Post Judgment Remedies

1

(1)Remediesbeforeajudgmentbecomesfinalandexecutory (a)Motionforreconsideration(prohibitedinacas (a)Motionforreconside ration(prohibitedinacasethatfallsunder ethatfallsunder summaryprocedure)(Rules37,52); (b)Motionfornewtrial(Rules37,53);and (c)Appeal(Rules40,41,42,43,45) (2)Remediesafterjudgmentbecomesfinalandexecutory (a)Petitionforrelieffromjudgment(Rule38); (b)Actiontoannulajudgment(Rule47); (c)Certiorari(Rule65);and (d)Collateralattackofajudgment. (3) Mayanorderdenyingtheprobateofawillstillbeoverturned aftertheperiodtoappealtherefromhaslapsed?Why?(3%) Yes,anorderdenyingtheprobateofawillmaybeoverturnedafter theperiodtoappealtherefromhaslapsed.Apetitionforreliefmaybefiled onthegroundsoffraud,accident,mistakes onthegroundsoffraud,accident,mistakesorexcusablenegligen orexcusablenegligencewithin cewithin aperiodofsixty(60)daysafterthepetitionerlearn aperiodofsixty(60)d aysafterthepetitionerlearnsofthejudgmentorfinal softhejudgmentorfinal orderandnotmorethansix(6)monthsaftersuch orderandnotmorethan six(6)monthsaftersuchjudgmentorfinalorder judgmentorfinalorder wasentered(Rule38,Sections1and3).Anac wasentered(Rule38,Sections1and3).Anactionforannulmentmaya tionforannulmentmayalso lso befiledonthegroundofextrinsicfraudwithinfou befiledontheground ofextrinsicfraudwithinfour(4)yearsfromits r(4)yearsfromits discovery,andifbasedonlackofjurisdict discovery,andifbasedonlackofjurisdiction,beforeitisbarredbylaches ion,beforeitisbarredbylaches orestoppel(Rule47,Sections2and3). (4) JojiefiledwiththeRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofLagunaa complaintfordamagesagainstJoe.Dur complaintfordamagesagainstJoe.Duringthepre-trial,Jojie(sic)andher ingthepre-trial,Jojie(sic)andher (sic)counselfailedtoappeardespitenoticeto (sic)counselfailedtoappeardespitenoticetobothofthem.Uponora bothofthem.Uponoral l motionofJojie,Joewasdeclaredasindefau motionofJojie,JoewasdeclaredasindefaultandJojiewasallowe ltandJojiewasallowedto dto presentherevidenceexparte.Thereafter, presentherevidenceexparte.Thereafter,thecourtrendereditsDecis thecourtrendereditsDecisionin ionin favorofJojie.

Periodoffiling: Periodoffiling: 1.Withinfifteen(15) 1.Withinsixty(60) daysfromreceiptof afterpetitionerlearns noticeofjudgmentor ofthejudgmentor finalorder(Noticeof order,andnotmore  Appeal);or thansix(6)months 2.Withinthirty(30)days afterentryof fromreceiptofnoticeof  judgment.  judgmentorfinalorder (RecordonAppeal)

Periodoffiling:  –  1.Extrinsicfraud –  withinfour(4)years fromdiscovery 2.Lackofjurisdiction beforebarredby  – beforebarredby lachesorestoppel

(1)Fraud(extrinsic),accident,mistake(offac (1)Fraud(extrinsic),acc ident,mistake(offactandnotoflaw)orexcusab tandnotoflaw)orexcusable le negligencewhichordinaryprudencecouldn negligencewhichordinaryprudencecouldnothaveguardedagainsta othaveguardedagainstandby ndby reasonofwhichsuchaggrievedpartyhasp reasonofwhichsuchaggrievedpartyhasprobablybeenimpairedinhis robablybeenimpairedinhis rights; (2)Newlydiscoveredevidence(BerryRule) (2)Newlydiscoveredevidence(BerryRule),whichhecouldnot,w ,whichhecouldnot,with ith reasonablediligence,havediscoveredandp reasonablediligence, havediscoveredandproducedatthetrial,andwh roducedatthetrial,andwhich ich ifpresentedwouldprobablyaltertheresult. (3)Forthegroundsoffraud,accident,mistake,o (3)Forthegroundsoffraud,a ccident,mistake,orexcusablenegligence, rexcusablenegligence, attachmentofaffidavitofmeritisrequired;othe attachmentofaffidavitofmeritisrequired;otherwise,itwouldbeapro rwise,itwouldbeapro formamotion.

(1)Thedamagesawardedareexcessive; (2)Theevidenceisinsufficienttojustifythedecisionorfinalorder; (3)Thedecisionorfinalorderiscontrarytolaw(Sec.1).

JoehiredJoseashiscounsel.Whatareth JoehiredJoseashiscounsel.Whataretheremediesavailabletohim? eremediesavailabletohim? Explain.(5%)

Grounds: 1.Extrinsicfraud 2.Accident 3.Mistakeoffact 4.Excusablenegligence

Grounds: 5.Extrinsicfraud 6.Accident 7.Mistakeoffact 8.Excusable negligence

Grounds: 1.Extrinsicfraud 2.Lackofjurisdiction overthesubject matter

(1)Amotionfornewtrialshouldbefiledwithintheperiodfortakingan appeal.Hence,itmustbefiledbeforethefinalityofthe appeal.Hence,itmustbefiledbeforethefinalityofthejudgment(Sec.1). judgment(Sec.1). Nomotionforextensionoftimetofileamotionfo Nomotionforextensionoftimetofileamotionforreconsiderationshallbe rreconsiderationshallbe allowed.InDistilleriaLimtuacovs.CA,143 allowed.InDistilleriaLim tuacovs.CA,143SCRA92,itwassaidtha SCRA92,itwassaidthatthe tthe periodforfilingamotionfornewtrialiswithintheperiodfortakingan appeal. (2)Theperiodforappealiswithin15daysafternoticetotheappellantof (2)Theperiodforappealiswithin15daysafternotice totheappellantof thejudgmentorfinalorderappealedfrom.Wherearecordonappealis required,theappellantshallfileanoticeofappealan required,theappellantsha llfileanoticeofappealandarecordonappeal darecordonappeal within30daysfromnoticeofthejudgmentorfina within30daysfromno ticeofthejudgmentorfinalorder(Sec.3,Rule41). lorder(Sec.3,Rule41).

2

 Arecordonappealshallberequiredonlyinspecialproceedingsandother casesofmultipleorseparateappeals(Sec.3,Rule40).

(1)Ifthemotionisdenied,themovanthasa―freshperiod‖offifteendays fromreceiptofnoticeoftheorderdenyingordismissingthemotionfor reconsiderationwithinwhichtofileanoticeofappeal. (2)Whenthemotionfornewtrialisdeniedonthegroundoffraud,accident, mistakeoffactorlaw,orexcusablenegligence,theaggrievedpartycanno longeravailoftheremedyofpetitionforrelieffromjudgment(Franciscovs. Puno,108SCRA427).

(3)Thedenialofamotionforreconsiderationsignifiesthatthegrounds relieduponhavebeenfound,uponduedeliberation,tobewithoutmerit,as notbeingofsufficientweighttowarrantamodificationofthejudgmentor finalorder.Itmeansnotonlythatthegroundsrelieduponarelackingin meritbutalsothatanyother,notsoraised,isdeemedwaivedandmayno longerbesetupinasubsequentmotionorapplicationtooverturnthe  judgment;andthisistrue,whatevermaybethetitlegiventosuchmotionor

application,whetheritbe―secondmotionforreconsideration‖or―motion forclarification‖or―pleafordueprocess‖or―prayerforasecondlook,‖or  ―motiontodefer,orsetaside,entryofjudgment,‖(SocialJusticeSocietyv.

(3)Asageneralrule,newtrialbasedonnewlydiscoveredevidenceisnot allowedonappeal.However,thisruleadmitsofanexception,providedthe followingrequirementsarepresent: (a)Thenewevidencemusthavebeendiscoveredaftertrial; (b)Earnesteffortsweredonetolookfornewlydiscoveredevidencebut fruitless; (c)Ifsoallowed,itwouldprobablyaltertheresult;and (d)Itmustbematerialandnotjustcorroborativeorcumulative(Mendoza vs.Ozamis).

(1)Thepartyaggrievedshouldappealthejudgment.Thisissobecausea secondmotionforreconsiderationisexpresslyprohibitedundertheInterim Rules(Sec.5). (2)Anorderdenyingamotionforreconsiderationornewtrialisnot appealable,theremedybeinganappealfromthejudgmentorfinalorder underRule41.Theremedyfromanorderdenyingamotionfornewtrialis nottoappealfromtheorderofdenial.Again,theorderisnotappealable. Theremedyistoappealfromthejudgmentorfinalorderitselfsubjectofthe motionfornewtrial(Sec.9,Rule37).

Lim,GRNo.187836,03/10/2015).

(1)Ifanewtrialbegrantedinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftherules, theoriginaljudgmentshallbevacatedorsetaside,andtheactionshall standfortrialdenovo;buttherecordedevidencetakenupontheformer trialsofarasthesameismaterialandcompetenttoestablishtheissues, shallbeusedatthenewtrialwithoutretakingthesame(Sec.6).Thefiling ofthemotionfornewtrialorreconsiderationinterruptstheperiodtoappeal (Sec.2,Rule40;Sec.3,Rule41). (2)Ifthecourtgrantsthemotion(e.g.,itfindsthatexcessivedamageshave beenawardedorthatthejudgmentorfinalorderiscontrarytotheevidence orlaw),itmayamendsuchjudgmentorfinalorderaccordingly(Sec.3). Theamendedjudgmentisinthenatureofanewjudgmentwhich supersedestheoriginaljudgment.Itisnotameresupplementaldecision whichdoesnotsupplanttheoriginalbutonlyservestoaddsomethingtoit (Esquivelvs.Alegre,172SCRA315).Ifthecourtfindsthatamotionaffects theissuesofthecaseastoonlyapart,orlessthanallofthemattersin controversy,oronlyone,orlessthanallofthepartiestoit,theordermay grantareconsiderationastosuchissuesifseverablewithoutinterfering withthejudgmentorfinalorderupontherest(Sec.7).

(1)Ifthemotionisdenied,themovanthasafreshperiodof15daysfrom receiptofnoticeoftheorderdenyingordismissingthemotionfor reconsiderationwithinwhichtofileanoticetoappeal.Thisnewperiod becomessignificantifeitheramotionforreconsiderationoramotionfor newtrialhasbeenfiledbutwasdeniedordismissed.Thisfreshperiodrule appliesnotonlytoRule41governingappealsfromtheRTCbutalsoto Rule40governingappealsfromMTCtoRTC,Rule42onpetitionsfor reviewfromtheRTCtotheCA,Rule43onappealfromquasi-judicial agenciestotheCA,andRule45governingappealsbycertioraritotheSC.  Accordingly,thisrulewasadoptedtostandardizetheappealperiods providedintheRulestoaffordfairopportunitytoreviewthecaseand,inthe process,minimizeerrorsofjudgment.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(Neypesvs.CA,GRNo.141524,09/14/2005). (2)TheNeypesrulingshallnotbeappliedwherenomotionfornewtrialor motionforreconsiderationhasbeenfiledinwhichcasethe15-dayperiod shallrunfromnoticeofthejudgment.ThisshallnotapplytoRules12,16, 62,and64.TheperiodforRules40and41areextendible,whilethoseof Rules42,43,and45arenotextendible.

3

(3)Thefreshperiodruledoesnotrefertotheperiodwithinwhichtoappeal fromtheorderdenyingthemotionfornewtrialbecausetheorderisnot appealableunderSec.9,Rule37.Thenon-appealabilityoftheorderof denialisalsoconfirmedbySec.1(a),Rule41,whichprovidesthatno appealmaybetakenfromanorderdenyingamotionfornewtrialora motionforreconsideration. (4)AppealfromtheMTCtotheRTC:thefifteen-dayperiodiscountedfrom thedateofthereceiptofthenoticeofdenialofmotion. (5)Thedoctrineoffinalityofjudgmentdictatesthat,attheriskofoccasional errors,judgmentsorordersmustbecomefinalatsomepointintime.In Neypes,theSupremeCourt,inordertostandardizetheappealperiods providedintheRulesandtoaffordlitigantsfairopportunitytoappealtheir cases,declaredthatanaggrievedpartyhasafreshperiodof15days countedfromreceiptoftheorderdismissingamotionforanewtrialor motionforreconsideration,withinwhichtofilethenoticeofappealinthe RTC.(HeirsofBihagv.HeirsofBathan,GRNo.181949,04/23/2014).

(1)Therighttoappealisnotpartofdueprocessbutamerestatutory privilegethathastobeexercisedonlyinthemannerandinaccordance withtheprovisionsoflaw(Stolt-Nielsenvs.NLRC,GR147623,Dec.13, 2005).Thegeneralruleisthattheremedytoobtainreversalormodification ofjudgmentonthemeritsisappeal.Thisistrueeveniftheerror,oroneof theerrors,ascribedtothecourtrenderingthejudgmentisitslackof  jurisdictionoverthesubjectmatter,ortheexerciseofpowerinexcess thereof,orgraveabuseofdiscretioninthefindingsoffactsoroflawsetout inthedecision(AssociationofIntegratedSecurityForceofBislig-ALUvs. CA,GR140150,Aug.22,2005).Anappealmaybetakenonlyfrom  judgmentsorfinalordersthatcompletelydisposeofthecase(Sec.1,Rule 41). (2)Aninterlocutoryorderisnotappealableuntilaftertherenditionofthe  judgmentonthemerits.Exception:DoctrineofProceduralVoid. (3)Certainrulesonappeal: (a)Notrialdenovoanymore.Theappellatecourtsmustdecidethecase onthebasisoftherecord,exceptwhentheproceedingswerenot dulyrecordedaswhentherewasabsenceofaqualifiedstenographer (Sec.22[d],BP129;Rule21[d],InterimRulesI); (b)Therecanbenonewparties; (c)Therecanbenochangeoftheory(Navalvs.CA,483SCRA102); (d)Therecanbenonewmatters(Ondapvs.Abuga,88SCRA610);

(e)Therecanbeamendmentsofpleadingstoconformtotheevidence submittedbeforethetrialcourt(Dayaovs.Shell,97SCRA407); (f)Theliabilityofsolidarydefendantwhodidnotappealisnotaffected byappealofsolidarydebtor(Mun.ofOrionvs.Concha,50Phil.679); (g)Appealbyguarantordoesnotinuretotheprincipal(LuzonMetalvs. ManilaUnderwriter,29SCRA184); (h)Inejectmentcases,theRTCcannotawardtotheappellantonhis counterclaimmorethantheamountofdamagesbeyondthe  jurisdictionoftheMTC(Agustinvs.Bataclan,135SCRA342); (i)Theappellatecourtcannotdismisstheappealedcaseforfailureto prosecutebecausethecasemustbedecidedonthebasisofthe record(Rule21,InterimRules). (4)Doctrinally-entrenchedisthattherighttoappealisastatutoryrightand theonewhoseekstoavailthatrightmustcomplywiththestatuteorrules. Theperfectionofappealinthemannerandwithintheperiodsetbylawis notonlymandatorybutjurisdictionalaswell,hence,failuretoperfectthe samerendersthejudgmentfinalandexecutory.(DeLeonv.HerculesAgro IndustrialCorporation,GRNo.183239,06/02/2014). (5)Anappealthrowstheentirecaseopenforreview.Anappeal,once acceptedbythisCourt,throwstheentirecaseopentoreview,andthatthis Courthastheauthoritytoreviewmattersnotspecificallyraisedorassigned aserrorbytheparties,iftheirconsiderationisnecessaryinarrivingatajust resolutionofthecase.(Barcelonav.Lim,GRNo.189171,06/032014). (6)TheCourtdidrelaxtherulerespectingthebondrequirementtoperfect appealincaseswhere:(1)therewassubstantialcompliancewiththe Rules,(2)surroundingfactsandcircumstancesconstitutemeritorious groundstoreducethebond,(3)aliberalinterpretationoftherequirementof anappealbondwouldservethedesiredobjectiveofresolving controversiesonthemerits,or(4)theappellants,attheveryleast, exhibitedtheirwillingnessand/orgoodfaithbypostingapartialbondduring thereglementaryperiod.Clearlytherefore,theRulesonlyallowthefilingof amotiontoreducebondontwo(2)conditions:(1)thatthereismeritorious groundand(2)abondinareasonableamountisposted.Compliancewith thetwoconditionsstopstherunningoftheperiodtoperfectanappeal providedthattheyarecompliedwithwithinthe10-dayreglementaryperiod. (SaraLeePhilippines,Inc.v.Macatlang,GRNos.180147,180149-50, 180319,180685,06/04/2014). (7)Itisaxiomaticthatapartywhodoesnotappealorfileapetitionfor certiorariisnotentitledtoanyaffirmativerelief.Anappelleewhoisnotan appellantmayassignerrorsinhisbriefwherehispurposeistomaintainthe  judgmentbuthecannotseekmodificationorreversalofthejudgmentor claimaffirmativereliefunlesshehasalsoappealed.Thus,forfailureof respondenttoassailthevalidityofherdismissal,suchrulingisnolongerin

4

issue.(ImmaculateConcepcionAcademyv.Camilon,GRNo.188035, 07/02/2014). (8)Whenanaccusedappealsfromthesentenceofthetrialcourt,he waivestheconstitutionalsafeguardagainstdoublejeopardyandthrowsthe wholecaseopentothereviewoftheappellatecourt,whichisthencalled upontorendersuchjudgmentaslawandjusticedictate,whetherfavorable orunfavorabletotheappellant.(Peoplev.Torres,GRNo.189850, 09/22/2014). (9) DefendantXreceivedanadverseDecisionoftheRegional TrialCourtinanordinarycivilcaseon02January2003.HefiledaNoticeof  Appealon10January2003.Ontheotherhand,plaintiffAreceivedthe samedecisionon06January2003,andon19January2003,filedaMotion forReconsiderationoftheDecision.On13January2003,defendantXfiled aMotionwithdrawinghisnoticeofappealinordertofileaMotionforNew

Trialwhichheattached.On20January2003,thecourtdeniedA‘sMotion

complaintforimpropervenue,lackofcauseofaction,andresjudicata. Dismissalsbasedonthesegroundsdonotinvolveareviewofthefactsof thecasebutmerelytheapplicationofthelaw,specificallyinthiscase,Rule 16oftheRevisedRulesofCivilProcedure.Considering,therefore,thatthe subjectappealraisedonlyquestionsoflaw,theCAcommittednoerrorin dismissingthesame.(Samsonv.Sps.Gabor,GRNo.182970, 07/23/2014).

(1)Noappealmaybetakenfrom: (a)Anorderdenyingapetitionforrelieforanysimilarmotionseeking relieffromjudgment; (b)Aninterlocutoryorder; (c)Anorderdisallowingordismissinganappeal;

Appealon05February2003.ThecourtdeniedduecourseofA‘sNoticeof

(d)Anorderdenyingamotiontosetasideajudgmentbyconsent, confessionorcompromiseonthegroundoffraud,mistakeorduress,or anyothergroundvitiatingconsent;

 Appealonthegroundthattheperiodtoappealhadalreadylapsed.

(e)Anorderofexecution;

a.Isthecourt‘sdenialofX‘sMotiontoWithdrawNoticeofAppealproper? b.Isthecourt‘sdenialofduecoursetoA‘sappealcorrect? No,thecourt‘sdenialofX‘sMotiontoWithdrawNoticeofAppealis

(f)Ajudgmentorfinalorderfororagainstoneormoreofseveralparties orinseparateclaims,counterclaims,cross-claims,andthird-party complaints,whilethemaincaseispending,unlessthecourtallowsan appealtherefrom;and

toWithdrawNoticeofAppeal.PlaintiffAreceivedtheOrderdenyinghis MotionforReconsiderationon03February2003andfiledhisNoticef

notproper,becausetheperiodofappealofXhasnotyetexpired.From02 January2003whenXreceivedacopyoftheadversedecisionupto13 January2003whenhefiledhiswithdrawalofappealandMotionforNew Trial,onlyten(10)dayshadelapsedandhehadfifteen(15)daystodoso.

b.No,thecourt‘sdenialofduecoursetoA‘sappealisnotcorrectbecause theappealwastakeontime.FromJanuary6,2003whenAreceiveda copyofthedecisionuptoJanuary19,2003whenhefiledaMotionfor Reconsideration,onlytwelve(12)dayshadelapsed.Consequently,hehad three(3)daysfromreceiptofFebruary3,2003OrderdenyinghisMotion forReconsiderationwithinwhichtoappeal.Hefiledhisnoticeofappealon February5,2003,oronlytwo(2)dayslater.

(1)Anappealmaybetakenonlyfromjudgmentsorfinalordersthat completelydisposeofthecase(Sec.1,Rule41).Aninterlocutoryorderis notappealableuntilaftertherenditionofthejudgmentonthemerits. (2)Thereisaquestionoflawwhenthedoubtordifferencearisesastowhat thelawisoncertainstateoffactsandwhichdoesnotcallforanexistence oftheprobativevalueoftheevidencepresentedbytheparties-litigants.Ina caseinvolvingaquestionoflaw,theresolutionoftheissuerestssolelyon whatthelawprovidesonthegivensetofcircumstances.Intheinstant case,petitionerappealedtheOrderofthetrialcourtwhichdismissedhis

(g)Anorderdismissinganactionwithoutprejudice(Sec.1,Rule41). (2)Aquestionthatwasneverraisedinthecourtsbelowcannotbeallowed toberaisedforthefirsttimeonappealwithoutoffendingbasicrulesoffair play,justiceanddueprocess(BankofCommercevs.Serrano,451SCRA 484).Foranappellatecourttoconsideralegalquestion,itshouldhave beenraisedinthecourtbelow(PNOCvs.CA,457SCRA32).Itwouldbe unfairtotheadversepartywhowouldhavenoopportunitytopresent evidenceincontratothenewtheory,whichitcouldhavedonehaditbeen awareofitatthetimeofthehearingbeforethetrialcourt.itistruethatthis ruleadmitsofexceptionsasincasesoflackofjurisdiction,wherethelower courtcommittedplainerror,wheretherearejurisprudentialdevelopments affectingtheissues,orwhentheissuesraisedpresentamatterofpublic policy(Baluyotvs.Poblete,GR144435,Feb.6,2007). (3)Theruleunder(2)howeverisonlythegeneralrulebecauseSec.8, Rule51precludesitsabsoluteapplicationallowingasitdoescertainerrors whichevenifnotassignedmayberuleduponbytheappellatecourt. Hence,thecourtmayconsideranerrornotraisedonappealprovidedthe samefallswithinanyofthefollowingcategories: (a)Itisanerrorthataffectsthejurisdictionoverthesubjectmatter; (b)Itisanerrorthataffectsthevalidityofthejudgmentappealedfrom;

5

(c)Itisanerrorwhichaffectstheproceedings; (d)Itisanerrorcloselyrelatedtoordependentonanassignederrorand properlyarguedinthebrief;or (e)Itisaplainandclericalerror. (4)TheSupremeCourtruledruledthatanappellatecourthasabroad discretionarypowerinwaivingthelackofassignmentoferrorsinthe followinginstances: (a)Groundsnotassignedaserrorsbutaffectingthejurisdictionofthe courtoverthesubjectmatter: (b)Mattersnotassignedaserrorsonappealbutareevidentlyplainor clericalerrorswithincontemplationoflaw; (c)Mattersnotassignedaserrorsonappealbutconsiderationofwhichis necessaryinarrivingatajustdecisionandcompleteresolutionofthe caseortoservetheinterestsofajusticeortoavoiddispensing piecemealjustice; (d)Mattersnotspecificallyassignedaserrorsonappealbutraisedinthr 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; (e)Mattersnotassignedaserrorsonappealbutcloselyrelatedtoan errorassigned;and (f)Mattersnotassignedaserrorsonappealbutuponwhichthe determinationofaquestionproperlyassigned,isdependent(General MillingCorp.v.Sps.Ramos,GRNo.193723,07/20/2011).

(1)Inthoseinstanceswherethejudgmentorfinalorderisnotappealable, theaggrievedpartymayfiletheappropriatespecialcivilactionunderRule 65.Rule65referstothespecialcivilactionsofcertiorari,prohibitionand mandamus.Practically,itwouldbethespecialcivilactionofcertiorarithat wouldbeavailedofundermostcircumstances.Themostpotentremedy againstthosejudgmentsandordersfromwhichappealcannotbetakenis toallegeandprovethatthesamewereissuedwithoutjurisdiction,with graveabuseofdiscretionorinexcessofjurisdiction,allamountingtolack ofjurisdiction.

(a)Ordinaryappeal.TheappealtotheCAincasesdecidedbytheRTCin theexerciseofitsoriginaljurisdictionshallbetakenbyfilinganoticeof appealwiththecourtwhichrenderedthejudgmentorfinalorderappealed fromandservingacopythereofupontheadverseparty.Norecordon appealshallberequiredexceptinspecialproceedingsandothercasesof

multipleorseparateappealswherethelawortheRulessorequire.Insuch cases,therecordonappealshallbefiledandservedinlikemanner. (b)Petitionforreview.TheappealtotheCAincasesdecidedbytheRTCin theexerciseofitsappellatejurisdictionshallbebypetitionforreviewin accordancewithRule42. (c)Petitionforreviewoncertiorari.Inallcaseswhereonlyquestionsoflaw areraisedorinvolved,theappealshallbetotheSCbypetitionforreview oncertiorariinaccordancewithRule45.

(1)Therecordonappealmustshowthefollowingmaterialdata: (a)Dateofthereceiptofthecopyoffinalorderorjudgment; (b)Dateoffilingofthemotionforreconsiderationornewtrial;and (c)Dateofthereceiptofthedenialofthemotionforreconsiderationor newtrail. (2)AnappealmaybedismissedbytheCourtofAppeals,onitsownmotion oronthatoftheappellee,onthefollowinggrounds: (a)Failureoftherecordonappealtoshowonitsfacethattheappealwas takenwithintheperiodfixedbytheRules; (b)Failuretofilethenoticeofappealortherecordonappealwithinthe periodprescribedbytheRules; (c)Failureoftheappellanttopaythedocketandotherlawfulfeesas providedinSection5ofRule40andSection4ofRule41; (d)Unauthorizedalterations,omissionsoradditionsintheapprovedrecord onappealasprovidedinSection4ofRule44; (e)Failureoftheappellanttoserveandfiletherequirednumberofcopies ofhisbrieformemorandumwithinthetimeprovidedbytheRules;

(f)Absenceofspecificassignmentoferrorsintheappellant‘sbrief,or pagereferencestotherecordasrequiredinSection13[a],[c],[d],and [f]ofRule44; (g)Failureoftheappellanttotakethenecessarystepsforthecorrectionor completionoftherecordwithinthetimelimitedbythecourtinitsorder; (h)Failureoftheappellanttoappearatthepreliminaryconferenceunder Rule48ortocomplywithorders,circulars,ordirectivesofthecourt withoutjustifiablecause;and (i)Thefactthattheorderorjudgmentappealedfromisnotappealable.

(1)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(Sec.15,Rule44).

6

OrdinaryAppeal(Rules40,41) a)NoticeofAppeal Within15daysfrom (Rule40) receiptofjudgment orfinalorder,with noextension b)RecordonAppeal Within30daysfrom (Rule41) receiptofjudgment orfinalorder

PetitionforReview (Rule42)

Within15daysfrom receiptofjudgment

PetitionforReview (Rule43)

Within15daysfrom receiptofjudgment orfinalorderorof lastpublication Within15daysfrom receiptofjudgment orfinalorder

PetitionforReview onCertiorari(Rule 45)

Within15daysfromreceipt oforderdenyingmotionfor reconsiderationornewtrial The30-daytofilethenotice ofappealandrecordon appealshouldbereckoned fromthereceiptoftheorder denyingthemotionfornew trialormotionfor reconsideration(Zaycovs. Himlo,GR170243,April 16,2008) Within15daysfromreceipt oftheorderdenyingmotion forreconsiderationornew trial Within15daysfromreceipt oftheorderdenyingmotion forreconsiderationornew trial Within15daysfromreceipt oftheorderdenyingmotion forreconsiderationornew trial

(1)PeriodofOrdinaryAppealunderRule40.Anappealmaybetaken(from MTCtoRTC)within15daysafternoticetotheappellantofthejudgmentor finalorderappealedfrom.Wherearecordonappealisrequired,the appellantshallfileanoticeofappealandarecordonappealwithin30days afternoticeofthejudgmentorfinalorder.Theperiodofappealshallbe interruptedbyatimelymotionfornewtrialorreconsideration.Nomotionfor extensionoftimetofileamotionfornewtrialorreconsiderationshallbe allowed(Sec.2). (2)PeriodofOrdinaryAppealunderRule41).Theappealshallbetaken within15daysfromnoticeofthejudgmentorfinalorderappealedfrom. Wherearecordonappealisrequired,theappellantsshallfileanoticeof appealandarecordonappealwithin30daysfromnoticeofthejudgment orfinalorder.However,onappealinhabeascorpuscasesshallbetaken within48hoursfromnoticeofthejudgmentorfinalorderappealedfrom

(AMNo.01-1-03-SC,June19,2001).Theperiodofappealshallbe interruptedbyatimelymotionfornewtrialorreconsideration.Nomotionfor extensionoftimetofileamotionfornewtrialorreconsiderationshallbe allowed(Sec.3).IftherecordonappealisnottransmittedtotheCAwithin 30daysaftertheperfectionofappeal,eitherpartymayfileamotionwith thetrialcourt,withnoticetotheother,forthetransmittalofsuchrecordor recordonappeal(Sec.3,Rule44). (3)PeriodofPetitionforReviewunderRule42.Thepetitionshallbefiled andservedwithin15daysfromnoticeofthedecisionsoughttobereviewed

orofthedenialofpetitioner‘smotionfornewtrialorreconsiderationfiledin duetimeafterjudgment.Thecourtmaygrantanadditionalperiodof15 daysonly,providedtheextensionissought(a)uponpropermotion,and(b) thereispaymentofthefullamountofthedocketandotherlawfulfeesand thedepositforcostsbeforetheexpirationofthereglementaryperiod.No furtherextensionshallbegrantedexceptforthemostcompellingreason andinnocasetoexceed15days(Sec.1). (4)PeriodofAppealbyPetitionforReviewunderRule43.Theappealshall betakenwithin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.Onlyone(1)motionforreconsiderationshallbeallowed. Uponpropermotionandthepaymentofthefullamountofthedocketfee beforetheexpirationofthereglementaryperiod,theCAmaygrantan additionalperiodof15daysonlywithinwhichtofilethepetitionforreview. Nofurtherextensionshallbegrantedexceptforthemostcompellingreason andinnocasetoexceed15days(Sec.4). (5)PeriodofAppealbyPetitionforReviewonCertiorariunderRule45.The appealwhichshallbeintheformofaverifiedpetitionshallbefiledwithin15 daysfromnoticeofthejudgment,finalorderorresolutionappealedfrom,or

within15daysfromnoticeofthedenialofthepetitioner‘smotionfornew trailormotionforreconsiderationfiledinduetime.TheSupremeCourt may,forjustifiablereasons,grantanextensionof30daysonlywithinwhich tofilethepetitionprovided,(a)thereisamotionforextensionoftimeduly filedandserved,(b)thereisfullpaymentofthedocketandotherlawfulfees andthedepositforcosts,and(c)themotionisfiledandservedandthe paymentismadebeforetheexpirationofthereglementaryperiod(Sec.2). (6)InappealscognizedbytheOfficeofthePresident,thetimeduringwhich amotionforreconsiderationhasbeenpendingwiththeMinistry/agency concernedshallbedeductedfromtheperiodforappeal.(Sps.Rosetev. Briones,GRNo.176121,09/22/2014).

7

(1)ForOrdinaryAppealsfromMTCtotheRTC(Rule40)andfromtheRTC totheCA(Rule41).

(a)Aparty‘sappealbynoticeofappealisdeemedperfectedastohim uponthefilingofthenoticeofappealinduetime;

(b)Aparty‘sappealbyrecordonappealisdeemedperfectedastohim withrespecttothesubjectmatterthereofupontheapprovaloftherecord onappealfiledinduetime; (c)Inappealsbynoticeofappeal,thecourtlosesjurisdictiononlyoverthe subjectmatterthereofupontheapprovaloftherecordsonappealfiledin duetimeandtheexpirationofthetimetoappealoftheotherparties; (d)Ineithercase,priortothetransmittaloftheoriginalrecordortherecord onappeal,thecourtmayissueordersfortheprotectionandpreservation oftherightsofthepartieswhichdonotinvolveanymatterlitigatedbythe appeal,approvecompromises,permitappealsofindigentlitigants,order executionpendingappealinaccordancewithSec.2,Rule39,andallow withdrawaloftheappeal(Sec.9,Rule41). (2)PerfectionofAppealbyPetitionforReviewunderRule42.(Sec.8) (a)Uponthetimelyfilingofapetitionforreviewandthepaymentofthe correspondingdocketandotherlawfulfees,theappealisdeemed perfectedastothepetitioner.TheRTClosesjurisdictionoverthecase upontheperfectionoftheappealsfiledinduetimeandtheexpirationofthe timetoappealoftheotherparties. However,beforetheCAgiveduecoursetothepetition,theRTCmayissue ordersfortheprotectionandpreservationoftherightsofthepartieswhich donotinvolveanymatterlitigatedbytheappeal,approvecompromises, permitappealsofindigentlitigants,orderexecutionpendingappealin accordancewithSec.2,Rule39,andallowwithdrawaloftheappeal. (b)ExceptincivilcasesdecidedunderRulesonSummaryProcedure,the appealshallstaythejudgmentorfinalorderunlesstheCA,thelaw,orthe Rulesprovideotherwise.

(c)Aparty‘sappealbynoticeofappealisdeemedperfectedastohimupon thefilingthereofinduetime,andaparty‘sappealbyrecordonappealis deemedperfectedastohimupontheapprovalthereof.Inthefirstcase,the courtlosesjurisdictionoverthewholecaseupontheperfectionofthe appealstakenbythepartieswhohaveappealedandtheexpirationofthe timetoappealoftheotherparties.Inthesecondcase,thecourtloses  jurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterthereofupontheapprovalofallthe recordsonappealfiledbythepartieswhohaveappealedandtheexpiration ofthetimetoappealoftheotherparties;andretainsjurisdictionoverthe remainingsubjectmatternotcoveredbytheappeal. (3)Theruleisthatfailuretofileorperfectanappealwithinthereglementary periodwillmakethejudgmentfinalandexecutorybyoperationoflaw.Filing ofanappealbeyondthereglementaryperiodmay,undermeritorious cases,beexcusedifthebarringoftheappealwouldbeinequitableand

unjustinlightofcertaincircumstancestherein.(Bañezv.SocialSecurity System,GRNo.189574,07/18/2014).

(4)Acounsel‘sfailuretoperfectanappealwithinthereglementaryperiodis simplenegligence.Itisnotoneasgross,palpable,andrecklessasto depriveapartyofitsdayincourt.Hence,wewillnotoverridethefinality andimmutabilityofajudgmentbasedonlyonthesimplenegligenceofa

party‘scounsel.IK&GMiningCorporationv.AcojeMiningCompany,GR No.188364,02/11/2015).

(1)AnappealfromajudgmentorfinalorderofanMTCmaybetakentothe RTCexercisingjurisdictionovertheareatowhichtheformerpertains.The titleofthecaseshallremainasitwasinthecourtoforigin,buttheparty appealingthecaseshallbefurtherreferredtoastheappellantandthe adversepartyastheappellee(Sec.1,Rule40). (2)Theappealistakenbyfilinganoticeofappealwiththecourtthat renderedthejudgmentorfinalorderappealedfrom.Thenoticeofappeal shallindicatethepartiestotheappeal,thejudgmentorfinalorderorpart thereofappealedfrom,andstatethematerialdatesshowingthetimeliness oftheappeal.Arecordonappealshallberequiredonlyinspecial proceedingsandinothercasesofmultipleorseparateappeals(Sec.3). (3)Procedure(Sec.7): (a)Uponreceiptofthecompleterecordortherecordonappeal,theclerk ofcourtoftheRTCshallnotifythepartiesofsuchfact. (b)Within15daysfromsuchnotice,theappellantshallsubmita memorandumwhichshallbrieflydiscusstheerrorsimputedtothelower court,acopyofwhichshallbefurnishedbyhimtotheadverseparty. Within15daysfromreceiptofappellant‘smemorandum,theappellee mayfilehismemorandum.Failureofappellanttofileamemorandum shallbeagroundfordismissaloftheappeal. (c)Oncethefilingofthememorandumoftheappellee,ortheexpirationof theperiodtodoso,thecaseshallbeconsideredsubmittedfordecision. TheRTCshalldecidethecaseonthebasisoftherecordofthe proceedingshadinthecourtoforiginandsuchmemorandaasarefiled.

(1)JudgmentorordersoftheRTCmaybeappealedtotheSupremeCourt throughanyofthefollowingmodes: Rule41(OrdinaryAppeal)appliestoappealsfromthejudgmentorfinal orderoftheRTCintheexerciseofitsoriginaljurisdiction. Rule42(PetitionforReview)appliestoanappealfromthejudgmentorfinal orderoftheRTCtotheCAincasesdecidedbytheRTCintheexerciseof itsappellatejurisdiction.

8

Rule45,PetitionforReviewonCertioraritotheSupremeCourtonpurely questionsoflaw. (2) Distinguishclearlybutbriefly:Questionsoflawandquestions offact.(5%)  Aquestionoflawiswhenthedoubtofdifferencearisesastowhat thelawisonacertainsetoffacts,whileaquestionoffactiswhenthedoubt ordifferencesariseastothetruthorfalsehoodofallegedfacts(Ramosvs. Pepsi-ColaBottlingCo.,19SCRA289[1967]). (3)Section21,Rule70providesthatthejudgmentoftheRTCinejectment casesappealedtoitshallbeimmediatelyexecutoryandcanbeenforced despitetheperfectionofanappealtoahighercourt.Toavoidsuch immediateexecution,thedefendantmayappealsaidjudgmenttotheCA andthereinapplyforawritofpreliminaryinjunction.Inthiscase,the decisionsoftheMTCC,oftheRTC,andoftheCA,unanimouslyrecognized therightoftheATOtopossessionofthepropertyandthecorresponding obligationofMiaquetoimmediatelyvacatethesubjectpremises.This meansthattheMTCC,theRTC,andtheCourtofAppealsallruledthat Miaquedoesnothaveanyrighttocontinueinpossessionofthesaid premises.ItisthereforepuzzlinghowtheCourtofAppealsjustifiedits issuanceofthewritofpreliminaryinjunctionwiththesweepingstatement thatMiaque"appearstohaveaclearlegalrighttoholdontothepremises leasedbyhimfromATOatleastuntilsuchtimewhenheshallhavebeen dulyejectedtherefrombyawritofexecutionofjudgmentcausedtobe issuedbytheMTCC.(AirTransportationOfficev.CourtofAppeals,GRNo. 173616,06/25/2014).

(1)AppealbycertiorariunderRule45shallbetakentotheSCwherethe petitionsshallraiseonlyquestionsoflawdistinctlysetforth.Thegeneral ruleisthattheSCshallnotentertainquestionsoffact,exceptinthe followingcases: (a)TheconclusionoftheCAisgroundedentirelyonspeculations, surmisesandconjectures; (b)Theinferencemadeismanifestlymistaken,absurdorimpossible; (c)Thereisgraveabuseofdiscretion; (d)Thejudgmentisbasedonmisapprehensionoffacts; (e)Thefindingsoffactsareconflicting; (f)TheCAinmakingitsfindingswentbeyondtheissuesofthecaseand thesameiscontrarytotheadmissionsofbothappellantandappellee; (g)Thefindingsarecontrarytothoseofthetrialcourt;

(h)Thefactssetforthinthepetitionaswellasinthepetitioner‘smainand replybriefsarenotdisputedbytherespondents; (i)ThefindingsoffactoftheCAarepremisedonthesupposedabsenceof evidenceandcontradictedbytheevidenceonrecord;or

(j)ThosefiledunderWritsofamparo,habeasdata,orkalikasan. (2) Maytheaggrievedpartyfileapetitionforcertioraritothe SupremeCourtunderRule65insteadoffilingpetitionforreviewon certiorariunderRule45forthenullificationofadecisionoftheCourtof  Appealsintheexerciseeitherofitsoriginalorappellatejurisdiction? Explain. TheremedytonullifyadecisionoftheCourtofAppealsisa petitionforreviewoncertiorariintheSupremeCourtunderRule45instead ofapetitionforcertiorariunderRule65,exceptincertainexceptional circumstancessuchaswhereappealisinadequate.Bysettled  jurisprudence,certiorariisnotasubstituteforlostappeal. (3) Explaincertiorari:AsamodeofappealfromtheRegional TrialCourtortheCourtofAppealstotheSupremeCourt.(2.5%) CertiorariasamodeofappealisgovernedbyRule45which allowsappealfromjudgment,finalorderofresolutionoftheCourtof  Appeals,Sandiganbayan,theRTCorothercourtstotheSupremeCourtvia verifiedpetitionforreviewwheneverauthorizedbylawraisingonly questionsoflawdistinctlysetforth.

(1)UnderSec.11ofRA9282,nocivilproceedinginvolvingmattersarising undertheNIRC,theTCCortheLocalGovernmentCodeshallbe maintained,exceptashereinprovided,untilandunlessanappealhasbeen previouslyfiledwiththeCTAenbancanddisposedofinaccordancewith theprovisionsoftheAct.Apartyadverselyaffectedbyaresolutionofa DivisionofCTAonamotionforreconsiderationornewtrial,mayfilea petitionforreviewwiththeCTAenbanc. (2)Sec.11ofRA9282furtherprovidesthatapartyadverselyaffectedbya decisionorrulingoftheCTAenbancmayfilewiththeSCaverifiedpetition forreviewoncertioraripursuanttoRule45. (3)AnappealdirectlyfiledtotheSupremeCourtfromtheCourtofTax  Appealsdivisionmustbedismissedforfailuretocomplywiththeprocedure onappeal.Itmustbeemphasizedthatanappealisneitheranaturalnora constitutionalright,butismerelystatutory.Theimplicationofitsstatutory characteristhatthepartywhointendstoappealmustalwayscomplywith theproceduresandrulesgoverningappeals;orelse,therightofappeal maybelostorsquandered.Neitheristherighttoappealacomponentof dueprocess.Itisamerestatutoryprivilegeandmaybeexercisedonlyin themannerprescribedby,andinaccordancewith,theprovisionsoflaw. (DutyFreePhilippinesv.BureauofInternalRevenue,GRNo.197228, 10/08/2014).

9

(1)Ajudgment,resolutionorfinalorderoftheCOMELECmaybebrought bytheaggrievedpartytotheSConCertiorariunderRule65byfilingthe petitionwithin30daysfromnotice(Sec.2,Rule64).

 Administrativecases Criminal cases

Rule43,totheCA Rule 65, to the SC

15days 30 days

(3)TheOmbudsman‘sdecisionimposingthepenaltyofremovalshallbe (1)Ajudgment,finalorderorresolutionoftheCivilServiceCommission maybetakentotheCAunderRule43.Notethedifferencebetweenthe modeofappealfromajudgmentoftheCSCandthemodeofappealfrom thejudgmentsofotherconstitutionalcommissions.

(1)Ajudgment,resolutionorfinalorderoftheCommissiononAuditmaybe broughtbytheaggrievedpartytotheSConcertiorariunderRule65by filingthepetitionwithin30daysfromnotice(Sec.3,Rule64).

(1)Inadministrativedisciplinarycases,therulingsoftheOfficeofthe OmbudsmanareappealabletotheCourtofAppeals.Sec.27ofRA6770 (OmbudsmanActof1987)insofarasitallowedadirectappealtotheSC wasdeclaredunconstitutionalinFabianvs.Desiertobecausethestatute, beingonewhichincreasedtheappellatejurisdictionoftheSCwasenacted withouttheadviceandconcurrenceoftheCourt.Instead,appealsfrom decisionsoftheOmbudsmaninadministrativedisciplinaryactionsshould bebroughttotheCAunderRule43(Gonzalesvs.Rosas,423SCRA288). (a)TheCAhasjurisdictionoverorders,directivesanddecisionsofthe OfficeoftheOmbudsmaninadministrativecasesonly.Itcannot,therefore, reviewtheorders,directivesordecisionsoftheOOincriminalornonadministrativecases(Golangcovs.Fung,GR147640-762,Oct.12,2006). (b)AlthoughasaconsequenceofFabian,appealsfromtheOmbudsmanin administrativecasesarenowcognizablebytheCA,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amountingtolackor excessofjurisdiction,aspecialcivilactionofcertiorariunderRule65may

befiledwiththeSCtosetasidetheOmbudsman‘sorderorresolution (Navavs.NBI,455SCRA377). (2)Incriminalcases,therulingoftheOmbudsmanshallbeelevatedtothe

executedasamatterofcourseandshallnotbestoppedbyanappeal thereto.Anappealshallnotstopthedecisionfrombeingexecutory.Incase thepenaltyissuspensionorremovalandtherespondentwinssuchappeal, heshallbeconsideredashavingbeenunderpreventivesuspensionand shallbepaidthesalaryandsuchotheremolumentsthathedidnotreceive byreasonofthesuspensionorremoval.AdecisionoftheOfficeofthe Ombudsmaninadministrativecasesshallbeexecutedasamatterof course.(OfficeoftheOmbudsmanv.Valencerina,GRNo.178348, 07/14/2014). (4)AppealsfromdecisionsinadministrativedisciplinarycasesoftheOffice oftheOmbudsmanshouldbetakentotheCAbywayofpetitionforreview underRule43ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,asamended.Rule43 whichprescribesthemannerofappealfromquasi-judicialagencies,such astheOmbudsman,wasformulatedpreciselytoprovideforauniformrule ofappellateprocedureforquasi-judicialagencies.Thus,certiorariunder Rule65willnotlie,asappealunderRule43isanadequateremedyinthe ordinarycourseoflaw.(Ombudsmanv.DelosReyes,GRNo.208976, 10/13/2014). (5)TheCourthereinruledthatdecisionsoftheOmbudsmanareexecutory pendingappeal.Moreover,sincethereisnovestedrightinapublicoffice, theretroactiveapplicationoftheAOdoesnotprejudicetherightsofthe accused.(Villaseñorv.Ombudsman,GRNo.202303,06/04/2014). (6)TheOmbudsmanhasdefinedprosecutorialpowersandpossesses adjudicativecompetenceoveradministrativedisciplinarycasesfiledagainst publicofficers.ThenatureofthecasebeforetheOfficeoftheOmbudsman determinestheproperremedyavailabletotheaggrievedpartyandwith whichcourtitshouldbefiled.Inadministrativedisciplinarycases,anappeal fromtheOmbudsman‘sdecisionshouldbetakentotheCourtofAppeals (CA)underRule43,unlessthedecisionisnotappealableowingtothe penaltyimposed(Gupilan-Aguilarv.Ombudsman,GRNo.197307, 02/26/2014).

SCbywayofRule65.TheSC‘spowertoreviewoverresolutionsand ordersoftheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanisrestrictedontodetermining whethergraveabuseofdiscretionhasbeencommittedbyit.TheCourtis notauthorizedtocorrecteveryerrorormistakeoftheOfficeofthe Ombudsmanotherthangraveabuseofdiscretion(Villanuevavs.Ople,GR 165125,Nov.18,2005).Theremedyisnotapetitionforreviewoncertiorari underRule45.

(1)TheremedyofapartyaggrievedbythedecisionoftheNationalLabor RelationsCommissionistopromptlymoveforthereconsiderationofthe decisionandifdeniedtotimelyfileaspecialcivilactionofcertiorariunder Rule65within60daysfromnoticeofthedecision.Inobservanceofthe doctrineofhierarchyofcourts,thepetitionforcertiorarishouldbefiledwith

10

theCourtofAppeals(St.MartinFuneralHomesvs.NLRC,GR130866, Sept.16,1998). (2)Inrulingforlegalcorrectness,wehavetoviewtheCAdecisioninthe samecontextthatthepetitionforcertiorariitruleduponwaspresentedtoit; wehavetoexaminetheCAdecisionfromtheprismofwhetheritcorrectly determinedthepresenceorabsenceofgraveabuseofdiscretioninthe NLRCdecisionbeforeit,notonthebasisofwhethertheNLRCdecisionon themeritsofthecasewascorrect.Inotherwords,wehavetobekeenly awarethattheCAundertookaRule65review,notareviewonappeal,of theNLRCdecisionchallengedbeforeit.Thisistheapproachthatshouldbe basicinaRule45reviewofaCArulinginalaborcase.Inquestionform, thequestiontoaskis:DidtheCAcorrectlydeterminewhethertheNLRC committedgraveabuseofdiscretioninrulingonthecase?(Arabit,etal.v. JardinePacificFinance,Inc.,GRNo.181719,04/21/2014). (3)ThejurisdictionoftheSupremeCourt(SC)incasesbroughtbeforeit fromtheCourtofAppeals(CA)viaRule45ofthe1997RulesofCivil Procedureisgenerallylimitedtoreviewingerrorsoflaw.Thisprinciple applieswithgreaterforceinlaborcases,wherethisCourthasconsistently heldthatfindingsoffactoftheNLRCareaccordedgreatrespectandeven finality,especiallyiftheycoincidewiththoseoftheLaborArbiterandare supportedbysubstantialevidence.JudicialreviewbytheSCdoesnot extendtoareevaluationofthesufficiencyoftheevidenceuponwhichthe properlabortribunalhasbaseditsdetermination.Factualissuesare beyondthescopeoftheSC‘sauthoritytoreviewoncertiorari.(Angelesv. Bucad,GRNo.196249,07/21/2014).

(1)Appealsfromjudgmentsandfinalordersofquasi-judicial bodies/agenciesarenowrequiredtobebroughttotheCAunderthe requirementsandconditionssetforthinRule43.Thisrulewasadopted preciselytoprovideauniformruleofappellateprocedurefromquasi judicialbodies(Carpiovs.SuluResourceDevt.Corp.,387SCRA128). (2)Theappeal(bynoticeofappeal)underRule43maybetakentotheCA whethertheappealinvolvesaquestionoffact,aquestionoflaw,ormixed questionsoffactandlaw.Theappealshallbetakenbyfilingaverified petitionforreviewwiththeCA.Theappealshallnotstaytheaward,  judgment,finalorderorresolutionsoughttobereviewedunlesstheCA shalldirectotherwiseuponsuchtermsasitmaydeemjust. (3)Non-submissionofdocumentsdoesnotwarrantdismissalofthepetition forreview.Infilingthepetitionforreviewasanappealfromawards,  judgments,finalorders,orresolutionsofanyquasi-judicialagencyinthe exerciseofitsquasi-judicialfunctions,itisrequiredunderSec.6(c),Rule 43oftheRulesofCourtthatitbeaccompaniedbyaclearlylegible duplicateoriginaloracertifiedtruecopyoftheaward,judgment,finalorder,

orresolutionappealedfrom,withcertifiedtruecopiesofsuchmaterial protionsoftherecordreferredtointhepetition,aswellasthedocuments thatshouldaccompanythepetition,shallbesufficientgroundforits dismissalasstatedinsec.7,Rule43oftheRules. Inthecaseatbar,theissuesraisedbeforetheCAwouldshowthatthe foregoingdocumentsrequiredbytheappellatecourt(e.g.,thewritof execution,theordernullifyingthewritofexecution,andsuchmaterial portionsoftherecordreferredtointhepetitionandothersupporting papers)arenotnecessaryfortheproperdispositionofthecase.The originaldocumentssubmittedwiththepetitionforreviewaresufficientand compliantwiththerequirementsunderSec.6(c)ofRule43.Moreover,the subsequentsubmissionofthedocumentsrequiredbytheCAwiththeMR constitutessubstantialcompliancewithsuchrule.Astrictandrigid applicationofthetechnicalitiesmustbeavoidedifittendstofrustraterather thanpromotesubstantialjustice(HeirsofDelestev.LandBankofthe Philippines,GRNo.169913,06/08/2011). (4)UnderRule43oftheRulesofCourt,anappealfromtheawards,  judgments,finalordersorresolutions,authorizedbyanyquasi-judicial agencysuchastheOfficeofthePresident,intheexerciseofitsquasi judicialfunctionsshallbefiledtotheCAwithinaperiodoffifteen(15)days fromnoticeof,publicationordenialofamotionfornewtrialor reconsideration.Theappealmayinvolvequestionsoffact,oflaw,ormixed questionsoffactandlaw.AdirectresorttothisCourt,however,maybe allowedincaseswhereonlyquestionsoflawareraised.(Almerov.Heirsof Pacquing,GRNo.199008,11/19/2014). (5)TheperiodtoappealdecisionsoftheHLURBBoardofCommissioners isfifteen(15)daysfromreceiptthereofpursuanttoSection15ofPDNo. 957andSection2ofPDNo.1344whicharespeciallawsthatprovidean exceptiontoSection1ofAdministrativeOrderNo.18.Concomitantly, Section1ofAdministrativeOrderNo.18providesthatthetimeduring whichamotionforreconsiderationhasbeenpendingwiththeministryor agencyconcernedshallbedeductedfromtheperiodforappeal.Swire receivedtheHLURBBoardResolutiondenyingitsMotionfor ReconsiderationonJuly23,2007andfileditsappealonlyonAugust7, 2007.Consequentlytherefore,SwirehadonlyfourdaysfromJuly23,2007, oruntilJuly27,2007,withinwhichtofileitsappealtotheOPasthefilingof themotionforreconsiderationmerelysuspendedtherunningofthe15-day period.Thus,whiletheremaybeexceptionsfortherelaxationoftechnical rulesprincipallygearedtoattaintheendsofjustice,Swire‘sfatuousbelief thatithadafresh15-dayperiodtoelevateanappealwiththeOPisnotthe kindofexceptionalcircumstancethatmeritsrelaxation.(SwireRealty DevelopmentCorporationv.Yu,GRNo.207133,03/09/2015). (6)2006Bar:Explaineachmodeofcertiorari:Asamodeofreviewofthe decisionsoftheNationalLaborRelationsCommissionandthe ConstitutionalCommissions.(2.5%)

11

 Answer:CertiorariasamnodeofreviewofthedecisionoftheNLRCis elevatedtotheCourtofAppealsunderRule65,asheldinthecaseofSt.

Martin‘sFuneralHomev.NLRC(GRNo.130865,09/16/1998).Certiorari asamodeofreviewfromtheCommissionofAudit(COA)andCOMELEC iselevatedtotheSupremeCourtwithin30daysfromnoticeofthe  judgment,decisionorfinalorderorresolutionsoughttobereviewed,as providedforunderRule64oftheRuleofCivilProcedure.Inthecaseofthe CivilServiceCommission(CSC),reviewofitsjudgmentsisthrough petitionsforreviewunderSec.5,Rule43.

(1)Apetitionforrelieffromjudgmentisanequitableremedythatisallowed onlyinexceptionalcaseswhenthereisnootheravailableoradequate remedy.Whenapartyhasanotherremedyavailabletohim,whichmaybe eitheramotionfornewtrialorappealfromanadversedecisionofthetrial court,andhewasnotpreventedbyfraud,accident,mistakeorexcusable negligencefromfilingsuchmotionortakingsuchappeal,hecannotavail himselfofthispetition(TrustInternationalPaperCorp.vs.Pelaez,GR 164871,Aug.22,2006). (2)UnderSec.5,Rule38,thecourtinwhichthepetitionisfiled,maygrant suchpreliminaryinjunctiontopreservetherightsofthepartiesuponthe filingofabondinfavoroftheadverseparty.Thebondisconditionedupon thepaymenttotheadversepartyofalldamagesandcoststhatmaybe awardedtosuchadversepartybyreasonoftheissuanceoftheinjunction (Sec.5). (3)DelayedNewTrial.Thisisnotasubstituteforlostappeal. (4)Equitableremediesmaybeavailedofonlywhenpetitionerhasnotbeen giventhechancetoavailofotherremediesnotbecauseofhisownfault. (5)Apetitionforrelieffromjudgmentmustbefiledwithin60daysafter petitionerlearnsofthejudgment,finalorder,orproceedingandwithinsix (6)monthsfromentryofjudgmentorfinalorder.Thedoubleperiodrequired underSection3,Rule38isjurisdictionalandshouldbestrictlycomplied with.Apetitionforreliefofjudgmentfiledbeyondthereglementaryperiodis dismissedoutright.UnderSection1,Rule38,apetitionforrelieffrom  judgmentmaybefiledonthegroundoffraud,accident,mistake,or excusablenegligence.Amotionforreconsiderationisrequiredbeforea petitionforcertiorariisfiledtograntthecourtwhichrenderedtheassailed  judgmentororderanopportunitytocorrectanyactualorperceivederror attributedtoitbythere-examinationofthelegalandfactualcircumstances ofthecase.(Madarangv.Sps.Morales,GRNo.199283,06/09/2014). (6)Apartyfilingapetitionforrelieffromjudgmentmuststrictlycomplywith two(2)reglementaryperiods:first,thepetitionmustbefiledwithinsixty(60)

daysfromknowledgeofthejudgment,orderorotherproceedingtobeset aside;andsecond,withinafixedperiodofsix(6)monthsfromentryofsuch  judgment,orderorotherproceeding.Strictcompliancewiththeseperiodsis requiredbecauseapetitionforrelieffromjudgmentisafinalactofliberality onthepartoftheState,whichremedycannotbeallowedtoerodeany furtherthefundamentalprinciplethatajudgment,orderorproceedingmust, atsomedefinitetime,attainfinalityinordertoputanendtolitigation. (PhilippineAmanahBankv.Contreras,GRNo.173168,09/29/2014).

(1)Whenajudgmentorfinalorderisentered,oranyotherproceedingis thereaftertakenagainstapartyinanycourtthrough(a)fraud,(b)accident, (c)mistake,or(c)excusablenegligence,hemayfileapetitioninsuchcourt andinthesamecaseprayingthatthejudgment,orderorproceedingbeset aside(Sec.1,Rule38). (2)Whenthepetitionerhasbeenpreventedfromtakinganappealbyfraud, mistake,orexcusablenegligence(Sec.2).

(1)Apetitionforrelieffromjudgment,orderorotherproceedingsmustbe verified,filedwithin60daysafterthepetitionerlearnsofthejudgment,final order,orotherproceedingtobesetaside,andnotmorethansix(6)months aftersuchjudgmentorfinalorderwasentered,orsuchproceedingwas taken;andmustbeaccompaniedwithaffidavitsshowingthefraud, accident,mistake,orexcusablenegligencereliedupon,andthefacts constitutingthepetitioner‘sgoodandsubstantial causeofactionor defense,asthecasemaybe(Sec.3,Rule38).

(1)Thepetitionmustbeverifiedandmustbeaccompaniedwithaffidavits [AffidavitofMerits]showingfraud,accident,mistakeorexcusable negligencereliedupon,andthefactsconstitutingthepetitioner‘sgoodand substantialcauseofactionordefense,asthecasemaybe(Sec.3).

(1)Itissettledthatthenegligenceandmistakesofthecounselarebinding ontheclient.Itisonlyincasesinvolvinggrossorpalpablenegligenceofthe counselorwheretheinterestsofjusticesorequire,whenreliefisaccorded toaclientwhohassufferedthereby.Furthermore,foraclaimofacounsel's grossnegligencetoprosper,nothingshortofclearabandonmentofthe client'scausemustbeshownanditshouldnotbeaccompaniedbythe client'sownnegligenceormalice.Itisacorrelativedutyofclientstobein

12

contactwiththeircounselfromtimetotimetoinformthemselvesofthe statusoftheircaseespecially,whenwhatisatstakeistheirliberty.Hence, diligenceisrequirednotonlyfromlawyersbutalsofromtheirclients.As such,thefailureofthelawyertocommunicatewithhisclientsfornearly threeyearsandtoinformthemaboutthestatusoftheircase,doesnot amounttoabandonmentthatqualifiesasgrossnegligence.Ifatall,the omissionisonlyanactofsimplenegligence,andnotgrossnegligencethat wouldwarranttheannulmentoftheproceedingsbelow.(Resurreccionv. People,GRNo.192866,07/09/2014). (2)Thegeneralruleisthatafinalandexecutoryjudgmentcannolongerbe disturbed,altered,ormodifiedinanyrespect,andthatnothingfurthercan bedonebuttoexecuteit.Afinalandexecutorydecisionmay,however,be invalidatedviaaPetitionforRelieforaPetitiontoAnnulthesameunder Rules38or47,respectively,oftheRulesofCourt.Rule47oftheRulesof Courtisaremedygrantedonlyunderexceptionalcircumstanceswherea party,withoutfaultonhispart,hasfailedtoavailoftheordinaryremediesof newtrial,appeal,petitionforrelieforotherappropriateremedies.Thesame petitionisnotavailableasasubstituteforaremedywhichwaslostdueto

theparty‘sownneglectinpromptlyavailingofthesame.Thereishereno attemptedsubstitution;annulmentofjudgmentistheonlyremedyavailable topetitioner.Requisiteelementsforthefilingofapetitionforannulmentof  judgmentonthegroundsofextrinsicfraud,lackofjurisdiction,andwantof dueprocess,arepresentinthiscaseAlltherequisiteelementsforthefiling ofapetitionforannulmentofjudgmentonthegroundsofextrinsicfraud, lackofjurisdiction,andwantofdueprocess,arepresentinthiscase. (GenatoInvestments,Inc.v.Barre-Toss,GRNo.207443,07/23/2014). (3) Afiledacomplaintfortherecoveryofownershipofland againstBwhowasrepresentedbyhercounselX.inthecourseofthetrial, Bdied.However,XfailedtonotifythecourtofB‘sdeath.Thecourt proceededtohearthecaseandrenderedjudgmentagainstB.Afterthe  judgmentbecamefinal,awritofexecutionwasissuedagainstC,whobeing

B‘ssoleheir,acquiredtheproperty. IfyouwerethecounselofC,whatcourseofactionwouldyoutake? AscounselofC,Iwouldmovetosetasidethewritofexecution andthejudgmentforlackofjurisdictionandlackofdueprocessIthesame courtbecausethejudgmentisvoid.IfXhadnotifiedthecourtofB‘sdeath, thecourtwouldhaveorderedthesubstitutionofthedeceasedbyC,the soleheirofB(Rule3,Section16).ThecourtacquirednojurisdictionoverC uponwhomthetrialandthejudgmentarenotbinding(Lawasv.Courtof  Appeals,146SCRA173). Iwouldalsofileanactiontoannulthejudgmentforlackofjurisdiction becauseC,asthesuccessorofB,wasdeprivedofdueprocessandshould havebeenheardbeforejudgment.

(1)Theannulmentmaybebasedonlyonthegroundsofextrinsicfraudand lackofjurisdiction.Extrinsicfraudshallnotbeavalidgroundifitwas availedof,orcouldhavebeenavailedof,inamotionfornewtrialorpetition forrelief(Sec.2,Rule47). (2)Noannulmentofjudgmentsofquasi-judicialagenciesisallowed.Rule 47canonlybetakentotheCourtofAppeals.

(1)Ifbasedonextrinsicfraud,theactionmustbefiledwithinfour(4)years fromitsdiscovery;andifbasedonlackofjurisdiction,beforeitisbarredby lachesorestoppels(Sec.3).

(1)Ajudgmentofannulmentshallsetasidethequestionedjudgmentor finalorderorresolutionandrenderthesamenullandvoid,without prejudicetotheoriginalactionbeingrefiledinthepropercourt.However, wherethejudgmentorfinalorderorresolutionissetasideonthegroundof extrinsicfraud,thecourtmayonmotionorderthetrialcourttotrythecase asifatimelymotionfornewtrialhadbeengrantedtherein(Sec.7,Rule 47).

(1)Acollateralattackismadewhen,inanotheractiontoobtainadifferent relief,anattackonthejudgmentismadeasanincidentinsaidaction.This isproperonlywhenthejudgment,onitsface,isnullandvoid,aswhereitis patentthatthecourtwhichrenderedsaidjudgmenthasnojurisdiction(Co vs.CA,196SCRA705).Examples:ApetitionforcertiorariunderRule65is adirectattack.Itisfiledprimarilytohaveanorderannulled.Anactionfor annulmentofajudgmentislikewiseadirectattackonajudgment.Amotion todismissacomplaintforcollectionofasumofmoneyfiledbya corporationagainstthedefendantonthegroundthattheplaintiffhasno legalcapacitytosueisacollateralattackonthecorporation.Amotionto dismissisincidentaltothemainactionforsumofmoney.Itisnotfiledas anactionintendedtoattackthelegalexistenceoftheplaintiff(Covs.CA, 196SCRA705). (2) Anon-partymayfilethepetitionwhenhecanshowthatheisadversely affectedbythejudgment(Islamicvs.CA,178SCRA178).