remedial-final-cases.docx

8/11/2019 remedial-final-cases.docx

1/114

JUDGMENT

Judgments; To frustrate the winning partys right through dilatory schemes is to frustrate all the efforts,

time and expenditure of the courts, which thereby increases the costs of litigation; All courts are by oath

bound to guard against any scheme calculated to bring about the frustration of the winning partys right,

and to stop any attempt to prolong controversies already resolved with finality.Under the

circumstances, the principle of immutability of a final judgment must now be absolutely and

unconditionally applied against the respondents. They could not anymore be permitted to interminably

forestall the execution of the judgment through their interposition of new petitions or pleadings. Even

as their right to initiate an action in court ought to be fully respected, their commencing SCA Case No.

01-11522 in the hope of securing a favorable ruling despite their case having been already fully and

finally adjudicated should not be tolerated. Their move should not frustrate the enforcement of the

judgment, the fruit and the end of the suit itself. Their right as the losing parties to appeal within the

prescribed period could not defeat the correlative right of the winning party to enjoy at last the finality

of the resolution of her case through execution and satisfaction of the judgment, which would be the life

of the law. To frustrate the winning partys right through dilatory schemes is to frustrate all the efforts,

time and expenditure of the courts, which thereby increases

557

VOL. 655, AUGUST 17, 2011

557

Pahila-Garrido vs. Tortogo

the costs of litigation. The interest of justice undeniably demanded that we should immediately write

finis to the litigation, for all courts are by oath bound to guard against any scheme calculated to bring

about the frustration of the winning partys right, and to stop any attempt to prolong controversies

already resolved with finality. [Pahila-Garrido vs. Tortogo, 655 SCRA 553(2011)]

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Res Judicata; Minute Resolutions; A minute resolution, while not a

precedent relative to strangers to an action, nonetheless binds the parties therein, and calls for res

judicatas application.In Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc., 375 SCRA 390 (2002), we declared that aminute resolution may amountto a final action on the case but it is not a precedent. However, we

continued to state that it can not bind non-parties to the action. Corollary thereto, we can conclude

that a minute resolution, while not a precedent relative to strangers to an action, nonetheless binds the

parties therein, and calls for res judicatas application. Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. v.

Valderama, 644 SCRA 299 (2011), is instructive anent the effects of the issuance of a minute resolution,

viz.: It is true that, although contained in a minute resolution, our dismissal of the petition was a

disposition of the merits of the case. When we dismissed the petition, we effectively affirmed the CA


2/114

ruling being questioned. As a result, our ruling in that case has already become final. x x x. With respect

to the same subject matter and the same issues concerning the same parties, it constitutes res judicata.

However, if other parties or another subject matter (even with the same parties and issues) is involved,

the minute resolution is not binding precedent. x x x. (Underlining ours) It is therefore clear from the

above that for purposes of the application of res judicata, minute resolutions issued by this Court are as

much precedents as promulgated decisions, hence, binding upon the parties to the action.

Same; Same; Same; Elements of Res Judicata.In Heirs of Maximino Derla v. Heirs of Catalina Derla Vda.

de Hipolito, 648 SCRA 638 (2011), we enumerated the following as the elements of res judicata: a) The

former judgment or order must be final; b) It must be a judgment or order on the merits, that is, it was

rendered after a consideration of the evidence or stipulations submitted by the

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

524

524

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philippine National Bank vs. Lim

parties at the trial of the case; c) It must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the

subject matter and the parties; and d) There must be, between the first and second actions, identity of

parties, of subject matter and of cause of action. This requisite is satisfied if the two (2) actions aresubstantially between the same parties. [Philippine National Bank vs. Lim, 689 SCRA 523(2013)]

Same; Actions; Parties; Indispensable Parties; Definition of Indispensable Parties.Section 7, Rule 3 ofthe Revised Rules of Court defines indispensable parties as parties-in-interest without whom there can

be no final determination of an action and who, for this reason, must be joined either as plaintiffs or as

defendants. Jurisprudence further holds that a party is indispensable, not only if he has an interest in

the subject matter of the controversy, but also if his interest is such that a final decree cannot be made

without affecting this interest or without placing the controversy in a situation where the final

determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience. He is a person whose


3/114

absence disallows the court from making an effective, complete, or equitable determination of the

controversy between or among the contending parties.

Same; Same; Same; Same; The right of a co-owner to file a suit without impleading other co-owners

upheld in several cases.We upheld in several cases the right of a co-owner to file a suit without

impleading other co-owners, pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Code. We made this ruling in Vencilao,

where the amended complaint for forcible entry and detainer specified that the plaintiff is one of the

heirs who co-owns the disputed properties. In Sering, and Resuena v. Court of Appeals, 454 SCRA 42

(2005) the co-owners who filed the ejectment case did not represent themselves as the exclusive

owners of the property. In Celino v. Heirs of Alejo and Teresa Santiago, 435 SCRA 690 (2004) the

complaint for quieting of title was brought in behalf of the co-owners precisely to recover lots owned in

common. In Plasabas, the plaintiffs alleged in their complaint for recovery of title to property (accion

reivindicatoria) that they are the sole owners of the property in litigation, but acknowledged during the

trial that the property is co-owned with other parties, and the plaintiffs have been authorized by the co-

owners to pursue the case on the latters behalf.

234

234


Marmo vs. Anacay

Same; Same; Same; Where the suit is brought by a co-owner without repudiating the co-ownership,

then the suit is presumed to be filed for the benefit of the other co-owners and may proceed without

impleading the other co-owners.We read these cases to collectively mean that where the suit isbrought by a co-owner, without repudiating the co-ownership, then the suit is presumed to be filed for

the benefit of the other co-owners and may proceed without impleading the other co-owners. However,

where the co-owner repudiates the co-ownership by claiming sole ownership of the property or where

the suit is brought against a co-owner, his co-owners are indispensable parties and must be impleaded

as party-defendants, as the suit affects the rights and interests of these other co-owners.

Same; Same; Same; In Carandang v. Heirs of De Guzman, 508 SCRA 469 (2006), the co-owners are not

even necessary parties for a complete relief can be accorded in the suit even without their participation

since the suit is presumed to be filed for the benefit of all.Respondents children, as co-owners of the

subject property, are not indispensable parties to the resolution of the case. We held in Carandang v.

Heirs of De Guzman, 508 SCRA 469 (2006), that in cases like this, the co-owners are not even necessaryparties, for a complete relief can be accorded in the suit even without their participation, since the suit

is presumed to be filed for the benefit of all. Thus, the respondents children need not be impleaded as

party-plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 2919-03. [Marmo vs. Anacay, 606 SCRA 232(2009)]


4/114

Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Certiorari; Interlocutory Orders; It is a settled rule that orders

granting execution are interlocutory orders; hence, the petitioners should have filed a petition for

certiorari under Rule 65.The petition filed in this case is one for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of

the Rules of Court. Petitions filed under this rule bring up for review errors of judgment. It is an ordinary

appeal and the petition must only raise questions of law which must be distinctly set forth and

discussed. The present petition, however, assails the RTC order of execution dated December 21, 2009

and alias writ of execution dated May 17, 2010. It is a settled rule that orders granting execution are

interlocutory orders; hence, the petitioners should have filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

Same; Same; Same; Appeals; The Supreme Court, in the interest of equity or when justice demands, may

interchangeably treat an appeal as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court,

and vice versa.In Shugo Noda & Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 231 SCRA 620 (1994), the Court

acknowledged that, in the past, it considered an appeal to be a proper remedy when it is perceived that

the order varies, or may not be in consonance with, the essence of the judgment. In such case,considerations of justice and equity dictate that there be some remedy available to the aggrieved party.

Likewise, the Court, in the interest of equity or when justice demands, may interchangeably treat an

appeal as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, and vice versa.

Same; Civil Procedure; Execution of Judgment; Writs of Execution; Once a judgment becomes final and

executory, all that remains is the execution of the decision which is a matter of right. The prevailing

party is entitled to a writ of execution, the issuance of which is the

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

690

690


Golez vs. Navarro

trial courts ministerial duty.As a rule, once a judgment becomes final and executory, all that remains

is the execution of the decision which is a matter of right. The prevailing party is entitled to a writ of

execution, the issuance of which is the trial courts ministerial duty. The writ of execution, however,

must conform substantially to every essential particular of the judgment promulgated. It must conform,

more particularly, to that ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion of the decision.


5/114

Same; Same; Same; An order of execution which varies the tenor of the judgment, or for that matter,

exceeds the terms thereof is a nullity.Clearly, the RTC exceeded its authority when it insisted on

applying its own construal of the dispositive portion of the CA Decision when its terms are explicit and

need no further interpretation. It would also be inequitable for the petitioners to pay and for the

respondents, who did not appeal the CA decision or questioned the deletion of the 12% per annum

interest, to receive more than what was awarded by the CA. The assailed RTC order of execution dated

December 21, 2009 and the alias writ of execution dated May 17, 2010 are, therefore, void. Time and

again, it has been ruled that an order of execution which varies the tenor of the judgment, or for that

matter, exceeds the terms thereof is a nullity. [Golez vs. Navarro, 689 SCRA 689(2013)]

Remedial Law; Appeals; Certiorari; Motion to Dismiss; The denial of a motion to dismiss, as an

interlocutory order, cannot be the subject of an appeal until a final judgment or order is rendered in the

main case. An aggrieved party, however, may assail an interlocutory order through a petition for

certiorari.The denial of a motion to dismiss, as an interlocutory order, cannot be the subject of an

appeal until a final judgment or order is rendered in the main case. An aggrieved party, however, may

assail an interlocutory order through a petition for certiorari but only when it is shown that the court

acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

706

706


Lim vs. Court of Appeals, Mindanao Station

Same; Civil Procedure; Certification Against Forum Shopping; Verification; In PNCC Skyway Traffic

Management and Security Division Workers Organization (PSTMSDWO) v. PNCC Skyway Corporation,

613 SCRA 28 (2010), the Supreme Court considered the subsequent execution of a board resolution

authorizing the Union President to represent the union in a petition filed against PNCC Skyway

Corporation as an act of ratification by the union that cured the defect in the petitions verification and

certification against forum shopping.In PNCC Skyway Traffic Management and Security Division

Workers Organization (PSTMSDWO) v. PNCC Skyway Corporation, 613 SCRA 28 (2010), we considered


6/114

the subsequent execution of a board resolution authorizing the Union President to represent the union

in a petition filed against PNCC Skyway Corporation as an act of ratification by the union that cured the

defect in the petitions verification and certification against forum shopping. We held that assuming

that Mr. Soriano (PSTMSDWOs President) has no authority to file the petition on February 27, 2006, the

passing on June 30, 2006 of a Board Resolution authorizing him to represent the union is deemed a

ratification of his prior execution, on February 27, 2006, of the verification and certificate of non-forum

shopping, thus curing any defects thereof.

Same; Same; Same; Same; The requirements of verification and certification against forum shopping are

not jurisdictional.In any case, it is settled that the requirements of verification and certification against

forum shopping are not jurisdictional. Verification is required to secure an assurance that the allegations

in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct, and not merely speculative. Non-

compliance with the verification requirement does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective,

and is substantially complied with when signed by one who has ample knowledge of the truth of the

allegations in the complaint or petition, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in

good faith or are true and correct. On the other hand, the certification against forum shopping is

required based on the principle that a party-litigant should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous

remedies in different fora. While the certification requirement is obligatory, non-compliance or a defectin the certificate could be cured by its subsequent correction or submission under special circumstances

or compelling reasons, or on the ground of substantial compliance. *Lim vs. Court of Appeals,

Mindanao Station, 689 SCRA 705(2013)]

Courts; Judgments; Dispositive Portions; It is basic that when there is a conflict between the dispositive

portion or fallo of a Decision and the opinion of the court contained in the text or body of the judgment,

the former prevails over the latterthe fallo is the final order while the opinion in the body is merely a

statement ordering nothing.The Armovit Law Firm did not file a Motion for Reconsideration of the

Decision in G.R. No. 90983 to protest the exclusion in the dispositive portion of several items it

specifically prayed for in its pleadings. The Decision thus became final and executory on December 17,1991. The Armovit Law Firm cannot now ask the trial court, or this Court, to execute the Decision in G.R.

No. 90983 as if these items prayed for were actually granted. The Armovit Law Firm, in

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.


7/114

555

VOL. 658, OCTOBER 5, 2011

555

The Law Firm of Raymundo A. Armovit vs. Court of Appeals

insisting on its claim, pins its entire case on the statement in the body of the Decision that we do not

find Atty. Armovits claim for twenty percent of all recoveries to be unreasonable. In this regard, our

ruling in Grageda v. Gomez, 533 SCRA 677 (2007), is enlightening: It is basic that when there is a conflict

between the dispositive portion or fallo of a Decision and the opinion of the court contained in the text

or body of the judgment, the former prevails over the latter. An order of execution is based on the

disposition, not on the body, of the Decision. This rule rests on the theory that the fallo is the final order

while the opinion in the body is merely a statement ordering nothing. Indeed, the foregoing rule is not

without an exception. We have held that where the inevitable conclusion from the body of the decision

is so clear as to show that there was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision will

prevail. x x x.

Same; Same; Same; The confusion created in the case at bar shows yet another reason why mere

pronouncements in bodies of Decisions may not be the subject of executionrandom statements can

easily be taken out of context and are susceptible to different interpretations.The confusion created

in the case at bar shows yet another reason why mere pronouncements in bodies of Decisions may not

be the subject of execution: random statements can easily be taken out of context and are susceptible

to different interpretations. When not enshrined in a clear and definite order, random statements in

bodies of Decisions can still be the subject of another legal debate, which is inappropriate and should

not be allowed in the execution stage of litigation. [The Law Firm of Raymundo A. Armovit vs. Court ofAppeals, 658 SCRA 554(2011)]

Remedial Law; Actions; Compromise Agreements; A compromise agreement that has been made and

duly approved by the court

_______________


8/114

** Additional member per Special Order No. 658.

*** Additional member per Special Order No. 635.

**** Additional member per Special Order No. 664.

* THIRD DIVISION.

789

VOL. 594, JULY 31, 2009

789

Raola vs. Raola

attains the effect and authority of res judicata, although no execution may be issued unless the

agreement receives the approval of the court where the litigation is pending and compliance with the

terms of the agreement is decreed.A compromise agreement intended to resolve a matter already

under litigation is a judicial compromise. Having judicial mandate and entered as its determination of

the controversy, such judicial compromise has the force and effect of a judgment. It transcends its

identity as a mere contract between the parties, as it becomes a judgment that is subject to execution in

accordance with the Rules of Court. Thus, a compromise agreement that has been made and duly

approved by the court attains the effect and authority of res judicata, although no execution may be

issued unless the agreement receives the approval of the court where the litigation is pending andcompliance with the terms of the agreement is decreed. [Raola vs. Raola, 594 SCRA 788(2009)]

Civil Law; Compromise Agreements; A Compromise Agreement intended to resolve a matter already

under litigation is a judicial compromise.A compromise agreement intended to resolve a matter

already under litigation is a judicial

_______________


9/114

* FIRST DIVISION.

1

2

2


Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Orient Commercial Banking Corporation

compromise. Having judicial mandate and entered as its determination of the controversy, such judicial

compromise has the force and effect of a judgment. It transcends its identity as a mere contract

between the parties, as it becomes a judgment that is subject to execution in accordance with the Rules

of Court.

Procedural Rules and Technicalities; Moot and Academic; A moot and academic case is one that ceases

to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would

be of no practical value.With the final settlement of the claims of petitioner against herein

respondents, the issues raised in the present petition regarding the propriety of the issuance of writ of

attachment by the trial court and the grave abuse of discretion allegedly committed by the appellate

court in reversing the orders of the trial court, have now become moot and academic. A moot and

academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so

that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. In such cases, there is no actualsubstantial relief to which petitioner would be entitled to and which would be negated by the dismissal

of the petition. [Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Orient Commercial Banking Corporation, 653 SCRA

1(2011)]

Civil Procedure; Pleadings and Practice; Attorneys; As a general rule, a client is bound by the acts of his

counsel, including even the latters mistakes and negligence. But where such mistake or neglect would

result in serious injustice to the client, a departure from this rule is warranted.It is true that

petitioners failure to file their motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period rendered the


10/114

CA Decision dated May 30, 2002 final and executory. For all intents and purposes, said Decision should

now be immutable and unalterable; however, the Court relaxes this rule in order to serve substantial

justice considering (a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property, (b) the existence of special or

compelling circumstances, (c) the merits of the case, (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or

negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules, (e) a lack of any showing that the review

sought is merely frivolous and dilatory, and (f) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.

The explanation of petitioners counsel for the delayed filing of the motion for reconsideration was that

their law firm secretary failed to inform the court of their change of address. This, of course, is not a

valid excuse. As a general rule, a client is bound by the acts of his counsel, including even the latters

mistakes and negligence. But where such mistake or neglect would result in serious injustice to the

client, a departure from this rule is warranted. To cling to the general rule is to condone rather than

rectify a serious injustice to petitioners whose only fault was to repose his faith and entrust his

innocence to his lawyer.

Same; Same; Courts; The Court has the power to except a particular case from the operation of the rule

whenever the purposes of justice requires it because what should guide judicial action is that a party is

given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his action or defense rather than for him to lose

life, honor, or property on mere technicalities.The Court has the power to except a particular casefrom the operation of the rule whenever the purposes of justice requires it because what should guide

judicial action is that a party is given the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of his

92

92


Meneses vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform

action or defense rather than for him to lose life, honor, or property on mere technicalities.

Judgments; Pleadings and Practice; A judgment on the pleadings may be sought only by a claimant, who

is the party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim or cross-claim; or to obtain a declaratory

relief.Rule 34, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, provides that a judgment on the pleadings is proper

when an answer fails to render an issue or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse

partys pleading. The essential question is whether there are issues generated by the pleadings. A

judgment on the pleadings may be sought only by a claimant, who is the party seeking to recover upon a

claim, counterclaim or cross-claim; or to obtain a declaratory relief.

Same; Just Compensation; In computing the just compensation for expropriation proceedings, it is the

value of the land at the time of the taking [or October 21, 1972, the effectivity date of P.D. No. 27], not

at the time of the rendition of judgment, which should be taken into consideration.Respondent

correctly cited the case of Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines, 444 SCRA 176 (2004), where the

Court ruled that in computing the just compensation for expropriation proceedings, it is the value of


11/114

the land at the time of the taking [or October 21, 1972, the effectivity date of P.D. No. 27], not at the

time of the rendition of judgment, which should be taken into consideration.

Same; Same; The seizure of the landholding did not take place on the date of effectivity of P.D. No. 27

but would take effect on the payment of just compensation.It should also be pointed out, however,

that in the more recent case of Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Natividad, 458 SCRA 441 (2005), the

Court categorically ruled: the seizure of the landholding did not take place on the date of effectivity of

P.D. No. 27 but would take effect on the payment of just compensation. Under Section 17 of R.A. No.

6657, the following factors are considered in determining just compensation, to wit: Sec.17.

Determination of Just Compensation.In determining just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the

land, the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the

owner, the tax declarations, and the assessment made by government assessors shall be considered.

The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farm-workers and by the

Government to the property as well as the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any government

financing institution on the said land shall be considered as additional factors to determine its valuation.

93

VOL. 505, OCTOBER 23, 2006

93

Meneses vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform

Same; Same; Events have rendered the applicability of P.D. No. 27 inequitable. Thus, the provisions of

R.A. No. 6657 should apply in this case.As previously noted, the property was expropriated under the

Operation Land Transfer scheme of P.D. No. 27 way back in 1972. More than 30 years have passed andpetitioners are yet to benefit from it, while the farmer-beneficiaries have already been harvesting its

produce for the longest time. Events have rendered the applicability of P.D. No. 27 inequitable. Thus,

the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 should apply in this case. [Meneses vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 505

SCRA 90(2006)]


12/114

Family Code; Marriages; Summary Judgments; Both the rules on judgment on the pleadings and

summary judgments have no place in cases of declaration of absolute nullity of marriage and even in

annulment of marriage.But whether it is based on judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment,

the CA was correct in reversing the summary judgment rendered by the trial court. Both the rules on

judgment on the pleadings and summary judgments have no place in cases of declaration of absolute

nullity of marriage and even in annulment of marriage.

Same; Same; Declaration of Nullity of Marriages; Parties; Section 2(a) of the Rule on Declaration of

Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages makes it the sole right of the

husband or the wife to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage.Under the

Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, the

petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may not be filed by any party outside of the

marriage. The Rule made it exclusively a right of the spouses by stating: SEC. 2. Petition for declaration

of absolute nullity of void marriages.(a) Who may file.A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of

void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife. Section 2(a) of the Rule makes it the sole

right of the husband or the wife to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Compulsory or intestate heirs can still question the validity of the marriage ofthe spouses, not in a proceeding for declaration of nullity but upon the death of a spouse in a

proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts.While

A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC declares that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may be filed

solely by the husband or the wife, it does not mean that the compulsory or intestate heirs are without

any recourse under the law. They can still protect their successional right, for, as stated in the Rationale

of the Rules on Annulment of Voidable Marriages and Declaration

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

117

VOL. 574, December 16, 2008

117

Carlos vs. Sandoval

of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages, compulsory or intestate heirs can still question the validity of the

marriage of the spouses, not in a proceeding for declaration of nullity but upon the death of a spouse in

a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts.

Same; Same; Same; Same; A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply to cases already commenced before

March 15, 2003 although the marriage involved is within the coverage of the Family Code.It is


13/114

emphasized, however, that the Rule does not apply to cases already commenced before March 15, 2003

although the marriage involved is within the coverage of the Family Code. This is so, as the new Rule

which became effective on March 15, 2003 is prospective in its application. Thus, the Court held in

Enrico v. Heirs of Sps. Medinaceli, viz.: As has been emphasized, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC covers marriages

under the Family Code of the Philippines, and is prospective in its application.

Same; Same; Same; Same; The absence of a provision in the Civil Code cannot be construed as a license

for any person to institute a nullity of marriage case; Plaintiff must be the real party-in-interest.The

marriage having been solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, the applicable law is the

Civil Code which was the law in effect at the time of its celebration. But the Civil Code is silent as to who

may bring an action to declare the marriage void. Does this mean that any person can bring an action for

the declaration of nullity of marriage? We respond in the negative. The absence of a provision in the

Civil Code cannot be construed as a license for any person to institute a nullity of marriage case. Such

person must appear to be the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit,

or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Elsewise stated, plaintiff must be the real party-in-interest.

For it is basic in procedural law that every action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the

real party-in-interest.

Civil Law; Property; Succession; The presence of legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted child or children of

the deceased precludes succession by collateral relatives.Only the presence of descendants,

ascendants or illegitimate children excludes collateral relatives from succeeding to the estate of the

decedent. The presence of legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted child or children of the deceased

precludes succession by collateral relatives. Conversely, if there are no descendants, ascendants,

illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, the collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of

the decedent. [Carlos vs. Sandoval, 574 SCRA 116(2008)]


14/114

Actions; Summary Judgments; Words and Phrases; A summary judgment, or accelerated judgment, is a

procedural technique to promptly dispose of cases where the facts appear undisputed and certain from

the pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits on record, or for weeding out sham claims or

defenses at an early stage of the litigation to avoid the expense and loss of time involved in a trial.A

summary judgment, or accelerated judgment, is a procedural technique to promptly dispose of cases

where the facts appear undisputed and certain from the pleadings, depositions, admissions and

affidavits on record, or for weeding out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of the litigation to

avoid the expense and loss of time involved in a trial. When the pleadings on file show that there are no

genuine issues of fact to be tried, the Rules allow a party to obtain immediate relief by way of summary

judgment, that is, when the facts are not in dispute, the court is allowed to decide the case summarily

by applying the law to the material facts.

Same; Same; Same; Partial Summary Judgments; The Rules provide for a partial summary judgment as a

means to simplify the trial process by allowing the court to focus the trial only on the assailed facts,

considering as established those facts which are not in dispute; The partial summary judgment is more

akin to a record of pre-trial, an interlocutory order, rather than a final judgment.The

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

636

636


Philippine Business Bank vs. Chua

rendition by the court of a summary judgment does not always result in the full adjudication of all the

issues raised in a case. For these instances, Section 4, Rule 35 of the Rules provides: Section 4. Case not

fully adjudicated on motion.If on motion under this Rule, judgment is not rendered upon the whole

case or for all the reliefs sought and a trial is necessary, the court at the hearing of the motion, by

examining the pleadings and the evidence before it and by interrogating counsel shall ascertain what

material facts exist without substantial controversy and what are actually and in good faith

controverted. It shall thereupon make an order specifying the facts that appear without substantialcontroversy, including the extent to which the amount of damages or other relief is not in controversy,

and directing such further proceedings in the action as are just. The facts so specified shall be deemed

established, and the trial shall be conducted on the controverted facts accordingly. This is what is

referred to as a partial summary judgment. A careful reading of this section reveals that a partial

summary judgment was never intended to be considered a final judgment, as it does not *put+ an

end to an action at law by declaring that the plaintiff either has or has not entitled himself to recover

the remedy he sues for. The Rules provide for a partial summary judgment as a means to simplify the


15/114

trial process by allowing the court to focus the trial only on the assailed facts, considering as established

those facts which are not in dispute. After this sifting process, the court is instructed to issue an order,

the partial summary judgment, which specifies the disputed facts that have to be settled in the course of

trial. In this way, the partial summary judgment is more akin to a record of pre-trial, an interlocutory

order, rather than a final judgment.

Same; Same; Same; Final Judgment, and Interlocutory Order, Distinguished.The differences

between a final judgment and an interlocutory order are well-established. We said in Denso (Phils.)

Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 148 SCRA 280 (1987), that: [A] final judgment or order is one that

finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in respect thereto, e.g., an

adjudication on the merits which, on the basis of the evidence presented at the trial, declares

categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties are and which party is in the right; or a

judgment or order that dismisses an action on the ground, for instance, of res judicata or prescription.

Once rendered, the task of

637

VOL. 634, NOVEMBER 15, 2010

637


the Court is ended, as far as deciding the controversy or determining the rights and liabilities of the

litigants is concerned. Nothing more remains to be done by the Court except to await the parties next

move . . . and ultimately, of course, to cause the execution of the judgment once it becomes final or,

to use the established and more distinctive term, final and executory. xx x x Conversely, an order thatdoes not finally dispose of the case, and does not end the Courts task of adjudicating the parties

contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other, but obviously indicates

that other things remain to be done by the Court, is interlocutory, e.g., an order denying a motion to

dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules x x x Unlike a final judgment or order, which is appealable, as above

pointed out, an interlocutory order may not be questioned on appeal except only as part of an appeal

that may eventually be taken from the final judgment rendered in the case.

Same; Same; There can be no doubt that the partial summary judgment envisioned by the Rules is an

interlocutory order that was never meant to be treated separately from the main case.Bearing in mind

these differences, there can be no doubt that the partial summary judgment envisioned by the Rules is

an interlocutory order that was never meant to be treated separately from the main case. As weexplained in Guevarra v. Court of Appeals, 124 SCRA 297 (1983): It will be noted that the judgment in

question is a partial summary judgment. It was rendered only with respect to the private respondents

first and second causes of action alleged in their complaint. It was not intended to cover the other

prayers in the said complaint, nor the supplementary counterclaim filed by the petitioners against the

private respondents, nor the third-party complaint filed by the petitioners against the Security Bank and

Trust Company. A partial summary judgment is not a final or appealable judgment. (Moran, Vol. 2,

1970 Edition, p. 189, citing several cases.) It is merely a pre-trial adjudication that said issues in the case


16/114

shall be deemed established for the trial of the case. (Francisco, Rules of Court, Vol. II, p. 429.) x x x x

The partial summary judgment rendered by the trial court being merely interlocutory and not a final

judgment, it is puerile to discuss whether the same became final and executory due to the alleged

failure to appeal said judgment within the supposed period of appeal. What the rules contemplate is

that the appeal from the partial summary judgment shall be taken

638

638



together with the judgment that may be rendered in the entire case after a trial is conducted on the

material facts on which a substantial controversy exists. This is on the assumption that the partial

summary judgment was validly rendered, which, as shown above, is not true in the case at bar.

Same; Same; Appeals; The propriety of the summary judgment may be corrected only on appeal or

other direct review, not a petition for certiorari, since it imputes error on the lower courts judgment.

Contrary to PBBs contention, however, certiorari was not the proper recourse for respondent Chua. The

propriety of the summary judgment may be corrected only on appeal or other direct review, not a

petition for certiorari, since it imputes error on the lower courts judgment. It is well-settled that

certiorari is not available to correct errors of procedure or mistakes in the judges findings and

conclusions of law and fact. As we explained in Apostol v. Court of Appeals, 569 SCRA 80 (2008): As a

legal recourse, the special civil action of certiorari is a limited form of review. The jurisdiction of this

Court is narrow in scope; it is restricted to resolving errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment.Indeed, as long as the courts below act within their jurisdiction, alleged errors committed in the exercise

of their discretion will amount to mere errors of judgment correctable by an appeal or a petition for

review.

Appeals; Pleadings and Practice; Due Process; It is well-settled that no question will be entertained on

appeal unless it has been raised in the proceedings belowbasic considerations of due process impel

the adoption of this rule.As a final point, we note that respondent Chua has raised with this Court the

issue of the propriety of the partial summary judgment issued by the RTC. Notably, respondent Chua

never raised this issue in his petition for certiorari before the CA. It is well-settled that no question will

be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the proceedings below. Basic considerations of due

process impel the adoption of this rule.

Same; Another recognized reason of the law in permitting appeal only from a final order or judgment,

and not from an interlocutory or incidental one, is to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a single action,

which must necessarily suspend the hearing and decision on the merits of the case during the pendency

of the appeal.Taking jurisdiction over this issue now would only result in multiple appeals

639


17/114

VOL. 634, NOVEMBER 15, 2010

639


from a single case which concerns the same, or integrated, causes of action. As we said in Santos v.

People: Another recognized reason of the law in permitting appeal only from a final order or judgment,

and not from an interlocutory or incidental one, is to avoid multiplicity of appeals in a single action,

which must necessarily suspend the hearing and decision on the merits of the case during the pendency

of the appeal. If such appeal were allowed, the trial on the merits of the case would necessarily be

delayed for a considerable length of time, and compel the adverse party to incur unnecessary expenses,

for one of the parties may interpose as many appeals as incidental questions may be raised by him, and

interlocutory orders rendered or issued by the lower court. [Philippine Business Bank vs. Chua, 634 SCRA

635(2010)]

Civil Procedure; Summary Judgments; A summary judgment is permitted only if there is no genuine issueas to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law; The test of the

propriety of rendering summary judgments is the existence of a genuine issue of fact as distinguished

from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim.A summary judgment is permitted only if there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact and [the] moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of

law. The test of the propriety of rendering summary judgments is the existence of a genuine issue of

fact, as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim. *A+ factual issue raised by a

party is considered as sham when by its nature it is evident that it cannot be proven or it is such that the

party tendering the same has neither any sincere intention nor adequate evidence to prove it. This

usually happens in denials made by defendants merely for the sake of having an issue and thereby

gaining delay, taking advantage of the fact that their answers are not under oath anyway.

Same; Same; Even if the pleadings on their face appear to raise issues, a summary judgment is proper so

long as the affidavits, depositions and admissions presented by the moving party show that such issues

are not genuine.In determining the genuineness of the issues, and hence the propriety of rendering a

summary judgment, the court is obliged to carefully study and appraise, not the tenor or

_______________


18/114

* FIRST DIVISION.

524

524


Calubaquib vs. Republic

contents of the pleadings, but the facts alleged under oath by the parties and/or their witnesses in the

affidavits that they submitted with the motion and the corresponding opposition. Thus, it is held that,

even if the pleadings on their face appear to raise issues, a summary judgment is proper so long as the

affidavits, depositions, and admissions presented by the moving party show that such issues are not

genuine.

Same; Same; The filing of a motion and the conduct of a hearing on the motion are therefore important;

The non-observance of the procedural requirements of filing a motion and conducting a hearing on the

said motion warrants the setting aside of the summary judgment.The filing of a motion and the

conduct of a hearing on the motion are therefore important because these enable the court to

determine if the parties pleadings, affidavits and exhibits in support of, or against, the motion are

sufficient to overcome the opposing papers and adequately justify the finding that, as a matter of law,

the claim is clearly meritorious or there is no defense to the action. The non-observance of the

procedural requirements of filing a motion and conducting a hearing on the said motion warrants the

setting aside of the summary judgment. [Calubaquib vs. Republic, 652 SCRA 523(2011)]

Actions; Summary Judgments; Words and Phrases; Summary or accelerated judgment is a procedural

technique aimed at weeding

_______________


19/114

* SECOND DIVISION.

193

VOL. 488, APRIL 25, 2006

193

Asian Construction and Development Corporation vs. Philippine Commercial International Bank

out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of litigation thereby avoiding the expense and loss of time

involved in a trial; The determinative factor in a motion for summary judgment, is the presence or

absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact.Under Rule 35 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure, as

amended, except as to the amount of damages, when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact

and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment may be allowed.

Summary or accelerated judgment is a procedural technique aimed at weeding out sham claims or

defenses at an early stage of litigation thereby avoiding the expense and loss of time involved in a trial.

Under the Rules, summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of fact which call

for the presentation of evidence in a full-blown trial. Even if on their face the pleadings appear to raise

issues, when the affida-vits, depositions and admissions show that such issues are not genuine, then

summary judgment as prescribed by the Rules must ensue as a matter of law. The determinative factor,

therefore, in a motion for summary judgment, is the presence or absence of a genuine issue as to any

material fact.

Same; Same; Same; A genuine issue is an issue of fact which requires the presentation of evidence as

distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim.A genuine issue is an issue of fact

which requires the presentation of evidence as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or falseclaim. When the facts as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed, then there is no real or genuine

issue or question as to the facts, and summary judgment is called for. The party who moves for

summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly the absence of any genuine issue of fact, or

that the issue posed in the complaint is patently unsubstantial so as not to constitute a genuine issue for

trial. Trial courts have limited authority to render summary judgments and may do so only when there is

clearly no genuine issue as to any material fact. When the facts as pleaded by the parties are disputed or

contested, proceedings for summary judgment cannot take the place of trial. [Asian Construction and

Development Corporation vs. Philippine Commercial International Bank, 488 SCRA 192(2006)]


20/114

Appeals; Pleadings and Practice; An issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.Petitioner

Pineda had ample opportunity to raise before the Court of Appeals the objection on the improper mode

of appeal taken by the heirs of Guevara. This, he failed to do. The issue of improper appeal was raised

only in Pinedas motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals Decision. Hence, this Court cannot

now, for the first time on appeal, pass upon this issue. For an issue cannot be raised for the first time on

appeal. In any case, the appeal by the heirs of Guevara also raised the issue regarding the existence of

laches on the part of petitioners as defendants, which is factual in nature as discussed below.

Motions to Dismiss; Laches; Elements; Evidence; Laches is evidentiary in nature which could not be

established by mere allegations in the pleadings and can not be resolved in a motion to dismiss.Well-

settled is the rule that the elements of laches must be proved positively. Laches is evidentiary in nature

which could not be established by mere allegations in the pleadings and can not be resolved in a motion

to dismiss. At this stage therefore, the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of laches is premature.

Those issues must be resolved at the trial of the case on the merits wherein both parties will be given

ample opportunity to prove their respective claims and defenses. The elements of laches are: (1)

conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation of

which the complaint seeks a remedy; (2) delay in asserting the complainants rights, the complainant

having had knowledge or notice of the defendants conduct as having been afforded an opportunity toinstitute a suit; (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would

assert the right in which he bases his suit; and (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

628

628


Pineda vs. Heirs of Eliseo Guevara

in the event relief is accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not held barred.

Same; Same; Same; While the language of par. (h) of Section 1, Rule 16, particularly on the relation ofthe words abandoned and otherwise extinguished to the phrase claim or demand deemed set forth

in the plaintiffs pleading is broad enough to include within its ambit the defense of bar by laches, when

a party moves for the dismissal of the complaint based on laches, the trial court must set a hearing on

the motion where the parties shall submit not only their arguments on the questions of law but also

their evidence on the questions of fact involved.In reversing the RTCs order of dismissal, the Court of

Appeals held that laches could not be a ground to dismiss the complaint as it is not enumerated under

Rule 16, Section 1. This is not entirely correct. Under paragraph (h) thereof, where a claim or demand


21/114

set forth in the plaintiffs pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished, the

same may be raised in a motion to dismiss. The language of the rule, particularly on the relation of the

words abandoned and otherwise extinguished to the phrase claim or demand deemed set forth in

the plaintiffs pleading is broad enough to include within its ambit the defense of bar by laches.

However, when a party moves for the dismissal of the complaint based on laches, the trial court must

set a hearing on the motion where the parties shall submit not only their arguments on the questions of

law but also their evidence on the questions of fact involved. Thus, being factual in nature, the elements

of laches must be proved or disproved through the presentation of evidence by the parties. As discussed

above, an apparent delay in the filing of a complaint as shown in a pleading does not automatically

warrant the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of laches.

Same; Same; Same; Prescription; An allegation of prescription can effectively be used in a motion to

dismiss only when the complaint on its face shows that indeed the action has already prescribed,

otherwise, the issue of prescription is one involving evidentiary matters requiring a full-blown trial on

the merits and cannot be determined in a mere motion to dismiss.Neither does the affirmative

defense of prescription alleged in an answer automatically warrant the dismissal of the complaint under

Rule 16. An allegation of prescription can effectively be used in a motion to dismiss only when the

complaint on its face shows that indeed the action has already pre-

629

VOL. 515, FEBRUARY 14, 2007

629

Pineda vs. Heirs of Eliseo Guevara

scribed. Otherwise, the issue of prescription is one involving evidentiary matters requiring a full-blown

trial on the merits and cannot be determined in a mere motion to dismiss. Pinedas theory that the

defense of laches should be treated as an affirmative defense of prescription warranting the dismissal of

the complaint is erroneous.

Same; Same; Summary Judgments; The trial court cannot motu proprio decide that summary judgment

on an action is in orderunder the applicable provisions of Rule 35, the defending party or the claimant,

as the case may be, must invoke the rule on summary judgment by filing a motion.There is also no

basis in procedural law to treat the RTCs order of dismissal as a summary judgment. The trial court

cannot motu proprio decide that summary judgment on an action is in order. Under the applicable

provisions of Rule 35, the defending party or the claimant, as the case may be, must invoke the rule onsummary judgment by filing a motion. The adverse party must be notified of the motion for summary

judgment and furnished with supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions before hearing is

conducted. More importantly, a summary judgment is permitted only if there is no genuine issue as to

any material fact and a moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. [Pineda vs. Heirs of

Eliseo Guevara, 515 SCRA 627(2007)]


22/114

Actions; Judgments; Summary Judgments; Words and Phrases; Summary Judgments and Judgments

on the Merits, Distinguished; A genuine issue means an issue of fact which calls for the presentation

of evidence, as distinguished from an issue which is fictitious or contrived or which does not constitute a

genuine issue for trial.In Tan v. De la Vega, 484 SCRA 538 (2006), citing Narra Integrated Corporation

v. Court of Appeals, 344 SCRA 781 (2000), the court distinguished summary judgment from judgment on

the pleadings, viz.: The existence or appearance of ostensible issues in the pleadings, on the one hand,

and their sham or fictitious character, on the other, are what distinguish a proper case for summary

judgment from one for a judgment on the pleadings. In a proper case for judgment on the pleadings,

there is no ostensible issue at all because of the failure of the defending partys answer to raise an issue.

On the other hand, in the case of a summary judgment, issues apparently existi.e. facts are asserted in

the complaint regarding which there is as yet no admission, disavowal or qualification; or specific denials

or affirmative defenses are in truth set out in the answerbut the issues thus arising from the pleadings

are sham, fictitious or not genuine, as shown by affidavits, depositions, or admissions. x x x. Simplystated, what distinguishes a judgment on the pleadings from a summary judgment is the presence of

issues in the Answer to the Complaint. When the Answer fails to tender any issue, that is, if it does not

deny the material allegations in the complaint or admits said material allegations of the adverse partys

pleadings by admitting the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with them at all, a judgment on

the pleadings is appropriate.

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

152

152



23/114

Basbas vs. Sayson

On the other hand, when the Answer specifically denies the material averments of the complaint or

asserts affirmative defenses, or in other words raises an issue, a summary judgment is proper provided

that the issue raised is not genuine. A genuine issue means an issue of fact which calls for the

presentation of evidence, as distinguished from an issue which is fictitious or contrived or which does

not constitute a genuine issue for trial.

Same; Co-Ownership; Parties; A co-owner may, by himself alone, bring an action for the recovery of the

co-owned property pursuant to the well-settled principle that in a co-ownership, co-owners may bring

actions for the recovery of co-owned property without the necessity of joining all the other co-owners

as co-plaintiffs because the suit is presumed to have been filed for the benefit of his co-owners.

Anent the SPA, we find that given the particular circumstances in the case at bar, an SPA is not even

necessary such that its efficacy or the lack of it would not in any way preclude the case from proceeding.

This is because upon Roberto Sr.s death, Roberto Jr., in succession of his father, became a co-owner of

the subject property together with his mother, Beata. As a co-owner, he may, by himself alone, bring an

action for the recovery of the co-owned property pursuant to the well-settled principle that in a co-

ownership, co-owners may bring actions for the recovery of co-owned property without the necessity ofjoining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is presumed to have been filed for the

benefit of his co-owners. *Basbas vs. Sayson, 656 SCRA 151(2011)+

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Judgments; Immutability of Judgments; Under the doctrine of finality of

judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and

unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct

erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the

Highest Court of the land.Considering that the CAs June

364

364


24/114


Escalante vs. People

24, 2008 Decision and March 4, 2009 Resolution had already attained finality on account of the

petitioners failure to timely file a petition for review on Certiorari under Rule 45, the Court may no

longer modify the penalty imposed by the lower courts no matter how obvious the error may be.

Under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision that ha s acquired

finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the

modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the

court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the land. *Escalante vs. People, 688 SCRA 362(2013)+

Remedial Law; Judgments; Finality of Judgments; A decision that has acquired finality becomes

immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is

meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that

rendered it or by the highest court of the land; Exceptions.It is a fundamental legal principle that a

decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified

in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and

whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. The only exceptionsto the general rule on finality of judgments are the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no

prejudice to any party, void judgments, and whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the

decision which render its execution unjust and inequitable. Indeed, litigation must end and terminate

sometime and somewhere, even at the risk of occasional errors. [Land Bank of the Philippines vs.

Listana, 654 SCRA 559(2011)]


25/114

Same; Judgments; Instances when a complaint may be dismissed due to the plaintiffs fault.Gomez v.

Alcantara, 579 SCRA 472 (2009), explains that *t+he aforequoted provision enumerates the instances

when a complaint may be dismissed due to the plaintiffs fault: (1) if he fails to appear on the date for

the presentation of his evidence in chief on the complaint; (2) if he fails to prosecute his action for an

unreasonable length of time; or (3) if he fails to comply with the Rules or any order of the court. The

dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute has the effect of adjudication on the merits, and is necessarily

understood to be with prejudice to the filing of another action, unless otherwise provided in the order

of dismissal. Stated differently, the general rule is that dismissal of a case for failure to prosecute is to be

regarded as an adjudication on the merits and with prejudice to the filing of another action, and the only

exception is

261

VOL. 617, APRIL 5, 2010

261

PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. vs. Milan

when the order of dismissal expressly contains a qualification that the dismissal is without prejudice.

[PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. vs. Milan, 617 SCRA 258(2010)]

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Judgments; Conclusiveness of Judgments; Under the principle of

conclusiveness of judgment, when a right or fact has been judicially tried and determined by a court of

competent jurisdiction, or when an opportunity for such trial has been given, the judgment of the court,

as long as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive upon the parties and those in privity with them.Under the principle of conclusiveness of judgment, when a right or fact has been judicially tried and

determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, or when an opportunity for such trial has been given,

the judgment of the court, as long as it remains unreversed, should be conclusive upon the parties and

those in privity with them. Stated differently, conclusiveness of judgment bars the re-litigation in a

second case of a fact or question already settled in a previous case. [City of Cebu vs. Dedamo, Jr., 689

SCRA 547(2013)]


26/114

POST JUDGMENT REMEDIES

Remedial Law; Motion for Reconsideration; Pro Forma Motion; Mere reiteration of issues already

passed upon by the court does not automatically make a motion for reconsideration pro forma;

Instances where a motion for reconsideration was held to be pro forma.We have held that mere

reiteration of issues already passed upon by the court does not automatically make a motion for

reconsideration pro forma. What is essential is compliance with the requisites of the Rules. Indeed, in

the cases where a motion for reconsideration was held to be pro forma, the motion was so held because

(1) it was a second motion for reconsideration, or (2) it did not comply with the rule that the motion

must specify the findings and conclusions alleged to be contrary to law or not supported by the

evidence, or (3) it failed to substantiate the alleged errors, or (4) it merely alleged that the decision in

question was contrary to law, or (5) the adverse party was not given notice thereof. [Gonzales vs.

Commission on Elections, 644 SCRA 761(2011)]

Civil Procedure; Motion for Reconsideration; As a rule, a second motion for reconsideration (MR) is

generally a prohibited pleading; Court does not discount instances when it may authorize the

suspension of the rules of procedure so as to allow the resolution of a second motion for

reconsideration.Indeed, a second MR as a rule, is generally a prohibited pleading. The Court, however,does not discount instances when it may authorize the suspension of the rules of procedure so as to

allow the resolution of a second motion for reconsideration, in cases of extraordinarily persuasive

reasons such as when the decision is a patent nullity.

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.


27/114

638

638


University of the East vs. University of the East Employees' Association

Same; Same; The rules of procedure are designed to secure and not to override substantial justice.

Time and again, the Court has upheld the theory that the rules of procedure are designed to secure and

not to override substantial justice. These are mere tools to expedite the decision or resolution of cases,

hence, their strict and rigid application which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather

than promote substantial justice must be avoided. [University of the East vs. University of the East

Employees' Association, 657 SCRA 637(2011)]

Courts; Judgments; Entry of Judgment; Motions for Reconsideration; It is immaterial that the Entry of

Judgment was made without the Court having first resolved a partys second motion for reconsideration

because the issuance of the entry of judgment is reckoned from the time the parties received a copy of

the resolution denying the first motion for reconsideration.It is immaterial that the Entry of Judgmentwas made without the Court having first resolved P&Gs second motion for reconsideration. This is

because the issuance of the entry of judgment is reckoned from the time the parties received a copy of

the resolution denying the first motion for reconsideration. The filing by P&G of several pleadings after

receipt of the resolution denying its first motion for reconsideration does not in any way bar the finality

or entry of judgment. Besides, to reckon the finality of a judgment from receipt of the denial of the

second motion for reconsideration would be absurd. First, the Rules of Court and the Internal Rules of

the Supreme Court prohibit the filing of a second motion for reconsideration. Second, some crafty

litigants may resort to filing prohibited pleadings just to delay entry of judgment.

Same; Same; It is a hornbook rule that once a judgment has become final and executory, it may no

longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct an erroneous conclusionof fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court

rendering it or by the highest court of the land, as what remains to be done is the purely ministerial

enforcement or execution of the judgment.The March 9, 2010 Decision had already attained finality. It

could no longer be set aside or modified. It is a hornbook rule that once a judgment has become final

and executory, it may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct

an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be

made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land, as what remains to be done is the


28/114


29/114

public interest, a relaxation of the application of the rules is in order.Without belaboring in their

smallest details the arguments for and against the procedural dimension of this disposition, it bears to

stress that the Court has the power to suspend its own rules when the ends of justice would be served

thereby. In the performance of their duties, courts should not be shackled by stringent rules which

would result in manifest injustice. Rules of procedure are only tools crafted to facilitate the attainment

of justice. Their strict and rigid application must be eschewed, if they result in technicalities that tend to

frustrate rather than promote substantial justice. Substantial rights must not be prejudiced by a rigid

and technical application of the rules in the altar of expediency. When a case is impressed with public

interest, a relaxation of the application of the rules is in order. Time and again, this Court has suspended

its own rules or excepted a particular case from their operation whenever the higher interests of justice

so require. [League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) vs. Commission on Elections, 608 SCRA 636(2009)]

CARPIO, J., Dissenting Opinion:

Remedial Law; Supreme Court; Judgments; Possible instances where the Supreme Court en banc may be

equally divided in opinion or where the necessary majority in the votes cannot be had.This provisioncontemplates three possible instances where the Supreme Court en banc may be equally divided in

opinion or where the necessary majority in the votes cannot be had. First, in actions instituted originally

in the Supreme Court, if there is a tie-vote, the Court en banc shall deliberate again. After such re-

deliberation and the Court remains equally divided, which means that no decision had been reached,

the original action shall be dismissed. In such a case, the tie-vote results in the dismissal of the action

without establishing any jurisprudential precedent. Second, in cases appealed to the Supreme Court,

Section 7 of Rule 56 explicitly provides that if the Court en banc is still equally divided after re-

deliberation, the judgment or order appealed from shall stand affirmed. A tie-vote in cases arising under

the Courts appellate jurisdiction translates into a summary affirmance of the lower courts ruling. In

short, the tie-vote in the en banc cannot amend or reverse a prior majority

642

642


League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) vs. Commission on Elections

action of a lower court, whose decision stands affirmed. Third, on all incidental matters, which includemotions for reconsideration, Section 7 of Rule 56 specifically states that if the Court en banc is evenly

divided on such matters, the petition or motion shall be denied.

Same; Same; Same; A.M. No. 99-1-09-SC; The Resolution clarifies any doubt on how a tie-vote on a

motion for reconsideration should be interpreted.To settle any doubt on how a tie-vote on a motion

for reconsideration should be interpreted, the Court en banc issued a clarificatory Resolution on 26

January 1999 in A.M. No. 99-1-09-SC, as follows: A MOTION FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF A DECISION


30/114

OR RESOLUTION OF THE COURT EN BANC OR OF A DIVISION MAY BE GRANTED UPON A VOTE OF A

MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE EN BANC OR OF A DIVISION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, WHO ACTUALLY

TOOK PART IN THE DELIBERATION OF THE MOTION. IF THE VOTING RESULTS IN A TIE, THE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION IS DEEMED DENIED. The clear and simple language of the clarificatory en banc

Resolution requires no further explanation. If the voting of the Court en banc results in a tie, the motion

for reconsideration is deemed denied. The Courts prior majority action on the main decision stands

affirmed. This clarificatory Resolution applies to all cases heard by the Court en banc, which includes not

only cases involving the constitutionality of a law, but also, as expressly stated in Section 4(2), Article VIII

of the Constitution, all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc. In

short, Section 4(2) requires a majority vote of the Court en banc not only in cases involving the

constitutionality of a law, but also in all other cases that are heard by the Court en banc.

Same; Same; Same; Same; The tie-vote on a motion for reconsideration does not and cannot, in any

instance and for any reason, supersede the prior majority vote on the main decision.If the Philippine

Supreme Court en banc is evenly split in its opinion on a motion for reconsideration, it is not a deadlock

vote that must be resolved; it is simply not a majority vote, and the motion for reconsideration is

defeated. More importantly, the tie-vote on a motion for reconsideration does not and cannot, in any

instance and for any reason, supersede the prior majority vote on the main decision.

643

VOL. 608, DECEMBER 21, 2009

643

League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) vs. Commission on Elections

Same; Same; Same; Same; The Constitution does not require that motions for reconsideration in cases

involving the constitutionality of a law shall be treated differently from motions for reconsideration in

other cases heard by the Court en banc.To insure equal protection of the law, all cases required to be

heard by the Court en banc under Section 4(2), Article VII of the Constitution must be governed by the

same rules on voting, whether on the main decision or on the motion for reconsideration. There can be

no one rule for cases involving the constitutionality of a law and another rule for all other cases. The

Constitution makes no such distinction in Section 4(2) of Article VIII. Undeniably, the Constitution does

not require that motions for reconsideration in cases involving the constitutionality of a law shall be

treated differently from motions for reconsideration in other cases heard by the Court en banc. There is

no basis for such a different treatment, and such a different treatment would violate the equal

protection of the law. Where the Constitution does not distinguish, this Court must not create a forcedand baseless distinction. [League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) vs. Commission on Elections, 608 SCRA

636(2009)]


31/114

Courts; Judges; Gross Misconduct; Gross Ignorance; Gross Negligence and Inefficiency; Respondent

judge is found guilty of serious charges falling under Section 8 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, namely,

gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and gross ignorance of the

law or procedure, as well as gross negligence or inefficiency, and further considering that he had

already been administratively sanctioned in another case for gross ignorance of the law, the Court

imposes upon him the extreme administrative penalty of dismissal.Judge Dilag is found guilty of

serious charges falling under Section 8 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, namely, gross misconduct

constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct in A.M. No. RTJ-06-2014 and gross ignorance of

the law or procedure, as well as gross negligence or inefficiency in A.M. No. 06-07-415-RTJ. Under

Section 11(A) of the said rules, the imposable penalties for the commission of a serious charge are as

follows: x x x Considering that Judge Dilag had already been administratively sanctioned in Ma. Teresa

De Jesus v. Judge Renato J. Dilag (471 SCRA 176 [2005]) wherein he was fined in the amount of

P30,000.00 for gross ignorance of the law, Judge Dilags already grave offenses are further aggravated.

Therefore, this Court imposes upon Judge Dilag the extreme administrative penalty of dismissal from the

service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, excluding accrued leave benefits, and disqualificationfrom reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled

corporations.

_______________

* EN BANC.

492

492


Verginesa-Suarez vs. Dilag


32/114

Same; Court Personnel; Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; The administrative liability for graft and

corruption is classified as a grave offense, for which the Court imposes the penalty of dismissal upon the

respondent stenographer.The administrative liability of Pascua for graft and corruption is classified as

a grave offense sanctioned by Paragraph A (9) of Section 52, in relation with Section 58, Rule IV of Civil

Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19-99 as follows: Par. A (9), Section 52.Receiving for

personal use of a fee, gift, or other valuable thing in the course of official duties or in connection

therewith when such fee, gift or other valuable thing is given by any person in the hope or expectation

of receiving a favor or better treatment than that accorded to other persons, or committing acts

punishable under the anti-graft laws. 1st Offense Dismissal. x x x x x x x x x Section 58.

Administrative Disabilities Inherent in Certain Penalties. a. The penalty of dismissal shall carry with it

that of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and the perpetual disqualification for

reemployment in the government service, unless otherwise provided in the decision. Thus, the Court

imposes upon Pascua the penalty of dismissal from the service which carries the accessory penalties of

cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from

reemployment in the government service. The Court further agrees with the Investigating Justice that in

view of the evidence on record, Pascua should be investigated for possible criminal liability for the same

acts. [Verginesa-Suarez vs. Dilag, 580 SCRA 491(2009)]

Actions; Motions for Reconsideration; Pleadings and Practice; The 15-day reglementary period for filing

a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible.Under Section 1, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, a party

may file a motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution within 15 days from notice

thereof, with proof of service on the adverse party. There is no question that petitioners Motion for

Reconsideration in CA-G.R. CV No. 80705 was filed one day beyond the reglementary period for doing

so. Atty. Beltran, petitioners former counsel, received notice and a copy of the 22 February 2006

Decision of the Court of Appeals on 28 February 2006, and had only until 15 March 2006 to file

petitioners Motion for Reconsideration thereof. However, Atty. Beltran filed said Motion on 16 March2006. The 15-day reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration is non-extendible.

Provisions of the Rules of Court prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done or certain

proceedings taken, are considered absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to

the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial businesses. Strict compliance with such rules is mandatory

and imperative.


33/114


34/114

February 2006 Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 80705 having been timely filed with the Court of Appeals,

petitioner had also lost his right to appeal the said Decision to this Court. For purposes of determining its

timeliness, a motion for reconsideration may properly be treated as an appeal. As a step to allow an

inferior court to correct itself before review by a higher court, a motion for reconsideration must

necessarily be filed within the period to appeal. When filed beyond such period, the motion for

reconsideration ipso facto forecloses the right to appeal. [Ponciano, Jr. vs. Laguna Lake Development

Authority, 570 SCRA 207(2008)]

Procedural Rules and Technicalities; Rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to

facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in

technicalities.After a conscientious review, we hold that a suspension of the Rules is warranted in this

case since the delay of one week and two days in the filing of the motion for reconsideration was not

occasioned by negligence on the part of petitioners lawyer in charge of the case, the latter having a

valid excuse to immediately take leave of absence in view of her fathers sudden demise. Additionally,

the merits of the case impel us to adopt a more liberal stance. There is likewise no showing that the

review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory. As we said in Barnes v. Padilla, 439 SCRA 675 (2004):

Invariably, rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment ofjustice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather

than promote substantial justice, must always be eschewed. Even the Rules of Court reflects this

principle. The power to suspend or even disregard rules can be so pervasive and compelling as to alter

even that which this Court itself had already declared to be final.

Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Certiorari; As long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any

alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors

of judgment, correctible by an appeal or a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, and

not a petition for certiorari.A certiorari proceeding is limited in scope and narrow in character. The

special civil action for certiorari lies only to correct acts rendered without jurisdiction, in excess of

jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. Certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction,not errors of procedure or mistakes in the findings or conclusions of the lower court. As long as the

court acts within its

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.


35/114

330

330


Garcia vs. Court of Appeals

jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more

than mere errors of judgment, correctible by an appeal or a petition for review under Rule 43 of the

Rules of Court, and not a petition for certiorari.

Same; Same; Same; Excess of jurisdiction as distinguished from absence of jurisdiction means that an

act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer is not authorized, and invalid with

respect to the particular proceeding, because the conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the

general power in respect of it are wanting.Excess of jurisdiction as distinguished from absence of

jurisdiction means that an act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer is not

authorized, and invalid with respect to the particular proceeding, because the conditions which alone

authorize the exercise of the general power in respect of it are wanting. The supervisory jurisdiction of

the court to issue a certiorari writ cannot be exercised in order to review the judgment of the lower

court as to its intrinsic correctness, either upon the law or the facts of the case. In the absence of a

showing that there is reason for the Court to annul the decision of the concerned tribunal or to

substitute its own judgment, it is not the office of the Court in a petition for certiorari to inquire into the

correctness of the assailed decision or resolution. [Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, 689 SCRA 329(2013)]

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Courts; Raffle of Cases; A case, once raffled to a branch, belongs to that

branch unless re-raffled or otherwise transferred to another branch in accordance with established

procedure.A case, once raffled to a branch, belongs to that branch unless re-raffled or otherwise


36/114

transferred to another branch in accordance with established procedure. The primary responsibility over

the case belongs to the presiding judge of the branch to which it has been raffled/re-raffled or assigned.

Same; Same; Same; While the Regional Trial Court (RTC) is divided into several branches, each of the

branches is not a court distinct and separate from the others.It bears to stress that while the RTC is

divided into several branches, each of the branches is not a court distinct and separate from the others.

Jurisdiction is vested in the court, not in the judge, so that when a complaint is filed before one branch

or judge, jurisdiction does not attach to the said branch of the judge alone, to the exclusion of others.

Succinctly, jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 2187-00 does not pertain solely to Branch 90 but t

remedial-final-cases.docx

Documents

Transcript of remedial-final-cases.docx