Notes On Civil Procedure (Rules 40-56) Dennisaranabriljdii Page - 1
Notes On Civil Procedure (Rules 40-56) Dennisaranabriljdii Page - 1
Notes On Civil Procedure (Rules 40-56) Dennisaranabriljdii Page - 1
Rule 40
APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS
TO THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
APPEAL. The law on appeal
starts from Rule 40 to Rule 56.
Usually the appeal is from the trial
court to the next higher court.
Under the judiciary law, appeals
from the MTC should be to the RTC
which is governed by Rule 40. And
when the case is tried by the RTC
and you want to appeal, normally,
the appeal should be to the CA
under Rule 41.
Type of Case
Period to
appeal
A. Civil Actions in
general
B.
Special
Proceedings
and
Civil
Actions where
multiple appeal
is allowed
C. Habeas Corpus
15 days
30 days
48
hours
Requisit
es for
appeal
Notice of
appeal
1. Notice
of Appeal
2. Record
on
Appeal
Notice of
Appeal
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 1
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 2
the
are
the
the
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 3
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 4
Rule 41
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 5
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 6
then you have to wait for the final judgment to be rendered and if
you are dissatisfied with the judgment, that is the time you appeal
from the said judgment together with the interlocutory orders
issued in the course of the proceeding. (Mapua vs. Suburban
Theaters, Inc., 81 Phil. 311) So there should only be one appeal
form that case. Thats why, as a general rule, the law on Civil
Procedure prohibits more that one appeal in one civil action.
The reasons why interlocutory orders are not appealable are to
avoid multiple appeals in one civil case since the order is
interlocutory and the court still continues to try the case in the
course of the proceeding, the court will realize its error and the
court may change its order so it will be given an opportunity to
corrects its own mistake. (Manila Elec. Co. vs. Artiaga, 50 Phil. 147)
Take note of the new rule saying that a judgment or order is
final if it disposes of the case or of a PARTICULAR MATTER. So, it is
not necessarily the whole case.
In the case of DAY vs. RTC (191 SCRA 640), a case filed by A
against B, X filed a motion to intervene and it was denied. Can X
appeal the denial? Now, it would seem that the order is
interlocutory because the court, after denying the motion to
intervene, still has something to do since the case between A and
B will continue. But according to the SC, YES, X can appeal because
the order denying the motion to intervene is final.
But is it not true that the court has something to do after
denying such motion? Yes but what the SC is trying saying is that,
as far as Xs right is concerned, the court has nothing to do
anymore. Marami pa akong trabaho dito (case between A and B),
pero kay X wala na. That is why the order denying the motion to
intervene is a final order and is appealable. Kaya nga the test that
there is nothing more for the court to do is very confusing. In other
words, you divide the case into parts.
DAY vs. RTC OF ZAMBOANGA CITY
191 SCRA 640
HELD: An order which decides an issue or issues
in a complaint is final and appealable, although the
other issue or issues have not been resolved, if the
latter issues are distinct and separate from the others.
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 7
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 8
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 9
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 10
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 11
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 12
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 13
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 14
appealing today, it will be dismissed because you did not state the
material dates.
And of course, there is one SC decision which said that you do
not only specify the final judgment or order, but you also specify as
much as possible the interlocutory orders from where you are
appealing because interlocutory orders can only be appealed at
this time. So, isabay mo na rin, i-one time ba!
In the case of
HEIRS OF MAXIMO RIGOSO vs. COURT OF
APPEALS
211 SCRA 348
FACTS: Plaintiff filed an action against defendant
for partition of property. While the action was pending,
defendant died. Partition is an action which survives.
Defendants lawyer failed to inform the court about
plaintiffs death (it is the lawyers duty which he did not
do). So with that, there was no proper substitution.
Later, judgment was rendered against the deceased
defendant. But after the decision came out, the lawyer
of the defendant filed a notice of appeal in accordance
with Rule 41.
ISSUE #1: Was the appeal properly made?
HELD: NO. Upon the death of the defendant, the
lawyers authority to represent him already expired.
There was an automatic expiration of the lawyer-client
relationship. The notice of appeal which the lawyer
filed in behalf of the deceased was an unauthorized
pleading, therefore not valid.
ISSUE #2: Is the judgment binding to the
defendants heirs (remember, they were not
substituted)?
HELD: YES. The validity of the judgment was not
affected by the defendants demise for the action
survived (partition, eh). The decision is binding and
enforceable against the successor-in-interest of the
deceased litigant by title subsequent to the
commencement of the action pursuant to Section 47
[b] of Rule 39Rule on Res Judicata.
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 15
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 16
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 17
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 18
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 19
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 20
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 21
Q: Can the parties settle the case amicably despite the fact
that there is already an appeal?
A: Yes, compromise is welcome anytime.
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 22
Rule 42
PETITION FOR REVIEW
FROM THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
Q: What are the modes of appeal from RTC to the CA?
A: Its either ORDINARY APPEAL (Rule 41) or PETITION FOR
REVIEW (Rule 42).
Rule 41 refers to an ordinary appeal from the RTC to the CA
yung notice of appeal. Here, the RTC rendered a decision pursuant
to its ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
Eto namang Rule 42 (Petition for review) is the mode of appeal
from the RTC to the CA in cases decided by the RTC pursuant to its
APPELLATE JURISDICTION. So, the case here actually originated in
the MTC, then it was appealed to the RTC under Rule 40. And now,
from the RTC, you want to go to the CA. Hence, the mode of appeal
is not (Rule 41) Notice of Appeal but RULE 42 Petition for Review.
For the first time, there is now a rule governing petitions for
review from the RTC to the CA. Prior to July 1, 1997, there was
none. Although there were guidelines then in jurisprudence,
decided cases and SC circulars.
Section 1. How appeal taken; time for filing. A
party desiring to appeal from a decision of
the Regional Trial Court rendered in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may file
a verified petition for review with the Court
of Appeals, paying at the same time to the
clerk of said court the corresponding docket
and other lawful fees, depositing the amount
of P500.00 for costs, and furnishing the
Regional Trial Court and the adverse party
with a copy of the petition. The petition shall
be filed and served within fifteen (15) days
from notice of the decision sought to be
reviewed or of the denial of petitioners
motion for new trial or reconsideration filed
in due time after judgment. Upon proper
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 23
on April 10 the 10th day. After two weeks, you received order of
the court denying the MFR.
Q: How many more days are left for you to file a notice of
appeal?
A: Six (6) days. Ang binilang mo, 1-9 days lang. The 10th day is
interrupted na. Thats true.
PROBLEM: We will go to the same problem (applying Rule 42):
The case was decided by the MTC, appealed to the RTC. And then
in the RTC, you lost again. You receive a copy of the decision on
March 31. On April 10, you file a motion for reconsideration. And
then on April 20, you receive the order denying the MFR.
Q: How many days more are left for you to file your petition for
review?
A: Kung sabihin mo 6 days from April 20 or April 26, thats
FALSE! The answer is 15 days all over again. Look at the law: The
petition shall be filed and served within fifteen (15) days from
notice of the decision sought to be reviewed or of the denial of
petitioners motion for new trial or reconsideration. Meaning, you
count another 15 days from the denial. Umpisa na naman!
So the filing a motion for new trial or reconsideration in Rule 42
does not only interrupt the running of the period but it commences
to run all over again. Unlike in Rule 41, in ordinary appeal, where
the filing of the motion for reconsideration or new trial merely
interrupts the running of the period to appeal. And it commences
to run again from the time you are notified that your motion is
denied. See the difference?
Actually, if you are not serious in your study of appeal, you will
not see these distinctions. You will just assume that the principles
under Rule 41 and Rule 42 are the same.
Q: Where will you file your motion for extension of time to file
petition for review?
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 24
A: You file your motion for extension to the CA. The CA itself
will grant the extension.
Q: How many more days can the CA grant?
A: The CA may grant another 15 days and no further
extension can be granted except for the most compelling reasons.
So, original extension is 15 days, and a possible extension of 15
days = total 30 days.
These are technical points. And how many appealed cases
have been dismissed simply because these finer provisions were
not been observed by lawyers? I would say 60% of all appeals are
dismissed. Even in Davao, majority of petitions are dismissed
because nakulangan ng piso sa docket fee, karami. I presume
throughout the country, the pattern is the same because the rules
on appeal are very technical and very strict. Thats why there are
lawyers in Manila, even in Davao, who do not want to handle
appealed cases. They only handle cases in the trial court. Pagakyat na, nasa CA na, petition for certiorari, pasa na sa iba.
But there are also who have mastered the rules on appeal. For
the purpose of specialization, trial phase and appeal phase. For
purposes of the bar, you have to know all the fields in laws. Once
you pass the bar, diyan na kayo mag-isip kung ano ang pipiliin
ninyocivil, criminal, labor, etc. But for purposes of the bar, you
cannot say dito lang ako mag-aral sa Labor, wag na sa Civil Law.
Pwede ba yan? You cannot do that. Kaya nga sabi nila, the people
who know more about the law are those who have just taken the
bar.
Sec. 2. Form and contents. The petition
shall be filed in seven (7) legible copies, with
the original copy intended for the court being
indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall
(a) state the full names of the parties to the
case, without impleading the lower courts or
judges thereof either as petitioners or
respondents;
(b)
indicate
the
specific
material dates showing that it was filed on
time; (c) set forth concisely a statement of
the matters involved, the issues raised, the
specification of errors of fact or law, or both,
allegedly committed by the Regional Trial
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 25
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 26
Q: When you file a petition for review from the RTC to the CA, is
the CA obliged to entertain the petition?
A: No, this is discretionary under Section 6. The CA may or may
not give due course to the petition unlike in ordinary appeal. Yan
ang kaibahan ng ordinary appeal and petition for review.
In ordinary appeal under Rule 41, when you file notice of
appeal and you pay your docket fee, your appeal is automatically
entertained. At least it will be heard by the CA. But in Rule 42, it is
not the same. When you go there, whether your petition for review
will be given due course or not even if you have paid the docket
fee. Normally, the CA will required you to comment and then
chances are after another month and after reading your petition
and your comment, the CA will refuse to give due course to your
petition, Your petition is hereby dismissed! So, you must
convince the CA na may merit baah!
Q: What happens when the petition for review is given due
course?
A: The parties will be required to submit their respective
memoranda.
Take note that the RTC is also given the power to issue orders
for the protection of the parties the same as in Section 8,
paragraph [b].
Sec. 7. Elevation of record. Whenever the
Court of Appeals deems it necessary, it may
order the clerk of court of the Regional Trial
Court to elevate the original record of the
case including the oral and documentary
evidence within fifteen (15) days from notice.
(n)
Q: Now, when is an appeal by petition for review deemed
perfected?
A: Section 8 [a]. Similar to Rule 41. The same principle:
Sec. 8. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. (a)
Upon the timely filing of a petition for review
and the payment of the corresponding docket
and other lawful fees, the appeal is deemed
perfected as to the petitioner.
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 27
petition for review (although right now, it has not yet been given
due course) with a prayer for TRO. But the CA said that there is no
compelling reason to issue one. In the meantime, I filed a motion
for execution. The defendant opposed on the ground that a
judgment cannot be executed daw because of a pending petition
for review. But this is under the Summary Rules ejectment. This is
an exception, so that will not apply.
Sec. 9. Submission for decision. If the
petition is given due course, the Court of
Appeals may set the case for oral argument
or require the parties to submit memoranda
within a period of fifteen (15) days from
notice. The case shall be deemed submitted
for decision upon the filing of the last
pleading or memorandum required by these
Rules or by the court itself. (n)
Rule 43
APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS AND
QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCIES TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
Let us now go to Rule 43 which governs Appeals from the Court
of Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial Agencies to the Court of Appeals.
Take note that under Section 9 of BP 129, the CA has the exclusive
appellate jurisdiction to review decisions of all RTC and QuasiJudicial Bodies, and Rule 43 is the governing rule on appeals from
quasi-judicial bodies.
So, before this, appeal to the CA of Tax cases is supposed to be
to the SC. Now it is reverted to the CA, and also quasi-judicial
agencies. What was the prior law? It is Revised Administrative
Circular No. 1-95, which was promulgated on January 1, 1995. Now
it is Rule 43 the circular was actually quoted here verbatim. So,
you can no longer go to the SC, even on pure questions of law, ha!
Decisions of quasi-judicial agencies must pass first to the CA even
on pure questions of law.
Now what are these
enumerated in Section 1:
quasi-judicial
bodies?
They
are
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 28
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 29
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 30
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 31
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 32
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 33
arguments,
Alright. The best brief writers I noticed are those in the Solicitor
Generals office. Just imagine, the Solicitor General defends all the
cases of the government. When a criminal case is appealed by the
accused to the CA or CA, automatically the Solicitor General takes
over. In the lower court, it is the fiscals no?
So, the Solicitor General defends the case he had never tried.
So they just based it on records. They condensed decisions kahit
na gaano ang kapal, reducing it to 15 pages or less. Its really an
ability to do it. The shorter the better. People there in the Solicitor
Generals office are really good writers and researchers because
that is the law office of the Republic of the Philippines. Lahat dyan
magagaling, isa lang ang hindi marunong. SINO? Ang Solicitor
General ninyo! He is only a political appointee. (F. Chavez? Or
Galvez?)
Q: Is the 45-day period to file brief extendible?
A: YES, that is section 12. The worst violator here is the
Solicitor General extension 30 days, 2nd extension 30 days!
Ganyan sila! Sometimes it takes them 18 months to prepare a
brief. Sabagay, marami din kasi silang trabaho no?
Q: When do you file the motion for extension of time to file
brief?
A: The motion for extension of time is filed BEFORE the
expiration of the time sought to be extended. (Section 12) BUT
sometimes the SC can be liberal about extension. One case is
MOSKOWSKY vs. COURT OF APPEALS
230 SCRA 657
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 34
Rule 46
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 35
ORIGINAL CASES
Q: What is the difference between Rule 46 and Rule 44?
A: Rule 44 deals with appealed cases. Rule 46 deals with
original cases. Remember that the CA is both an original and
appellate court.
Rule 47
ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENTS OR
FINAL ORDERS AND RESOLUTIONS
Rule 47 is an entirely new rule which governs the remedy of
annulment of judgments or final orders or resolutions. We already
met this remedy in judiciary law. The CA has original exclusive
jurisdiction to annul final judgments and resolutions of the RTC.
(Section 9, BP 129) So it is an entirely original action for annulment
of judgment of the RTC.
Now, that should not be confused with certiorari, prohibition
and mandamus which fall under the original concurrent jurisdiction
of the CA. Rule 47 or annulment of judgment of the RTC falls within
the exclusive original jurisdiction of the CA.
Take note that in an appeal, the judgment appealed from is
valid. But in annulment under Rule 47, the judgment is being asked
to be declared void.
Under the prior law there was no direct rule governing that
remedy. The only guideline for annulment of judgments of the RTC
are decided cases. Now for the first time the 1997 Rules have a
definite rule on how to enforce this remedy.
So lets read Section 1 because this is a remedy which has
been existing without definite guidelines on how to do it.
Section 1. Coverage. This Rule shall govern
the annulment by the Court of Appeals of
judgments or final orders and resolutions in
civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE (Rules 40-56)
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 36
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 37
never filed a direct action to declare its nullity. That can be done if
the judgment is void on its very face.
Q: What is a DIRECT ATTACK?
A: By direct attack means you must file an action to declare its
nullity. So there must be a case for its annulment.
Again, when the judgment is null and void on its face, (1) you
may file a direct action to annul it under Rule 47. Or, (2) it can also
be attacked collaterally, a direct attack is not necessary. A
collateral attack will suffice.
EXAMPLE: RTC decided a forcible entry. By simply reading the
decision, obviously the RTC has no jurisdiction. Therefore, I can
attack it directly by filing a case for its annulment under Rule 47.
OR, I will not file a case under Rule 47 but I will attack it
collaterally. Meaning, bayaan ko lang. I will raise that issue during
execution. If you move for execution, I can oppose, You cannot
execute because the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case.
Therefore the judgment is void. So it is not necessary to file a
case to declare the decision as null and void. That is collateral
attack.
But if the judgment is not void on its face but the nullity is
intrinsic or nakatago not obvious ba the rule is, you must file a
direct action for its annulment which must be done before the
action is barred by laches or estoppel. So it is necessary to file a
case for annulment of judgment under Rule 47.
Well of course, certiorari under Rule 65 is also a ground for
attacking a judgement but the trouble is you are limited to 3
grounds: Lack of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse
of discretion. Walang extrinsic fraud. That is governed by Rule 65
and not by Rule 47.
And under Rule 65, you can avail of certiorari only within 60
days. But if you want annulment, it could be longer under Rule 47.
That is under section 3. That could be a big difference.
Moreover, what do you attack in certiorari? Normally,
interlocutory orders eh. But a final judgment can be attacked by
annulment under Rule 47.
Now, those remedies were summarized in the case of
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 38
Possible
remedies
of
defendant
declared
in
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 39
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 40
when the court grants a petition for relief, the case will be tried all
over again as if a timely motion for new trial has been filed.
Rule 48
PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 41
Rule 49
ORAL ARGUMENTS
The CA may or may not require oral argument. Just read that.
Section 1. When allowed. At its own
instance or upon motion of a party, the court
may hear the parties in oral argument on the
merits of a case, or on any material incident
in connection therewith. (n)
The oral argument shall be limited to such
matters as the court may specify in its order
or resolution. (1a, R48)
NOTES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE (Rules 40-56)
Rule 50
DISMISSAL OF APPEAL
Grounds for dismissal of appeal in the CA. Take note that under
Section 1, an appeal may be dismissed by the CA on its own (motu
propio) or upon motion of the appellee. And there are nine (9)
grounds for dismissal of appeal under Section 1:
Section 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. An
appeal may be dismissed by the Court of
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 42
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 43
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 44
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 45
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 46
Take note that this refers to appeal under Rule 41 from RTC.
This does not apply when the appeal to the CA is from a
quasi-judicial body. Appeal from a quasi-judicial body on a pure
question of law should be to the CA, never to the SC. You compare
this with Rule 42, Section 2:
Rule 42, Section 2. Form and contents.The petition shall be filed in seven (7) legible
copies, with the original copy intended for
the court being indicated as such by the
petitioner, and shall:
xxx
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 47
Rule 52
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Sec. 1. Period for filing. - A party may file a
motion for reconsideration of a judgment or
final resolution within fifteen (15) days from
notice thereof, with proof of service on the
adverse party. (n)
Q: Can a party file a motion for reconsideration of a CA
decision?
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 48
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 49
Rule 56
PROCEDURE IN THE SUPREME COURT
This is an entirely new provision. In the SC, there are 2 types of
cases ORIGINAL and APPEALED. The SC has both the original and
appellate jurisdiction.
What are the original cases cognizable by the SC?
Rule 54
INTERNAL BUSINESS
Section 1. Distribution of cases among divisions. - All the cases of the Court of Appeals
shall be allotted among the different
divisions thereof for hearing and decision.
The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, shall
make proper orders or rules to govern the
allotment of cases among the different
divisions, the constitution of such divisions,
the regular rotation of Justices among then
the filing of vacancies occurring therein, and
other matters relating to the business of the
court; and such rules shall continue in force
until repealed or altered by it or by the
Supreme Court.
Section 2. Quorum of the court. A majority
of the actual members of the court shall
constitute a quorum for its sessions en banc.
Three members shall constitute a quorum for
the sessions of a division. The affirmative
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 50
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 51
comply
with
any
of
the
foregoing
requirement regarding the payment of the
docket and other lawful fees, deposit for
costs, proof of service of the petition, and
the contents of and the documents which
should accompany the petition shall be
sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
The Supreme Court may on its own
initiative deny the petition on the ground
that the appeal is without merit, or is
prosecuted manifestly for delay or that the
questions
raised
therein
are
too
unsubstantial to require consideration.
SC?
A: Section 5:
Section 5. Grounds for dismissal of appeal.The appeal may be dismissed motu propio or
on motion of the respondent on the following
grounds:
a. Failure to take the appeal within the
reglementary period;
b. Lack of merit in the petition;
c. Failure to pay the requisite docket fee
and other lawful fees or to make a deposit for
costs;
d.
Failure
to
comply
with
the
requirements regarding [proof of service and
contents of and the documents which should
accompany the petition;
e. Failure to comply with any circular,
directive or order of the Supreme Court
without justifiable cause;
f. Error in the choice of mode of appeal;
and
g. The fact that the case is not appealable
to the Supreme Court.
Connect Rule 56, Section 5 with Rule 45, Section 5. The
grounds are identical, to wit:
Rule 45, Sec. 5. Dismissal or denial of
petition. The failure of the petitioner to
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 52
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 53
dennisaranabriljdii
Page | 54