CIV PRO - Mar. 18, 2014 Original Actions in Ca: Tible v. Royal Savings: Problem

L125-2014/03/18-p.
1
CIV PRO Mar. 18, 2014
ORIGINAL ACTIONS IN CA
[Backtrack: RULE 38.7
Actually on certiorari, not really a case of petition for relief
Due course as a technical term should only apply to petitions for review, but
the court has been very confused
RULE 64: Review of COMELEC or COA
Note: reglementary period is 30 days, not like 60 days in Rule 65
NOTE: Neypes, Heirs of Poe, and A.M. 07-7-12 never mentioned Rule 64; so
the Magdalena Estate on fresh judgments rule applies
5: findings of fact of COA/COMELEC are final and non-reviewable if
supported by substantial evidence (cf. Rule 43, where the term used is the
weaker binding)
In Rule 64, even the material portions must be certified true copies
Effect: does not stay unless the SC says so
RULE 46 (ORIGINAL CASES)
VAA: Since there are specific rules in the ROC, it seems the rule is only
supplementary
But what about conflicts?
o e.g. In R46.4, reviewing court acquires jurisdiction once order on initial
action is served on the adverse party; but in R65, jurisdiction is acquired
upon filing of the petition
o e.g. In R46.3, there is a material data rule; in R65, there is none.
o VAA: To reconcile, one should take R46 as read into R65
Tible v. Royal Savings: ProblemCourt went into extended discussion of several

issues without correcting a jurisdictional error, i.e. an RTC taking cognizance of
an action for annulment of another RTCs decision
RULE 47 (ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENTS)

Applies to annulment of judgments, final orders, or resolutions of RTC, by CA
(1); and MTC, by RTC (10).
o Does not apply to annulment of CA decision, by SC; R: Not in the
jurisdiction of SC, as stated in the Constitution
LAST RESORT; cannot be availed of if all other remedies have been resorted to
(MR, MNT, petition for relief, appeal, or certiorari)
o Extrinsic fraud not valid if it could have been availed of in MNT or R. 38
(2)
Ground
Extrinsic fraud
Lack of jurisdiction
Lack of due process (Arcelona v. CA,
Macias v. Macias, Diona v. Balangue)
Period for filing

Four years from time of discovery
Before barred by laches or estoppel
L125-2014/03/18-p. 2
8: Prescriptive period for refilling interpret as prescriptive period for filing

of action, which is suspended from the filing of the original action until the
judgment annulling the original judgment
o Exception: extrinsic fraud by the plaintif would not suspend the period
RULE 44: ORDINARY APPEALED CASES

Unauthorized alteration, omission or addition in the approved record on appeal
shall be a ground for dismissal (4)
Time for filing briefs
o Appellants brief: 45 days from notice of [elevation of the record]
o Appellees brief: 45 days from receipt of appellants brief
o Appellants reply: 20 days from receipt of appellees brief
But if the subject of the appeal is a special case (e.g. certiorari)memoranda
o Within 30 days from receipt of notice from clerk [re elevation of the
record]
Questions that may be raised on
appeal
(Rule 44.15)
1. Raised in the court below; and
2. Within the issues framed by the
parties
Questions that may be decided on

appeal
(Rule 51.8)
1. Affect jurisdiction over subj. matter;
2. Affect validity of the judgment
appealed from or proceedings
therein; or
3. Closely related to or dependent on
assigned errors
Harmless error rule:

o G: Court should disregard any error or defect which does not affect
substantial rights of the parties; it should not be a ground for new trial, or
setting aside or disturbing a jt./order.
o X: Inconsistent with substantial justice (i.e. not a harmless error).
RULE 48: PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE

Akin to pre-trial; therefore, will apply only
o When there is a motion for new trial; or
o Original action
RULE 50: DISMISSAL OF APPEAL
1: Grounds for dismissal on motion or motu proprio
o VAA: Not close ended (e.g. not mentioned: failure to file appellants brief)
2: Dismissal of improper appeal to the CA
o If only questions of law are raised in a Rule 41 petition (i.e. ordinary
appeal) dismissed
o Appeal by notice of appeal instead of petn for review under Rule 42
dismissed
o Appeal erroneously taken to the CA dismissed
3: Withdrawal of appeal
o Matter of right before filing of appellees brief
o Discretionary on the court after filing of appellees brief
L125-2014/03/18-p. 3
RULE 51: JUDGMENT
4: Special rule: findings of fact may be adopted from those in the appealed
decision
10: Same as in Rule 36 date of finality = date of entry
11: Clarifies Rule 39.1, 3 (Execution of judgment as a matter of right)
RULE 52: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
JUST ONE motion for reconsideration; 15 days from notice of final judgment or
order
[Backtrack: Is there a deadline for an MR of an interlocutory order?
A: 15 days; MRs of interlocutory orders are based on jurisprudence, so rules
including periodsare filed by analogy]
Effect of MR of a final jt. of the CA
o G: Stay execution of jt.
o X: CA directs otherwise
RULE 53: NEW TRIAL
SOLELY on the ground of newly-discovered evidence
o Note difference w/ BP 129, 9 (as amended)
o R53 applies to both R41 and R42 cases
Amiss parts:
o Before the CA loses jurisdiction misleading, because the CA will not
lose jurisdiction, the subject judgment precisely being on appeal
o Could not have been produced prior to the trial R.37 states during
the trial and is the better rule
The effect is similar to Rule 37, being the same as granted by a [RTC]. (4)
Periods for filing of appellants brief, etc. will be suspended
RULE 56: ORIGINAL CASES
Important: 51.6 to 51.11 applies

CIV PRO - Mar. 18, 2014 Original Actions in Ca: Tible v. Royal Savings: Problem

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIV PRO - Mar. 18, 2014 Original Actions in Ca: Tible v. Royal Savings: Problem

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIV PRO - Mar. 18, 2014 Original Actions in Ca: Tible v. Royal Savings: Problem

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

L125-2014/03/18-p.

Tible v. Royal Savings: ProblemCourt went into extended discussion of several

RULE 47 (ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENTS)

Period for filing

8: Prescriptive period for refilling interpret as prescriptive period for filing

RULE 44: ORDINARY APPEALED CASES

Questions that may be decided on

Harmless error rule:

RULE 48: PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE

You might also like