- Philippine consul
- Letters rogatory...
- Filed answers ex abudante cautelam - should be leave of court
- When depositions taken: matters that are asked are same in the criminal case
- Answers ex abudante cautelam - considered answer!
- Right against self incrimination
- Requesting party should file a motion, causes for production
- Notice to all persons concerned in the production of items
- Document should be properly designated and identified in the request
- Documents should not be privileged
- Documents should be in the possession of person from whom they are asking it
- Documents are in relation to the matter at hand
- Privileged communications
- Too broad
- Those not related to the subject matter at hand
- Those not in the custody of the other party
- Confidential - trade secrets (once you have marked documents as confidential, they cannot be disclosed to the other party)
- Act of noncompliance
- Mode of discovery involved
- Witness is sick/counsel is sick - but should present proof of illness
- Witness is not available
- Powers of commissioner
- Issues to be decided by commissioners
- Procedure to be followed
- Opportunity of judge to either accept or deny the findings...
- Voluminous documents
- ....basta, when parties agree on it!
- No genuine issue as to material facts
- Party moving for summary judgment entitled to judgment by law
- Clerical
- Nunc pro tunc: In general, a court ruling "nunc pro tunc" applies retroactively to correct an earlier ruling.
Dulay v. Dulay
-note persons before whom depositions could be taken
-depositions in RP and depositions not in RP
-but both parties could stipulate who would be the deposing officer
-in Foreign country:
*deposition is just like an arbitration...
*If there are objections, deposing officers just notes them, subject to the resolution of the judge
*not automatically part of the records. The one who took the deposition may opt not to use it at all - see the uses
*in what proceedings could you use deposition: only for the particular proceeding (except if deposition before action)
Written interrogatories | Deposition upon written interrogatories |
Actually send, as if its the pleading, to the other party | Still has deposing officer |
Sent only to the other party - not witnesses | Other parties could also send their cross interrogatories |
R25 | R26 |
Similar to a direct examination Can make the other party admit facts | Due execution of documents Admit certain specific facts More practical if you attach documents on where you base your questions |
*Ma'am: request for admission is more practical
*in written interrogatories, the way you ask question, the other party can just evade the answer and you cannot ask another set of interrogatories. If you ask for another, you may be accused of delaying the trial of the case
E.g. In the execution of the contract...
q: Do you execute the contract to sell, dated so and so...
Q: Did you ask your counsel to advice you to... The contract to sell
...broad questions
*problem w/ written interrogatories: if you do not send a set, can't compel the other party to testify
...usually used to make the other party settle...
*In request for admissions, once you do not avail of it, you can no longer prove it in trial
Admissibility – Jowel Sales v. Sabino GR 133154 Dec 9, 2005
f: Deposition of a witness offered as exhibits, since the witness was outside the country. Other party was present during the taking of the deposition through counsel
H:
GR: Can't offer as evidence, in lieu of testimony of the deponent
X: One of which was when the deponent was not present to be presented
+ counsel of adverse counsel's presence during the taking of the deposition, it is not a waiver of the defects during the deposition. When it comes to the relevance of the testimony of the witness, these cannot be waived by the presence of the counsel of the adverse party
*note matters that should be raised during deposition, or else wavied!
*same rule when you are conducting a cross or direct examination - do not ask questions that you do not know the answer to
Sec 4- San Luis v. Rojas GR 159127 Mar 3, 2008;
F: Corp sued San Luis for collection of money based on a contract. When case was set for trial, corp filed a pleading captioned as "....motion for deposition through written interrogatories" - alleged that their witnesses who were all abroad. San Luis questions motion for deposition
H: ROC does not make any distinction as to the citizenship of the party asking for deposition. It is immaterial ANY PERSON....
-even if all your witnesses in deposition, can still use it if pasok sa Section 4
Dasmarinas v. Reyes, 225 SCRA 622
F: Corp moved that Depositions be taken of their witnesses who were all from Taiwan. Letters Rogatory moved but opposed
H: Should be granted. Rule provides that in case where there is no consular office (in Taiwan), a commission or letter rogatory may be issued to any officer or official of the country. In this case, it was issued to an asian executive.
-distinction between commission and letters rogatory
Commission | Letters rogatory |
Issued to a specific person | Letter by a court to another judicial body to a foreign country who has jurisdiction over the deponent |
Deposition (oral examination) in criminal cases – Rosete v. Lim GR 136051 June 8, 2006
F: Specific performance and annulment ...vs. Rosete. Rosete also has pending criminal cases for BP22 and estafa. Rosete filed MTD vs. Civil case - lack of jurisdiction. MTD Denied. Petition for certiorari...
...meanwhile, they also filed answer ad cautelam w/ RTC to be able to file answer w/n period...
...filed notice to have petitioners deposition taken. Opposed
H:
-as to civil cases: the witness cannot refuse to take stand. Refuse by question basis
-as to criminal cases: witness and accused can all together refuse to take witness stand
*Since here, civil case, can' t refuse!
*In all criminal cases, can't depose accused!
*IN ROC on Crim Procedure:
Section 13 and Section 15 of Rule 119 - modes of discovery specifically applicable to criminal cases
...analogous...
*for defense: witness should appear before judge or....
*for prosecution...
RULE 24
Even if the witness is available, can you still take his deposition
Rule 24 Depositions Before Action or Pending Appeal
Availability of deponent as a witness - Hyatt Industrial v. Ley Construction, GR No. 147143, Mar 10, 2006
F: After filing of pleadings, parties sought for depositions of several persons...Subsequently, Hyatt moved that depositions no longer taken and proceed to pretrial conference. Granted by TC, opposed by LC...but court still proceeded to conduct pretrial conference. LC refused to participate in the pretrial...dismissed complaint by LCDC
WON between notice to take deposition, and notice to set pretrial, which should take precedence?
-notice to take depositions
-so it was wrong for TC to use an excuse the setting of pretrial and should have let the taking of the depositions
*note that whoever wants to request modes of discovery has to spend for it
Rule 25 Interrogatories to Parties
Rule 26 Admissions by Adverse Party
*in Pre-trial brief, should put request for admissions, but if the other party did not answer, would it be deemed to have been admitted? No. Not request for admissions under R26 because in there, it is directly sent to the party. But to be sure to manifest that you are not admitting it...
Purpose – DBP v. CA GR 153034 Sep 20, 2005
*for due execution, authenticity, do away with objections to genuineness of documents
Period to answer a request for admission- Po v. CA 164 SCRA 668
-sent directly to party. If don't reply, DEEMED TO BE ADMITTED!
To whom served - Briboneria v. CA 216 SCRA 616
Effect of non-compliance – Limos et al v Sps Odones GR 186979 Aug 11, 2010
f: Sps filed annulment of title + damages vs. Limos. Odones anchored ownership of parcel of land through extrajudicial partition of property. When they tried to register it, they found out that the property was already registered by Limos. Limos filed answer. Odones filed reply. Petitioners limos requested for admission of certain facts, such as facts which were already denied by respondents in their answer.
H: The resort to request for admission still subject to sound judgment of court. Resort was redundant because they were already denied in their answer. Request for admission is for expediting the trial, not delaying it
Rule 27 Production or Inspection of Documents or Things
Solidbank v. Gateway GR 164805 Apr 30, 2008
Vs. Subpoena duces tecum
F: Gateway had obtained foreign currency denominated loan...Gateway failed to pay loan, solidbank pushed to get the proceeds of agreement from Gateway. Gateway claims to have not yet paid. Solidbank obtained info claiming that Allied already paid Gateway. Solidbank filed motion to inspect documents and request copies of all documents re: financial ...of Gateway. Gateway filed extension of time to produce. Gateway turned over to Solidbank copies of its billing statements to Allied. Solidbank claims that Gateway failed to supply them all the documents they are requesting...TC ruled that for failure to produce all documents, all allegations set forth by solidbank are deemed admitted; CA reversed. Although ROC allowed "fishing expedition", it is not w/o limitations. CA mentioned guidelines w/ regard production of documents:
*Subpoena duces tecum - one of the grounds for quashing is that if it is in a form of a general warrant
...here, similar
-the request was general, almost anything under the sun...
Too broad in scope, merely a fishing expedition w/o limitations
*although modes of discovery are fishing expeditions, should give other party time to comply properly. But here, the other party would not know how to comply to such request
*in states, ANTI-TRUST proceedings before federal trade commission: this is only proceeding where practically anything could be asked! Any indication that you are trying to disclose any documents woudl result to a criminal prosecution
*defenses so that you cannot comply:
*in respect to civil cases, it is up to the court to determine what are confidential
Rule 28 Physical and Mental Examination of Persons
See RA 8054 Sec 17 [a]
Rule 29 Refusal to Comply with Modes of Discovery
*take note that the consequence of a refusal to comply with a mode of discovery would be dependent on two things
*the consequences depend on what mode of discovery is involved...
*NOTE TO SELF: Make a table!
Rule 30 Trial
After given pretrial order...set for hearing...
When postponement of hearing:
When trial can be dispensed with - Republic v. Vda De Neri GR 139588 Mar 4, 2004
F: Republic is asking that OCTs be annulled and subsequently reverted. During the hearing, the Neris agreed to forego a fullblown trial, submit memorandum and append all the documents. Republic failed to submit survey plan, so decided ifo de neri. Now Republic wants a full blown trial. Argued that there are factual issues that should be resolved.
H: A party can waive right to full blown trial if agreed to dispense with it.
Absence of a party – Spouses Calo v. Spouses Tan, GR 151266 Nov 29, 2005
Sps. Calo set motion to dismiss hearing but were absent. Allegedly due to the fact that they have to commute from Butuan to CDO. And thought that the hearing for MTD would be heard first.
H: Waived right to present evidence since it is their fault why they were absent. They were the defendants. They would be deemed to have waived their right to cross examine - not really like in default
Take note of SECTION 9
Before 1997 amendment: the clerk of court had more or less implied authority to conduct hearings when it is an ex parte one.
Now: objections should be ruled upon by the judge, not by the clerk of court
Rule 31 Consolidation or Severance
Requisites of consolidation - Republic v. CA 403 SCRA 403
F: NIC entered contract w/ Republic for cleaning of Lahar. NIC, in a civil case, alleged that the Republic failed to pay them. DPWH was trying to say that NIC was indeed paid, but the contract was said to be manifestly disadvantageous to the government. So criminal case for anti-graft law before sandiganbayan. NIC brought case for collection in RTC. Can you consolidate?
H: NO
-SB lacks jurisdiction over collection suit: it has very limited jurisdiction over civil cases - sequestration of ill-gotten wealth
-different from asking civil liability arising from same criminal fact, which could be consolidated
-is this a prejudicial issue:
(sorry i can't hear. Just study the case)
What actions can be consolidated - Teston v. DBP GR 144374 Nov 11, 2005;
F: two actions involved: Civil action for determination of just compensation and payment.
H: no consolidation. The rights and issues arose from different events
1st case: party involved was Teston, although filed by an agent
2nd case: Teston himself
*respondents different parties
1st case:
2nd case: GSIS
*different COA
1st case: buyer of land
2nd case: as redemptioner
*is it absolute that if different parties, can't consolidate? Not necessarily, but should arise from same act, substantially same evidence, and consolidation would not prejudice other party. Although still w/n discretion of the court WON to allow consolidation.
*In RTCs of MM, the judge of two cases should agree to the consolidation. Usually, the judge w/ the lower docket number gets the case
Gregorio Espinoza v. UOB, GR 175380, Mar 22, 2010
H: can't consolidate because of different nature. Even if same parcel of land subject to foreclosure involved.
Ex parte issuance of writ of possession...matter of right of buyer after period of redemption...
Vs. Mortgagors questioning the foreclosure sale...should run after the proceeds of the sale from original creditor
*severance: if several defendants, might opt to go to separate trials to expedite things
Rule 32 Trial by Commissioner
When proper – Manotok Realty v. CLT Realty GR 123346 Nov 29, 2005
-very controversial case. Involved huge tracks of land, big law offices
F: consolidated petitions filed...for annulment of title + damages: assert that they were the owners...of the estate in Caloocan
-parties agreed to a trial by commissioner of 3. 2 commissioners filed majority report, the other one filed minority report. Court just adopted the majority report.
WON Court should have just adopted the majority report? YES, allowed.
-the parties are deemed estopped from assailing the findings of the court
**this decision was just the first of some other SC decisions which resulted to rule ifo of Manotok
*Commissioners usually used in land cases.
*make determination first if it would benefit your case, and if you are willing to abide by the decision of the commissioners. If not, may agree to reserve right to object to the findings of a commissioner
*Usually, the judge would, in the end, decide on the case because if the commissioners rule not unanimously, the judge would just choose what would happen
*in the order that the judge would come out with to allow trial by commissioner, set out the
*take note WHEN ENCOURAGED
*Rule 33 Demurrer to Evidence
Always distinguish between civil and criminal demurrer to evidence
(another way of accelerating judgment)
*demurrer granted, but on appeal, it was reversed - no chance to present evidence
Effects of filing a demurrer - Radiowealth Finance Co v. Sps Del Rosario GR 138739 Jul 6, 2000;
F: Sps del rosario filed demurrer based on lack of COA. During trial, the Company presented collection officer, which just presented documents but admitted that he had not knowledge on the execution of such evidence. TC granted demurrer. CA reversed. Even if only hearsay evidence, CA took note that question of WON duly executed no longer in trial because it was already judicially admitted. Remanded case to TC so that defendants could present evidence.
H: Should have decided on the merits of the case, not remand it. Make decision based on plaintiff's evidence, or else, TC make decision, may be appealed again to CA.
-why: defendant actually considered to stand by his claim that there is insufficient evidence.
Heirs of Santiago v. Heirs of Palma GR 160832 Oct 27, 2006
F: Santoque claimed property over which Calmas have a title. But were only able to prove that their predecessor in interest applied for Homestead Patent but no proof that it was granted to them and only able to show that the government offices did not have records of the previous titles which are basis of titles of Calmas
H: Defendants not required to present evidence anymore. Case should be dismissed after demurrer of evidence granted because plaintiff failed to prove their claim
What evidence – Casent Realty v. Philbanking GR 150731 Sep 14, 2007
F: Casent failed to pay so Philbanking filed complaint for collection. In Answer, Casent alleged dacion en pago that extinguished all their obligations + confirmation agreement. No amicable settlement in the pretrial. Demurrer to evidence - Failed to submit reply to answer. So admitted genuineness of dacion en pago. RTC granted demurrer, CA Reversed
H: WON failure to reply = judicial admission
-failure to specifically deny such documents = admission
...so demurrer properly granted!
...should deny under oath actionable documents. If actionable documents alleged in the answer, should deny specifically in the reply.
*demurrer not only on the basis of the plaintiff's evidence, but all matters which are already in the records!
Rule 34 Judgment on the Pleadings
Sham or specific denials - Manufacturer’s Bank v. Diversified 173 SCRA 357;
Different from SUMMARY JUDGMENT! F: Suit for recovery of sum of money...credit agreement...due date on Feb 1967 but diversified failed to pay ...had to pay attorney's fees.
Reply admitted only of existence of loan, but no knowledge of due date and Atty's fees.
Judgment on the pleadings because already admitted existence of the loan. Court rendered judgment on the pleadings.
Also filed amended answer, admitting existence of loan agreement, but due date on extended date
H: Proper judgment on the pleadings. Amended answer did not tender an issue. On allegation of no knowledge, easy to find out the allegations...
*so be detailed in your ultimate facts, such that if the defendant makes general denials or admissions, can file motion for summary judgment...
Tan v. De La Vega, GR No. 168809, Mar 10, 2006
F: De la vega et al filed for queiting of title plus declaration of nullity of titles vs. Mencias...also impleaded Tans who subsequently purchased lot...they alleged to be purchasers in GF. Heirs of Mencias alleged it was never part of the TCT. Subsequently dela vega et al filed motion for judgment on the pleadings which was granted by RTC. All patents + titles null and void.
H: It is not proper to rule upon the nullity of the titles. The answers gave rise to certain factual issues such as noninclusion of the title in TCT and purchase in GF
*So even if answer alleges noninfringement, blah blah, legitimate defense...Not all denials and avoidance would be sham defenses
Fails to tender an issue – Pesane Animas Monzao v. Pryce Properties GR 156474 Aug 16, 2005;
F: Contract of sale was between petitioner Mongao and Pryce Properties. Initially, petitioners claim that the earnest money was paid to Mongao. But Pryce paid the rest to another group of persons - not to the plaintiffs who were claiming payment of money. Judgment on the pleadings. Granted because material allegations on which COA of petiitoners were based - the existence of a perfected contract of sale + banks refusal to pay petitioners...
H: Not valid defense...so admitted that did not pay!
Sps Ong v. Roban Lending GR 172592 Jul 9, 2008;
F: Ongs obtained loan + REM. Failed to pay. Executed dacion en pago w/ Roban. So Ongs wanted to annull agreement for being pactum commisorium. Later rendered judgment on the pleadings - no pactum commissorium
H: Summary judgment is not proper - there is a genuine issue of fact
>WON there was partial payment as alleged
Judgment on the pleadings not proper - respondents were able to tender an issue
>Legality of the dacion en pago as not pactum commisorium
BUT SC said it is pactum commisorium!
Reillo v San Jose GR 166393 Jun 18, 2009
Supra
Who files – Doris Sunbanun v. Aurora Go GR 163280 Feb 2, 2010
F: involves a lease contract between Sunbanum (lessor) and Go (lessee). Lessee sued damages vs. Lessor (unjustifiable contract cutting + evicted lessees). But when filed suit, lease contract already done. WON sublease allowed. No denial of conviction, only disagreement as to the interpretation of the contractual agreement. It was the defendant who asked for judgment on the pleadings. TC sided w/ Lessee. Lessor appealed
H: Unusual that the defendant was the one who moved for judgment on the pleadings. But after moving so, and the plaintiff did not interpose any objections, she assented to the said motion. So should have granted it?
-contract allowed subleasing...
-on action for damages + no proof on amount: can still make judgment on the pleadings - based on actual damages on actual loss of income of the rents that could have been collected if not for the eviction of the submlessees.
Rule 35 Summary Judgments
If answer practically admitted the alelgations in the complaint, nothing more to look at for resolution of the case...nothing to resolve really
*summary judgment on the other hand, movant and other party have opportunity to submit affidavits, depositions...upon which the court could submit for summary judgment
*what kind of issues can be submitted for summary judgment: issues of law + issues of fact which are not genuine
Distinguish from Rule 34 – Nocom v. Camerino GR 182984 Feb 10, 2009
F: Camarino were agricultural tenants w/ right to redeem. Allegedly executed an irrevocable Power of Atty to sell parcels of land. Subsequently annotated to the TCT,. Camarino wanted to annul such, consent was vitiated because did not know it was an irrevocable power of attorney. Nocom alleged that it cannot be cancelled unilaterally, alleged that he paid for it....Camarinos filed motion for summary judgment stating that sicne Nocom admitted to the existence of the irrevocable power of attorney...summary judgment proper because only resolve WON it was coupled w/ interest and WON it is irrevocable. Allege that there is not issue as to the contents of the irrevocable power of atty
H: facts not subject motion for summary jdugment
2 requisites:
Genuine issues of fact – Evangelista v. Mercator Finance 409 SCRA 410;
Bitanga v. Pyramid GR 173526 Aug 28, 2008;
Phil Countryside v Toring GR 157862 Apr 16, 2009;
BPI v. Sps. Yu GR 184122 Jan 20, 201;
Eland Phil v Garcia GR 173289 Feb 17, 2010
F: Complaint for quieting of title. Technical description of land similar to land being claimed by the plaintiffs. Court admitted complaint for quieting of title...Defendants first filed MTD but was denied, CA, denied.
Took JN of documents in another case but before same court...alleged proof of clear right over land...
Allegations of petitioners:
-on due process: service of motion was served on very day the motion was to be heard
-on motion for summary judgment: should not cover cases for quieting of title, technically money judgment
...not tenable:
-on due process: hearing was reset to ten days after, so substantially complied w/ the hearing notice requirement
..they had opportunity to be heard
-propriety of summary judgment: any action except nullity of marriage or legal sep which require hearing on the matter
SEC 1: include declaratory relief - which includes quieting of title
Partial summary judgment
*court can render partial summary of judgment; as to the other issues, the court could actually hold trial for the controverted facts
Monterey Foods Corp v. Eserjose 410 SCRA 627;
-did not actually illustrate partial summary judgment - this is actually complete summary judgment
-summary judgment granted because of the admission of the defendants in their answer as to the claim of the plaintiff...
-as to the counterclaim: the defendant had a bigger claim against the plaintiff! The plaintiff asked for a summary judgment on the smaller claim - which was granted
H:
*as to the counterclaim: only permissive because it arose from a different contract
*no error in granting summary judgment; no genuine issue as to the smaller claim because it was admitted
*as to the other damages: still threshed out in the trial court
*as to the nonservice of the written motion to the respondents counsel: counsel of respondent attended the meeting so constructive notice
*cannot appeal prematurely partial summary judgment - should wait for the rest of the case to be adjudged, or else may be deemed as forum shopping!
*usually, TC do not give generous amounts of damages...so once you have claimed smprincipal amount claimed, can already have it partially executed!
*if grave abuse in summary judgment: may file for certiorari, but may be accused of forum shopping because you would still have a chance to question the judgment of the whole case...
Asian Construction v. PCI Bank, GR No. 153827, Aug 25, 2006;
Jose Feliciano Loy v. SMC GR 164886 Nov 24, 2009
F: Petitioners filed complaint w/ preliminary attachment. Petitioners alleged they were counsels in CBA, presented that they had entered agreement regarding attorney's fees in the CBA. Court issued an order to attach all properties of the union. Set case for pretrial. Summary judgment prayed due to admission that the counsels did render services. RTC for counsels; CA reversed, saying that the reasonableness of the percentage is still in question (quantum meruit)
H: not proper for summary judgment
Not applicable – Carlos v. Sandoval GR 179922 Dec 16, 2008
F: Carlos filed petitioner for nullity of marriage. Marriage license required was not issued. Summary judgment ifo plaintff...
H: not proper for summary judgment...
Rule 36 Judgments, Final Orders and Entry Thereof
*all kinds of judgments!
Form of judgment – Velarde v. SJS GR 159357 Apr 28, 2004
F: Petitioners filed for a petition for declaratory relief...to declare whether acts were constitutional or not
TC entered decision. But no statement of facts...
H: Court discussed here the parts of a judgment
Sec. 1: judgment
-in writing
-contain facts and laws upon which judgment was based
WHY: safeguard for the parties to say that there was legal basis...so they can properly appeal
*Are RTC judges allowed to do minute resolutions? NO. It is a trier of fact
"they lacked divine guidance when they made the resolution"
Several and separate judgments -
Several judgments - liabilities clearly severable
Separate judgments - separate claims by parties; can make it appealable until last separate judgment
Miranda v. CA 71 SCRA 295;
F: 1st: estate matters
-some of the heirs had the property...distributed among heirs
So 1st judgment ordered delivery of all properties + accounting
H: court said that although the CFI judge declared that these properties belong to the estate...appeal cannot be taken until judgment rendered...
2nd decision: excluded from the estate certain properties
WON the judge can render such altered decision?
H: NO. There was already a first judgment...which was already final - cannot be amended! Even if the case was remanded, the new judge cannot amend the older judgment but only needs to implement the decision!
What kind of amendments can still be entertained:
De Leon v. CA GR 138884 June 6, 2002;
Republic v. Nolasco 457 SCRA 400
F: Involved flood control project...one of the bidders were ...Nollasco who was a journalist allegedly received confidential info showing that the project would more likely be given to Daewoo, allegedly prejudicial to interest of government. Nolasco filed petition for preliminary injunction. MTD filed. Granted, only SC can issue it. Nolasco filed MR, during which he was able to present some of his witnesses. Moved for a partial judgment to be rendered + dismissal of the MTD. Judge issued a pre-order, which, in the dispositive portion, dismissed MR but the body contained statements saying DPWH should seriously consider giving bid to China Int'l. OSG sought to nullify the judgment. Body is not favorable to Republic, even if Dispositive portion is.
H: when the body and fallo inconsistent, fallo should control. The body, in this case, is void.
-discuss about separate judgments: in the petition, he was asking for 2 reliefs: (1) not to grant project to Daewoo; (2) disqualify Daewoo. So separate reliefs in separate judgment...so pwede..
-when Nolasco prayed for partial judgment, only Nolasco was able to present evidence...contrary to R36 because no determination of material issues to a claim
*take note that the date of finality is the date of entry! Important for purposes of execution!
Dispositive portion – Obra v. Badua et al GR 149125 Aug 9, 2007
Rule 37 New Trial or Reconsideration
2 matters:
*MFR - filed insofar as judgments and final orders concerned...
-filed w/n 15 days
-pro forma MR: should point out the parts of that judgment you are contesting. And not copy what you said in your earlier pleadings!
Second MR not allowed – Sps Balanoba v. Madriaga GR 160109 Nov 22, 2005
H: What is proscribed as a second MFR is that of a final order or judgment
Not execute a favorable judgment ifo of respondent
*for INTERLOCUTORY ORDER: not appealable, so not apply 15 day period
-who knows, maybe you'll file Certiorari...60 days...
-can you file a second MR: theoretically, yes. Not appealable. No prohibition for second MR.
-another exception for 2nd MR: SC
-there is already a case mentioning it, but merely obiter!
-but most of the time, it is urgent! So should not make use of the 60 days...
*grounds: actually, anything that you find wrong with the decision
Requisities of MNT – FAME + newly discovered evidence
Bernaldez v. Francia, 398 SCRA 488;
F: allegedly newly discovered title was a title. WHY: they became curious. Later on shown that TCT was not even the same number...
H: So not newly discovered evidence if it was just lying there...
*if granted: Judgment vacated...but evidence presented earlier need not be retaken as long as they are still material
Capuz v. CA 233 SCRA 471
Intrinsic fraud v. extrinsic fraud – Libudan v. Gil 45 SCRA 17
Period to file – Delos Santos v. Elizalde Feb 2, 2007
Rule 38 Relief from Judgments, Orders, or Other Proceedings
*another post judgment remedy
*initiatory pleading: CNFS should be attached, not filing fees (continuation of the case)
*there are also petition for relief from denial of appeal
Propriety of relief from judgment – Spouses Que v. CA GR 150739 Aug 18, 2005; Monzon v. Sps Relova GR 171827 Sep 17, 2008
Petition for relief before the MTC - Sps Mesina v. Meer GR 146845 Jul 2, 2002
H: Petition for relief not available in appellate courts
Excusable negligence - Land Bank v. Natividad 458 SCRA 441; Gomez v. Montalban GR 174414 Mar 14, 2008
-occurrences which would have been guarded against...
-LandBank: Counsel failed to attach notice of hearing...just scanned it and signed it
Gomez: No excusable negligence. Even if summons not served to the respondent herself, the fact that she was able to appeal and file a motion for relief from judgment shows that they were indeed aware...
*can only file a petition for relief if you lost a relief already...
CA – Redena v. CA Feb 6, 2007
Who may file – De La Cruz v. Quiazon GR 171961 Nov 28, 2008
Can a nonparty file? NO. Only the parties!
QUIZ: 2 hours
Only up to R38
No comments:
Post a Comment