Rule 51 Judgment

Rule 51 Judgment

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition

Rule 51

JUDGMENT You already know that the Court of Appeals operates by division. There are more than 50 justices there. Every division is composed of 3. The 3 must be unanimous. In case there is no unanimity, there should be a special division of 5 to hear the case all over again and the majority rules. Although from what I gathered sa CA, this is a farce . Actually, they do not discuss it, they will just give it to the ponente. Tapos sabihin mo ‘concur.’ Bihira lang talaga ang naga-participate unless siguro malakas ka sa isang justice and then mag-dissent para magkaroon ng division of 5. That is not really the intention of the of the law. Let’s go back to what we were saying before under Rule 36. Every decision or resolution of a court shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based. If a decision does not state its basis, it is a SIN PERJUICIO judgment. That is not a valid judgment. The requirement applies to all courts whether MTC, RTC, or CA. This is emphasized again in Section 5: Sec. 5. Form of decision. - Every decision or final resolution of the court in appealed cases shall clearly and distinctly state the findings of fact and the conclusions of law on which it is based, which may be contained in the decision or final resolution itself, or adopted from those set forth in the decision, order, or resolution appealed from. (Sec. 40, BP Blg. 129) (n)

The CA must state its findings and conclusions or according to Section 5 it may simply adopt the findings and conclusions set forth in the decision or order appealed from. If the CA is going to affirm the judgment of the RTC, it may simply copy or adopt the findings and conclusions of the RTC. It is called a “MEMORANDUM DECISION”. If you will look at Section 5, it states that the provision is taken from Section 40, BP 129. It is taken from the Judiciary Law. Is this provision not an invitation to laziness on the part of the CA justices? If the CA will affirm the judgment of the RTC, the work is easier because it may simply adopt on its own the findings of the RTC. If the CA would reverse the decision, the job would be more difficult, because it would write an entirely new decision to rebut or dispute the findings of the RTC. This is why when this provision came out in the Judiciary Law, there was a sort of fear that this might be the cause of laziness. The SC, well aware of that danger, clarifies in one case that memorandum decisions are not allowed in all cases. The CA is only allowed to render a memorandum decision in simple cases especially when the appeal is dilatory and there is nothing wrong in the appealed decision. But if the case is complicated or complex, even if CA would affirm the decision, it cannot simply copy the work of the RTC. It should write its own decision. The limitation or guidelines was issued by the SC precisely to avoid the danger of laziness on the part of CA justices. The SC said in the case of FRANCISCO vs. PERMSKUL 173 SCRA 324 HELD: “The Court finds it necessary to emphasize that the memorandum decision should be sparingly used lest it become an addictive excuse for judicial sloth. It is an additional condition for its validity that this kind of decision may be resorted to only in cases where the facts are in the main accepted by both parties or easily determinable by the judge and there are no doctrinal complications involved that will require an extended discussion 124 Lakas Atenista Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition

Rule 51 Judgment

of the laws involved. The memorandum decision may be employed in simple litigations only, such as ordinary collection cases, where the appeal is obviously groundless and deserves no more than the time needed to dismiss it.” Q: When is a case deemed submitted for judgment? A: Section 1 of Rule 51: Sec. 1. 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. B. In original actions and petitions for review. 1) Where no comment is filed, upon the expiration of the period to comment. 2) Where no hearing is held, upon the filing of the last pleading required or permitted to be filed by the court, or the expiration of the period for its filing. 3) Where a hearing on the merits of the main case 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. (n) Sec. 2. By whom rendered. - The judgment shall be rendered by the members of the court who participated in the deliberation on the merits of the case before its assignment to a member for the writing of the decision. (n) Sec. 3. Quorum and voting in the court. - The participation of all three Justices of a division shall be necessary at the deliberation and the unanimous vote of the three Justices shall be required for the pronouncement of a judgment or final resolution. If the three Justices do not reach a unanimous vote, the clerk shall enter the votes of the dissenting Justices in the record. Thereafter, the Chairman of the division shall refer the case, together with the minutes of the deliberation, to the Presiding Justice who shall designate two Justices chosen by raffle from among all the other members of the court to sit temporarily with them, forming a special division of five Justices. The participation of all the five members of the special division shall be necessary for the deliberation required in section 2 of this Rule and the concurrence of a majority of such division shall be required for the pronouncement of a judgment or final resolution. (2a) Sec. 4. Disposition of a case. - The Court of Appeals, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, may affirm, reverse, or modify the judgment or final order appealed from, and may direct a new trial or further proceedings to be had. (3a) Sec. 5. Form of decision. - Every decision or final resolution of the court in appealed cases shall clearly and distinctly state the findings of fact and the conclusions of law on which it is based, which may be contained in the decision or final resolution itself, or adopted from those set forth in the decision, order, or resolution appealed from. (Sec. 40, BP Blg. 129) (n) Sec. 6. Harmless error. - No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence and no error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the trial court or by any of the parties is ground for granting a new trial or for setting aside, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice. The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. (5a) Sec. 7. Judgment where there are several parties. - In all action or proceedings, an appealed judgment may be affirmed as to some of the appellants, and reversed as to others, and the case shall thereafter be

Lakas Atenista Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

125

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition

Rule 51 Judgment

proceeded with, so far as necessary, as if separate actions had been begun and prosecuted; and execution of the judgment of affirmance may be had accordingly, and costs may be adjudged in such cases, as the court shall deem proper. (6)

Let’s go to Section 7. Q: When there are 2 or more plaintiffs or 2 or more defendants in the cases appealed, is it possible that the CA will render decision for one plaintiff but against the other plaintiffs, or in favor of one defendant and against the other? A: YES. It is possible that one plaintiff will win, other plaintiffs will lose especially when the facts are not identical. This is also true in cases of 2 or more defendants when each one interposes separate defenses. The defense of one may be true, others may be false. It is possible that one defendant will win and other defendants will lose. Q: Suppose there are 2 defendants in a case. All of them lost. Defendant A appealed. Defendant B did not appeal. On appeal, defendant A won. Will the appeal of A benefit B who did not appeal? A: As a GENERAL RULE: No, the appeal would only benefit the appealing defendant. The judgment becomes final to those who did not appeal even if it is wrong. EXCEPTION : When the LIABILITY of the 2 parties are so INTERTWINED that it would be absurd that one of them will win and the other will lose. Thus, the appeal by the appealing party benefits his co-party who did not appeal. This principle was laid down in some cases. Among them is the case of UNIVERSAL MOTORS CORP. vs. COURT OF APPEALS 205 SCRA 428 [1992] HELD: “It is erroneous to rule that the decision of the trial court could be reversed as to the appealing private respondent and continue in force against the other private respondents. The latter could not remain bound after the former had been released; although the other private respondents had not joined in the appeal, the decision rendered by the respondent court inured to their benefit. When the obligation of the other solidary debtors is so dependent on that of their co-solidary debtor, the release of the one who appealed, provided it be not on grounds personal to such appealing private respondent, operates as well as to the others who did not appeal. It is for this reason, that a decision or judgment in favor of the private respondent who appealed can be invoked as res judicata by the other private respondents.” So, their liabilities are so intertwined. EXAMPLE : Mayakin Skywalker and Darth Mort borrowed money from Qui Gon Jet. They bound themselves jointly and severally to pay the loan. There is only one promissory note, one loan and both Mayakin and Darth Mort signed. Their common defense is payment. But the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff (Qui Gon Jet) and ordered Mayakin and Darth Mort to pay. Mayakin appealed but Darth Mort did not. On appeal, CA decided in favor of Mayakin saying, “Wala nang utang si Mayakin ba dahil bayad na!” How about Darth Mort? Darth Mort is also released. This principle is reiterated in the case of CAYABA vs. COURT OF APPEALS 219 SCRA 571 [1993] HELD: “A reversal of a judgment on appeal is binding on the parties to the suit but does not inure to the benefit of parties who did not join in the appeal (as a general rule). The recognized exception is when their rights and liabilities and those of the parties appealing are so interwoven and dependent

Lakas Atenista Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

126

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition

Rule 51 Judgment

so as to be inseparable, in which case a reversal as to one operates as a reversal to all.” The rule is so similar in Criminal Procedure. When the appeal of one accused benefits his co-accused who did not appeal especially when the defense of such appealing accused is applicable to him. Sec. 8. Questions that may be decided. - No error which does not affect the jurisdiction over the subject matter or the validity of the judgment appealed from or the proceedings therein will be considered unless stated in the assignment of errors, or closely related to or dependent on an assigned error and properly argued in the brief, save as the court may pass upon plain errors and clerical errors. (7a)

Q: Can the CA decide an issue which was not raised by the parties? Can the CA correct the error which was never assigned by the other party? A: GENERAL RULE : Only errors which are stated in the appellant’s brief should be considered. If the error is not assigned, that cannot be corrected. This is just an extension of the rule that objections and defenses not pleaded are deemed waived. EXCEPTION : The following matters can be corrected or the court can take cognizance even if the parties did not raise them: 1.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case; 2.) Plain errors; 3.) Clerical Errors. 4.) Errors which are not assigned but closely related to or dependent on an assigned error. The fourth exception is taken from decided cases. According to the SC, even if you will not mention a mistake committed by the trial court if such mistake is related to the mistake mentioned, it can be corrected. In the case of ABEJARON vs. COURT OF APPEALS 208 SCRA 899 [1992] HELD: An unassigned error closely related to the error properly assigned, or upon which the determination of the question raised by the error properly assigned is dependent, will be considered by the appellate court notwithstanding the failure to assign it as error. While an assignment of error which is required by law or rule of court has been held essential to appellate review, and only those assigned will be considered, there are a number of cases which appear to accord to the appellate court a broad discretionary power to waive this lack of proper assignment of errors and consider errors not assigned. The same principle was reiterated in the 1995 case of CASA FILIPINO ROYALTY CORP. vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 241 SCRA 165 HELD: “While the rule is that no error which does not affect jurisdiction will be considered unless stated in the assignment or errors, the trend in modern-day procedure is to accord the courts broad discretionary power such that the appellate court may consider matters bearing on the issues submitted for resolution which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored.”

Lakas Atenista Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

127

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition

Rule 51 Judgment

Let us look at the second exception – plain errors. What is a plain error ? Because a plain error can be corrected by the appellate court even if not asked by the parties, plain man? If you will ask me, any plain error is yung talagang obvious mistake – one which is apparent to the eye. Now, suppose the trial court made an error in applying a law or in interpreting a law. But it was not attacked by the losing party and it was not corrected on appeal. Is it a plain error? It would seem no and yet that is what happened in the 1993 case of SANTOS vs. CA (221 SCRA 42). But before we discuss the case of Santos, we have to know the basics. There are two principles here to remember. The appellant is the one who appeals and it is he who will file the appellant’s brief and then he will make the assignment of errors. The appellee will refute the appellant’s assignment of errors which were committed by the trial court. Q: Can the appellee impute errors or make assignment of errors? A: The general rule is NO. If you are an appellee, you are not appealing and thus you are accepting the decision. So if you think the decision is in your favor pero mali pa rin, you must also appeal. So an appellee is not allowed to assign errors committed by the trial court except if the purpose of the assignment of errors is to sustain the decision on another ground. Because sometimes you agree with the decision but you do not agree with the reason. The decision is correct but this should be the reason. Because actually, you are defending the decision on another ground. Meaning the court made a mistake in arriving at the decision but the decision is correct. Yan, puwede yan. But if you want the decision to be changed, then you must also appeal. Now, let us go to the case of SANTOS which involves the law on lease, particularly the interpretation and the application of Article 1678 Civil Code. Under the law on lease, suppose I will rent to you my land and you built a building there and there is no agreement as to who will own the building after the termination of the lease. Suppose there is no stipulation, who will own the building? According to the Civil Code, the owner of the land has the option to acquire the building by paying one half of its value. Pero, if I do not want to appropriate the building, then you have the right to remove the building provided you will not damage the land. So the option to pay you belongs to the owner of the land. The lessee cannot compel the owner of the land to pay. Let us go now to the case of Santos. This is a very queer case. SANTOS vs. COURT OF APPEALS 221 SCRA 42 FACTS: Artemio Santos et al are lessees of a piece of land. They have not paid the rentals for 28 years. The lessor filed a case of unlawful detainer against all of them before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig. The trial court rendered judgment against Santos et al. So they were ordered ejected. Now, these people were not satisfied. They still appealed to the RTC. The RTC affirmed the judgment that they should be ejected but modified it by ordering the lessor to reimburse the lessees for the latter’s improvements on the leased property. So, affirmed, but bayaran mo iyong mga bahay ng mga tao. (DEAN I: To my mind, that portion of the decision is wrong. You cannot order the lessor to reimburse.)

Lakas Atenista Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

128

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition

Rule 51 Judgment

But despite that, Santos et al were not satisfied. They still appealed to the CA. The lessor did not appeal so obviously, the lessor is willing to pay. Although he has no obligation to pay the improvements, pero sige na lang para matapos na! He did not appeal. Now, the CA affirmed again the ejectment. So tatlo na. There were three courts where the occupants lost. But the CA deleted the portion of the RTC decision ordering reimbursement of the improvements. It was really wrong. Walang reimbursement diyan. So this time, Santos et al appealed to the SC. And they say that the portion of the decision deleting our right to reimbursements is wrong because the owner of the land is not questioning it, he is not appealing so why should the CA delete it? So, meaning payag iyong owner. Therefore that portion of the decision of the CA where we are no longer entitled to reimbursement is erroneous. The CA has no power to delete that portion of the RTC decision because there was no appeal from the landowner. ISSUE: Is the decision of the CA correct? HELD: YES. The CA is correct. “It is true that the rule is well-settled that a party cannot impugn the correctness of a Judgment not appealed from by him, and while he may make counter-assignment of errors, he can do so only to sustain the judgment on other grounds but not to seek modification or reversal thereof for in such a case he must appeal. A party who does not appeal from the decision may not obtain any affirmative relief from the appellate court other than what he has obtained from the lower court, if any, whose decision is brought up on appeal. However, the Rules of Court and jurisprudence authorize a tribunal to consider errors, although unassigned, if they involve (1) errors affecting the lower court's Jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) plain errors not specified, and (3) clerical errors.” “Under Article 1678, it is the lessor who has the option to pay for one-half of the value of the improvements which the lessee has made in good faith. The lessee cannot compel the lessor to appropriate and reimburse.” Therefore, the decision of the RTC ordering the lessor is actually erroneous. “Hence, the award of reimbursement for improvements by the trial court in favor of petitioners amounts to a plain error which may be rectified on appeal although not specified in the appellee’s brief.” But the trouble is, the landowner did not appeal. If we follow the ruling, then lahat ng mali ng trial court ay plain error na. That is what the SC said. Bakit man naging plain error ito when actually it will not qualify as plain error ? If we will follow that line of reasoning, every mistake committed by a trial court can be corrected being a plain error. To my mind, merong equity ito, eh. Analyze the case. You are occupants for 28 years and you did not pay. Ayaw mo lumayas, bayaran ka pa? There is something wrong there already. I think that is the factor eh. So the SC said that it is too unfair for the landowner still to be required to pay. Imagine they stayed there for 28 years, hindi pa nagbayad. I think those are the factors. So in other words, equity bah! So the Court has to look for a reason to justify. Ang nakita is plain error – when you do not know how to apply the law, then it is plain error. But actually, that should be an assigned error. It is a very interesting case. Sec. 9. Promulgation and notice of judgment. - After the judgment of final resolution and dissenting or separate opinions, if any, are signed by the Justices taking part, they shall be delivered for filing to the clerk who shall indicate thereon the date of promulgation and cause true copies thereof to be served upon the parties or their counsel. (n) Sec. 10. Entry of judgments and final resolutions. - If no appeal or motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed within the time provided in

Lakas Atenista Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

129

Rule 51 Judgment

1997 Rules on Civil Procedure 2001 Edition

these Rules, the judgment or final resolution shall forthwith be entered by the clerk in the book of entries of judgments. The date when the judgment or final resolution becomes executory shall be deemed as the date of its entry. The record shall contain the dispositive part of the judgment or final resolution and shall be signed by the clerk, with a certificate that such judgment or final resolution has become final and executory. (2a, R36) Sec. 11. Execution of judgment. - Except where the judgment or final order or resolution, or a portion thereof, is ordered to be immediately executory, the motion for its execution may only be filed in the proper court after its entry. In original actions in the Court of Appeals, its writ of execution shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the entry of judgment or final resolution and addressed to any appropriate officer for its enforcement. In appealed cases, where the motion for execution pending appeal is filed in the Court of Appeals at a time that it is in possession of the original record or the record on appeal, the resolution granting such motion shall be transmitted to the lower court from which the case originated, together with a certified true copy of the judgment or final order to be executed, with a directive for such court of origin to issue the proper writ for its enforcement. (n)

Q: Now, how do you execute a judgment of the CA? A: Under Section 11, it depends if it is an original action or an appealed case. For an appealed case, in case of execution pending appeal, take note that if the records of the case are already elevated to the CA, motion for execution pending appeal should already be filed there. And if the CA grants the motion to execute pending appeal, it will follow the third paragraph there. It will issue the order and direct the RTC to enforce the judgment. Now, you should correlate this with Rule 39 Sections 1 and 2: Rule 39, Section 1. Execution upon judgments or final orders. - Execution shall issue as a matter of right, on motion , upon a judgment or order that disposed of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period-to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected. If the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, the execution may forthwith be applied for in the court or origin, on motion of the judgment obligee, submitting therewith certified true copies of the judgment or judgments or final order or orders sought to be enforced and of the entry thereof, with notice to the adverse party. The appellate court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest of justice so requires, direct the court of origin to issue the writ of execution. Section 2. Discretionary execution. A. Execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal.- On motion of the prevailing party with notice to the adverse party filed in the trial court while it has jurisdiction over the case and is in possession of either the original record or the record on appeal, as the case may be, at the time of the filing of such motion, said court may, in its discretion, order execution of a judgment or final order even before the expiration of the period to appeal. After the trial court has lost jurisdiction, the motion for execution pending appeal may be filed in the appellate court. Discretionary execution may only issue upon good reasons to be stated in a special order after due hearing. B. Execution of several, separate or partial judgments.- A several, separate or partial judgment may be executed under the same terms and conditions as execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal.

-oOo-

Lakas Atenista Ateneo de Davao University College of Law

130