Civil Procedure:

Doctrine of Immutability of Judgments Otherwise known as the principle of conclusiveness of

Court to amend a judgment after the same has become executory GR: When a judgment is final and
executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable (Rule of Immutability). XPNs: Courts may amend a
judgment even if it has become executory in the following instances: 1. To correct clerical errors; 2. The
so-called nun pro tunc entries which causes no prejudice to any party; 3. Void judgment; and 4.
Whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and
inequitable.

Reasons that would warrant the suspension of the Rules of Procedure (EMeCLOT) 1. The existence of
special or compelling circumstances; 2. The merits of the case; 3. A cause not entirely attributable to the
fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of rules; 4. A lack of any showing that the
review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; 5. The other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby
(Sarmiento v. Zaratan, G.R. No. 167471, February 5, 2007); and 6. Transcendental matters of life, liberty
or state security. (Mindanao Savings and Loan Association v. Vda. de Flores, G.R. No. 142022, September
7, 2005)

People Santiago vs Magtuloy GR 228819 July 24, 2019

Read spouses GR 185331 june 8 2016

GR. 1962100 sept 11

TWO-FOLD PURPOSE: 1. To avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make
orderly the discharge of judicial business; and 2. To put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of
occasional errors, which is precisely why the courts exist. (Dare Adventure Farm Corporation v. CA, G.R.
No. 161122, September 24, 2012)

. Several judgments (Sec. 4, Rule 36) – It is one rendered by a court against one or more defendants and
not against all of them, leaving the action to proceed against the others;

Several judgments vs. Separate Judgments SEVERAL JUDGMENT SEPARATE JUDGMENT Proper where
the liability of each party is clearly separable and distinct from his coparties such that the claims against
each of them could have been the subject of a separate suit, and the judgment for or against one of
them will not necessarily affect the other. NOTE: Several judgment is not proper in actions against
solidary debtors. Proper when more than one claim for relief is presented in an action and a
determination as to the issues material to the claim has been made. The action shall proceed as to the
remaining claims.
2. may also render a separate judgment disposing of a claim after the pre-trial/preliminary

FRAUD, MISTAKE, MALICE, INTENT, KNOWLEDGE, AND OTHER CONDITIONS OF THE MIND, JUDGMENTS,
OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS OR ACTS Averments of fraud or mistake The circumstances constituting such
fraud or mistake must be stated with particularity. (Sec. 5, Rule 8, Amendments to the Rules of Civil
Procedure)

Fraud accident, excusable negligence

Extrinsic Fraud vs. Intrinsic Fraud EXTRINSIC OR COLLATERAL FRAUD INTRINSIC FRAUD Fraudulent act
committed by the prevailing party outside of the trial of the case, which prevented the defeated party
from having a trial or from It refers to the acts of a party at the trial that prevents a fair and just
determination of the case, and that could have been litigated and determined at the trial presenting his
case to the court, or is used to procure the judgment without fair submission of the controversy.
(Magno v. CA, et al., G.R. No. L-28486, September 10, 1981; Alba v. CA, 465 SCRA 495) such as
falsification, false testimony. It does not constitute a ground for new trial. (Tarca v. Carretero, 99 Phil.
419)

Dela cruz vs

Gr 198537

Excusable negligence Excusable negligence as a ground for a petition for relief requires that the
negligence be so gross "that ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against it." This
excusable negligence must also be imputable to the party-litigant and not to his or her counsel whose
negligence binds his or her client. The binding effect of counsel’s negligence ensures against the
resulting uncertainty and tentativeness of proceedings if clients were allowed to merely disown their
counsels’ conduct. (Ibid.)

Mistake Mistake as used in Rule 38 means mistake of fact and not mistake of law. A wrong choice in
legal strategy or mode of procedure will not be considered a mistake for purposes of granting a petition
for relief from judgment. Mistake as a ground also "does not apply and was never intended to apply to a
judicial error which the court might have committed in the trial since such error may be corrected by
means of an appeal." Mistake can be of such nature as to cause substantial injustice to one of the
parties. It may be so palpable that it borders on extrinsic fraud. (Ibid.)
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION GROUNDS; WHEN TO FILE Motion for New Trial vs.
Motion for Reconsideration MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL (MNT) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (MR)
Grounds 1. Extrinsic fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence (FAME) which ordinary prudence
could not have guarded against and by reason of which the rights of the aggrieved party were impaired;
or 2. Newly discovered evidence, which could not with reasonable diligence, have been discovered and
produced at the trial, and which if presented, would probably alter the result. (Sec. 1, Rule 37) 1. The
damages awarded are excessive; 2. The evidence is insufficient to satisfy the decision or final order; or 3.
The decision or final order is contrary to law. (Sec. 1, Rule 37) Requisites 1. They shall be in writing,
stating the ground or grounds therefore, a written notice of which shall be served by the movant on the
adverse party (Sec. 2, Rule 37); 2. Affidavit of merit setting forth the particular factsclaimed to constitute
a meritorious cause of action in case the ground relied upon is FAME; 3. In case of newly discovered
evidence: a. Affidavit of new witnesses; and b. Duly authenticated documents to be 1. They shall be in
writing, stating the ground or grounds therefore, a written notice of which shall be served by the
movant on the adverse party (Sec. 2, Rule 37); 2. Must point out specifically the conclusion of judgment;
3. Express reference to testimonial or documentary evidence or to provisions of law.

Motion for reconsideration (MR) A motion for reconsideration under Rule 37 is one that is directed
against a judgment or a final order, and not the motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order.
(Riano, 2014) Purpose of an MR The purpose of an MR is precisely to request the court or the quasi-
judicial body to take a second look at its earlier judgment and correct any errors it may have committed
therein. (Reyes v. Pearl Bank Securities, G.R. No. 171435, July 30, 2008) When partial reconsideration
allowed If the court finds that a motion affects the issues of the case as to only a part, or less than all of
the matters in controversy, or only one, or less than all, of the parties to it, the order may grant a
reconsideration as to such issues if severable without interfering with the judgment or final order upon
the rest. (Sec. 7, Rule 37)

Instances where extension of time is allowed Under Rule 42: The court may grant an additional period of
15 days provided the extension is sought: 1. Upon proper motion; 2. Upon payment of the full amount
of the docket and other lawful fees before the expiration of the reglementary period.; and 3. No further
extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed 15 days.
Under Rule 45: The SC may for justifiable reason grant an extension of 30 days only within which to file
the petition provided:

THE “HARMLESS ERROR RULE” IN APPELLATE DECISIONS No error in either the admission or the
exclusion of evidence and no error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the
trial court or by any of the parties is ground for granting a new trial or for setting aside, modifying, or
otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court
inconsistent with substantial justice. The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error
or defect which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. (Sec. 6, Rule 51) In dealing with
evidence improperly admitted in trial, we examine its damaging quality and its impact to the substantive
rights of the litigant. If the impact is slight and insignificant, we disregard the error as it will not
overcome the weight of the properly admitted evidence against the prejudiced party. (People v.
Teehankee, Jr., G.R. No. 111206-08, October 6, 1995)

Constitutional right to appeal It is not a constitutional or a natural right. (Canton v. City of Cebu, G.R. No.
152898, February 12, 2007) The right to appeal is not part of due process but a mere statutory privilege
that has to be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. (Stolt-Nielsen
v. NLRC, G.R. No. 147623, December 13, 2005)

Rule 40 next meeting

Appeal from metropolitan to the regional trial court

Rule 40 is from page 167 of 2023 UST

MR as a Requirement for Filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65

GR: MR is a condition sine qua non for filing a petition for certiorari

under Rule 65. NOTE: Its purpose is to grant an opportunity for the court to correct any actual or
perceived error attributed to it by re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case.
XPNs: 1. Where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; 2. Where the
questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower
court, or are the same as

Q: In a Complaint for Compulsory Recognition and Enforcement of Successional Rights" filed by Antonia
Aruego, the Regional Trial Court declared Antonia as an illegitimate daughter of the deceased Aruego Sr.
hence entitled to a share in the latter’s estate. Among others, the RTC rendered a Decision on June 15,
1992, declaring what constitutes the estate of deceased and affirmed the status of Antonia Aruego as an
illegitimate daughter of the deceased hence the latter is entitled to one-half of the share of the
deceased’s legitimate children. A Writ of Execution was issued by the RTC. Petitioners filed a Motion for
Partial Reconsideration but they did not raise therein the supposed error of the court in declaring the
properties enumerated in the dispositive portion of the Decision as comprising the estate of Aruego.
Antonia filed a Motion for Partition alleging the RTC Decision became final and executory in view of the
denial of the notice of appeal filed by petitioners and the dismissal of their Petition for Prohibition and
Certiorari by the CA and the subsequent denial of their appeal to the Supreme Court. Can the Court
review and modify the RTC Decision?

A: NO. There is no ground to justify the modification of the RTC Decision. When a final judgment is
executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable. The only recognized exceptions to the general rule on
immutability of final judgments are the correction of clerical errors, 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 rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. These exceptions, however, are
not present. What petitioners seek is an order from the court to allow them to present evidence with
regard to the properties comprising the estate of Aruego and the heirs who are to share in the
inheritance. The Court cannot issue a writ of certiorari so as to allow the petitioners to present evidence
as the same should have been raised by them during trial.