil cases undergo two (2) stages. The first stage consists of completion of the records. The second stage is for study and report,
which follows when an appealed case is deemed submitted for decision, thus: When case deemed submitted for judgment. A case shall be deemed
submitted for judgment:
A. In ordinary appeals –
1) Where no hearing on the merits of the main case is held, upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules or by the
court itself, or the expiration of the period for its filing;
2) Where such a hearing is held, upon its termination or upon the filing of the last pleading or memorandum as may be required or permitted to be filed
by the court, or the expiration of the period for its filing.
At each stage, a separate raffle is held. Thus, a preliminary raffle is held at which time an appealed case is assigned to a Justice for completion. After
completion, when the case is deemed ripe for judgment, a second raffle is conducted to determine the Justice to whom the case will be assigned for
study and report. Each stage is distinct; it may happen that the Justice to whom the case was initially raffled for completion may not be the same Justice
who will write the decision thereon. Here, however, the case at bar did not reach the second stage; it was dismissed during completion stage pursuant
to Section 1(f) of Rule 50. Consequently, petitioner’s contention that the appellate court should have considered the substance of the appeal prior to
dismissing it due to technicalities does not gain our favor.
Villena vs Rupisan As a general rule payment of docket fees is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. However, there are exceptions to the stringent requirement as
to call for a relaxation of the application of the rules, such as:
(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 special or compelling circumstances;
(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 sought is merely frivolous and dilatory;
(8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby;
(9) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence without appellant’s fault;
(10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case;
(11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play;
(12) importance of the issues involved; and
(13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the attendant circumstances.
Here, in the case at bar, respondents were delayed in the payment of docket fees for six (6) days only. Thus, the SC denied the petition and has held
that it will be extremely harsh for the Court to take a lackadaisical attitude towards the cause of the respondents. Moreover, they are convinced of the
fastidiousness of the Court of Appeals decision.

Rule 42
Sps Plopenio vs DAR While the general rule is that appeals raising pure questions of law from decisions of RTCs are taken to this Court via a Rule 45 petition, decisions of
trial courts designated as SACs are only appealable to the Court of Appeals. The special jurisdiction of the SAC-RTC is conferred and regulated by the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, and appeals therefrom are governed by Section 60 thereof. That law expressly states that appeals from SACs
must be taken to the Court of Appeals without making a distinction between appeals raising questions of fact and those dealing purely with questions
of law. A party aggrieved by the PARAD’s decision is given 15 days to file the original petition before the SAC-RTC. The pendency of a motion for
reconsideration of the decision suspends the running of the period within which the petition may be filed before the RTC-SAC. Consequently, upon
receipt of the order denying the motion for reconsideration, the reglementary period for filing the petition before the RTC-SAC again commences to run.
No fresh period of 15 days is given.
Sps Lanaria vs Planta As a general rule, under Section 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure: “…be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies
of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, the requisite number of plain
copies thereof and of the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition.” Non-compliance with any
of the foregoing requisites is a ground for the dismissal of a petition based on Section 3 of the same Rule. This Court set aside the outright dismissal
of the case, ruling that petitioners therein annexed copies of the supporting documents as well as a certified true copy of the MeTC Decision in the
Motion for Reconsideration, which thus constitutes substantial compliance with the requirements of Rule 42.
Petitioners subsequent submission of the following documents annexed to their Motion for Reconsideration, constitutes substantial compliance with
Section 2, Rule 42. Jurisprudence pertaining to the same has established that submission of a document together with the motion for reconsideration
constitutes substantial compliance with the requirement that relevant or pertinent documents be submitted along with the petition, and calls for the
relaxation of procedural rules.
Moreover, under Section 3(d), Rule 3 of the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals is with authority to require the parties
to submit additional documents as may be necessary to promote the interests of substantial justice. When a petition does not have the complete
annexes or the required number of copies, the Chief of the Judicial Records Division shall require the petitioner to complete the annexes or file the
necessary number of copies of the petition before docketing the case.
Evidently, only the judgments or orders of the lower courts must be duplicate originals or be duly certified true copies. Moreover, the phrases duplicate
originals and true copies of the judgments or orders of both lower courts, being separated by the disjunctive word OR indicate that only the latter are
required to be certified correct by the clerk of court.
Bernardo vs People A.M. No. 00-2-14-SC provides, “any extension of time to file the required pleading… should be counted from the expiration of the period…” The court
has no discretion to reckon the commencement of the extension from a date later than the expiration of such original period, not even if the expiry date
is a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday. Motions for extension are not granted as a matter of right but in the sound discretion of the court, and lawyers
should never presume that their motion for extension or postponement would be granted or that they would be granted the length of time they pray for.
Further, Sec. 1 distinguishes two (2) 15-day periods, the second requiring compelling reasons. To have basis only on one ground will do away the
distinguishing essence of the second 15-day period that requires compelling reasons before it can be granted.
In addition, Bernardo only attached the RTC Decision of December 22, 2003 and its Order of May 4, 2004. Bernardo failed to attach the MeTC Orders
dated January 10, 2003 and May 26, 2003, and the decision dated October 23, 2001.
Heirs of Esplana vs CA The Court holds that petitioners’ indecision to appeal their case before the Court of Appeals is clearly not a compelling reason to grant them a further
extension of 15 days to file their petition for review. Further, the Court of Appeals stated that petitioners did not only fail to file their petition for review
within the 15-day extension granted, but they also failed to pay the full amount of the docket and other legal fees within the reglementary period, that
is, on or before March 8, 2002, the last day for petitioners to file their petition.
Gutierrez vs Cabrera Impleading a lower court judge as respondent in the petition for review does not automatically mean the dismissal of the appeal but merely authorizes
the dismissal of the petition. Here, the petitioner’s contention that the petition of respondents should be automatically dismissed because the lower
court judge was impleaded was untenable because it is still within the discretion of the appellate court to dismiss it or not.
Barredo vs People While Rule 42, Section 2(d) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, requires that, the petition shall "be accompanied by clearly legible
duplicate original or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts," the cited deficiency in petitioner’s petition does not make it
insufficient in form and substance since it is the decision of the RTC, not that of the MTCC, which is the subject of her appeal. What is important is that
in her petition, she attached thereto the original copy of the RTC decision which quoted extensively the findings of the MTCC, including its discussion
on the application of the law, that were affirmed in toto.
Rule 43
Fabian vs Desierto The revised Rules of Civil Procedure preclude appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45. Under the present Rule 45, appeals may be brought through a petition for review on certiorari but only from judgments and final orders of the
courts enumerated in Section 1 thereof. Appeals from judgments and final orders of quasi-judicial agencies are now required to be brought to the Court
of Appeals on a verified petition for review.
Nava vs NBI Although as a consequence of the decision in Fabian, appeals from the orders, directives, or decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases are
now cognizable by the Court of Appeals, nevertheless in cases in which it is alleged that the Ombudsman has acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 may be filed with this Court to set aside the Ombudsman's
order or resolution.
Belongilot vs Cua Appeals from the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals by way of a
petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Here, petitioner’s complaint is criminal in nature. In Estrada v.
Desierto, we held that the remedy of aggrieved parties from resolutions of the Office of the Ombudsman finding probable cause in criminal cases or
non-administrative cases, when tainted with grave abuse of discretion, is to file an original action for certiorari with this Court under Rule 65, not with
the Court of Appeals.
Carpio-Morales vs CA The CA may issue injunction against decision of the Ombudsman over administrative cases.
The Court rules that when Congress passed the first paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770 and, in so doing, took away from the courts their power to issue
a TRO and/or WPI to enjoin an investigation conducted by the Ombudsman, it encroached upon this Court’s constitutional rule-making authority.
Through this provision, Congress interfered with a provisional remedy that was created by this Court under its duly promulgated rules of procedure,
which utility is both integral and inherent to every court’s exercise of judicial power.
Since the second paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770 limits the remedy against “decision or findings” of the Ombudsman to a Rule 45 appeal and thus
– similar to the fourth paragraph of Section 27, RA 6770- attempts to effectively increase the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction without its advice
and concurrence, it is therefore concluded that the former provision is also unconstitutional and perforce, invalid.
Galang vs Geronimo Courts that exercise appellate jurisdiction has the power to issue the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Here, Galang erroneously invoked the SC’s power
to issue the extraordinary writ. The petition should have been filed from the RTC to the COMELEC, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, in accordance
with the Rules of Court and Rules of Procedures Involving Election Contests.
Querubin vs COMELEC The Court has consistently held that the phrase “decision, order, or ruling” of constitutional commissions, the COMELEC included, that may be brought
directly to the Supreme Court on certiorari is not all-encompassing, and that it only relates to those rendered in the commissions’ exercise of adjudicatory
or quasi-judicial powers. In the case of the COMELEC, this would limit the provision’s coverage to the decisions, orders, or rulings issued pursuant to
its authority to be the sole judge of generally all controversies and contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of elective offices.
Galindo vs COA In administrative disciplinary cases decided by the COA, the proper remedy in case of an adverse decision is an appeal to the Civil Service Commission
and not a petition for certiorari before the SC under Rule 64. Here, the petitioners, who wanted to appeal the ruling of COA against them, availed the
wrong remedy when they filed a petition for certiorari before the SC under Rule 64 instead of filing an appeal to the CSC.
Law Firm of Laguesma Ordinarily, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court has a reglementary period of sixty (60) days from receipt of denial of the motion
Magsalin Consulta and for reconsideration. The Constitution, however, specifies that the reglementary period for assailing the decisions, orders, or rulings of the constitutional
Gastardo vs COA commissions is thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision, order, or ruling.
Argovan vs San Miguel GEN. RULE: While the findings of prosecutors are reviewable by the DOJ, this does not preclude courts from intervening and exercising our own powers
Corp of review with respect to the DOJ’s findings.
EXCEPTION: In the exceptional case in which grave abuse of discretion is committed, as when a clear sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence to support
a finding of probable cause is ignored, the Court of Appeals may take cognizance of the case via a petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Thus, the Court of Appeals is clothed with jurisdiction to review the resolution issued by the Secretary of the DOJ through a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court albeit solely on the ground that the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of his discretion amounting to excess or
lack of jurisdiction.
Orosa vs Roa DOJ > SOJ > Office of the President > CA via R43
Being thus under the control of the President, the Secretary of Justice, or, to be precise, his decision is subject to review of the former. In fine, recourse
from the decision of the Secretary of Justice should be to the President, instead of the CA, under the established principle of exhaustion of administrative
remedies.
As may be noted, the DOJ is not among the agencies expressly enumerated under Section 1 of Rule 43. There is compelling reason to believe, however,
that the exclusion of the DOJ from the list is deliberate, being in consonance with the constitutional power of control4 lodged in the President over
executive departments, bureaus and offices.
St. Martin Funeral Therefore, all references in the amended Section 9 of B.P. No. 129 to supposed appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court are interpreted and
Homes vs NLRC hereby declared to mean and refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule 65. Consequently, all such petitions should hence forth be initially filed in the
Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the appropriate forum for the relief desired.
National Federation of Yet, like decisions of the NLRC, decisions of the Secretary of Labor come to this Court by way of a petition for certiorari even beyond the ten-day period
Labor vs Laguesma provided in the Labor Code and the implementing rules but within the reglementary period set for Rule 65 petitions under the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.
The Court perceives no conflict with their pronouncements on the proper remedy which is Rule 65 and which should be initially filed in the Court of
Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts.
Abbot Laboratories Phils The decision of the BLR in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the RO should be assailed through R65 to the SC. It is only through
vs Abbot Laboratories the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the BLR can its decisions be appealed to the SOLE. Here, ABBOT failed to avail of the proper remedy. It filed
Employees Union with the SOLE a decision of the BLR in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the RO in union’s certificate cancellation proceedings,
instead of filing the BLR decision directly with the SC through R65.
CEU Faculty Union vs The decisions of the voluntary arbitrator are akin to those of the Regional Trial Court, and, therefore, should first be appealed to the Court of Appeals
CA before being elevated to this Court.
CHED vs Mercado The filing of a motion for reconsideration is not a condition precedent to the filing of a petition for review.
Under Rule 43, Section 4, which governs appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals, "the appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15)
days from notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution, or from the date of its last publication, if publication is required by law for its effectivity,
or of the denial of petitioner’s motion for new trial or reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the governing law of the court or agency a quo." The
use of the disjunctive preposition "or" in the rule suggests that a petitioner has the option to file the petition for review after notice of the assailed
judgment or resolution directly, without need of a prior motion for reconsideration, or after the denial of a motion for new trial or reconsideration, provided
such motion is duly filed in accordance with the rule of procedure of the court or agency below.
Here, CHED may elevate a decision of the Commission before the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised
Rules of Court, without the benefit of a prior motion for reconsideration.
Social Security A motion for reconsideration is mandatory in the sense that it is a precondition to the institution of an appeal or a petition for review before the Court of
Commission vs CA Appeals.
The policy of judicial bodies to give quasi-judicial agencies, such as the SSC, an opportunity to correct its mistakes by way of motions for reconsideration
or other statutory remedies before accepting appeals therefrom finds extensive doctrinal support in the well-entrenched principle of exhaustion of
administrative remedies. The reason for the principle rests upon the presumption that the administrative body, if given the chance to correct its mistake
or error, may amend its decision on a given matter and decide it properly. The principle insures orderly procedure and withholds judicial interference
until the administrative process would have been allowed to duly run its course. This is but practical since availing of administrative remedies entails
lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies.
Deloso vs Marapao With regard to the alleged failure of the Court of Appeals to first give due course to the petition, Sec. 10, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides that in
resolving appeals from quasi-judicial agencies such as the DARAB, the appellate court has the discretion to give due course to the petition. It is also
within the Court of Appeals discretion to have the original records of the proceedings under review transmitted to it. Hence, petitioners contention that
the appellate court deprived her of the opportunity to elevate the records by deciding the case without first giving the petition due course is, therefore,
utterly unmeritorious.
B.E. San Diego Inc vs There can be no question that only the award, judgment, or final order or resolution issued by the lower court or agency and appealed from has to be
Alzul certified as true. The second set of attachments refers to the "certified true copies of such material portions of the record referred to therein." Material
is defined as "important; more or less necessary; having influence or effect; going to the merits; having to do with matter, as distinguished from form."
Thus, material portions of the records are those parts of the records that are relevant and directly bear on the issues and arguments raised and
discussed in the petition. Thus, only the material parts specified in the petition have to be appended and that would be sufficient compliance with the
rule as to form.
Here, the petitioner claims respondent’s petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 81341 failed to attach material documents of the records of the HLURB and the
OP. Petitioner’s postulation must fail. Sec. 7 of Rule 43 does not prescribe outright rejection of the petition if it is not accompanied by the required
documents but simply gives the discretion to the CA to determine whether such breach constitutes a "sufficient ground" for dismissal.
Maniebo vs CA The rule clearly requires the petition for review to be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment,
final order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of such material portions of the record referred to therein and other supporting
papers. The petitioner was not entitled to a liberal construction of the rules of procedure. Although her petition cited decisions of the Court declaring
that only the copies of the decisions or final orders assailed on appeal needed to be certified, it is acknowledged even in the cited decisions of the Court
that there should at least be a substantial compliance with the rules. She should not forget that her petition for review in the CA was essentially assailing
not only CSC Resolution 02-1028 (denying her motion for reconsideration) but also CSC Resolution No. 02-0433 (the very decision of the CSC finding
her guilty of possession of the spurious report of rating, falsification, grave misconduct, and dishonesty, and imposing the penalty of dismissal from the
service). In Heirs of Generoso A. Juaban v. Bancale, where only the order denying the respondents motion for reconsideration was alleged as the
subject of the appeal, the Court went beyond the literal content of respondents notice of appeal and held that the appeal should be construed to include
the final order that the respondents were seeking to be reconsidered when they filed their motion for reconsideration, because such approach was more
in accord with the intent of the parties. Considering that the petitioners appeal also assailed CSC Resolution No. 02-0433, she should have furnished
the CA with a certified true copy of that resolution.
Vergel de Dios vs CA Court of Appeals was rather hasty in concluding that petitioner was going to file a petition for certiorari solely on the basis of petitioners allegation that
he was going to file a petition for certiorari. It should have reserved judgment on the matter until it had actually received the petition especially considering
that petitioners motion for extension was filed well within the reglementary period for filing a petition for review. The very fact that petitioner sought an
extension of time should have alerted the Court of Appeals to the possibility that what petitioner really intended to file was a petition for review. As it
turned out, what petitioner actually filed was a petition for review which complies with all the requirements for such a petition.
The Court of Appeals moreover committed grave abuse of discretion in applying the requirement of Circular No. 28-91 for a certification against forum
shopping to petitioner’s motion for extension. Under this circular, such certification is required in every petition filed with the Supreme Court or Court of
Appeals. Obviously, a motion for extension is not the petition spoken of in this provision. While such certification may be attached to a motion for
extension and, in such a case, may be considered as compliance with the rules even if none is attached to the petition subsequently filed, the reverse
does not follow. Petitioners failure to have a properly executed certification against forum shopping attached to his motion for extension is not fatal,
considering that the proper certification was later attached to his petition at the time of its filing.
Videogram Regulatory The 15-day period is generally non-extendible, save for exceptionally meritorious cases. Once granted, it is reckoned from the end of the original
Board vs CA reglementary period. In filing for extensions or postponement, there should be no assumptions that it would be granted.
It is the discretion of the CA whether to allow or deny an extension, but such discretion should be exercised wisely and prudently, and never capriciously,
with a view to substantial justice. But once it had been granted, the period starts from the end of the original reglementary period, whether or not the
grantee has knowledge of the action of the court granting the extension. Notice is unimportant in this instance, since lawyers should never presume
that their motions for extensions would be granted. It behooves them to follow up on their motion, for the mere filing of the same is not enough. They
must check with the clerk of court for the actions on their motions, considering that time may run out for them.