Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
6Activity
P. 1
Civil Procedure (Commenary Notes)

Civil Procedure (Commenary Notes)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 531|Likes:
Published by Faith Laperal

More info:

Categories:Types, School Work
Published by: Faith Laperal on Jul 01, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/13/2014

pdf

 
CIVILPROCEDURE1
Regalado NotesRULE 38: RELIEF FROM JUDGMENTS, ORDERS OR OTHER PROCEEDINGS38.1, 38.2
 
The petition for relief from a judgment, final order or proceeding involved in a case tried by MTCshall be filed in and decided by the same court in the same case.
 
Palmomes v. Jimenez
 –
A petition for relief is an equitable remedy and is allowed only inexceptional cases from final judgments or orders where no other remedy is available.
 
Fajardo v. Bayona
 –
It will not be entertained when the proper remedy is appeal or certiorari.
 
The phrase “other proceeding” includes an order or writ of execution, or an order dismissing an
appeal.
 
Samonte v. Samonte
 –
since they are not required to be entered, the period starts fromrendition of the order or taking of the proceeding or from the date of occurrence since entry iseither unnecessary or inconsequential
 
Rafanan v. Rafanan
 –
and the court will merely set aside the proceeding and allow the party toact as if the proceeding never took place.
 
Sayman v. CA
 –
a petition for relief is in effect a second opportunity for an aggrieved party to askfor a new trial.
o
 
Hence fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence as grounds for petition for relief have the same concepts that they have in motions for new trial.
o
 
Vasquez v. Mesagal
 –
Also in a motion for new trial, mistake of law was consideredsufficient to justify a petition for relief.
 
Petition for relief under sec. 1 has been held to be applicable to all kinds of special proceedingssuch as land registration, intestate settlement, and guardianship proceedings.
38.3
 
Quijano v. Tameta
 –
The 2 periods for filing a petition for relief are not extendible and neverinterrupted.
o
 
Palomares v. Jimenez
 –
a petition for certiorari does not suspend the periods prescribedby this section
o
 
Cruz v. Oppen
 –
neither does MR of the subject of the petition for relief.
o
 
Vda d Salvatierra v. Garlitos
 –
these periods cannot be subject to a condition orcontingency as they are devised to meet a condition or contingency.
o
 
Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines v. Arciaga
 –
both periods must be complied with
 
Balite v. Cabangon
 –
a petition for relief filed on the 65
th
day from notice of order, but within 6months from such proceeding was given due course.
 
CIVILPROCEDURE2
o
 
But this was a proceeding in the court of agrarian relations not bound by technical rulesof procedure.
 
PHHC v. Tiongco
 –
petition for relief was filed beyond the 60 day reglementary period, SCordered trial court to give it due course since original counsel of defendants deprived them of their day in court by
fishy and suspicious
actualtions
 
Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines v. Arciaga
 –
petition for relief was filed on 61
st
day and therefore correctlydenied. Special circumstances obtaining in Balite and PHHC which warranted relaxation of therule did not obtain in this case.
 
Perez v. Araneta
 –
The 60 day period is reckoned from the time the party acquired knowledge of the order, judgment or proceedings and not from the date he actually read the same.
 
The 6 month period is computed from the date of entry of the final order or judgment.
 
With respect of proceedings, the date when the proceedings were taken controls.
 
In judgments upon compromise, being immediately executor, prescription runs from the date of its rendition, hence the 6 month period also runs therefrom.
 
An affidavit of merits must accompany the petition, and the petition itself must be verified.
o
 
Fernandez v. Tan Tiong Tick
 –
As in MNT the absence of an affidavit of merits is a fataldefect and warrants denial of the petition
o
 
Fabar, Inc. v. Rodelas
 –
unless the facts required to be set out in the affidavit of meritsalso appear in the verified petition.
o
 
Republic v. De Leon
 –
also, like motions for new trial, such affidavits are not requiredwhen the judgment or order is void for want of jurisdiction, or was obtained by mistakeof fraud (Lupisan v. Alfonso) or with denial of due process (Valerio v. Tan).
38.4, 38.5
 
Ayson v. Ayson
 –
Where a writ of execution was already issued and levy was made before thepetition for relief was filed, the lien that may have been acquired over the property is notdischarged by the subsequent issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. Thereafter, if thepetition is denied, the court has the power to reinstate the writ of execution.
 
Servicewide Specialists v. Sheriff of Manila
 –
Unless a writ of preliminary injunction has beenissued, execution of the judgment shall proceed even if the order denying the petition for relief is pending on appeal. Said writ may be sought either in the trial or appellate courts.
38.6
 
Villanueva v. Alcoba
 –
There are two steps or hearings in a petition for relief 
o
 
A hearing to determine whether the judgment order or proceeding should be set aside
o
 
In the affirmative, a hearing on the merits of the case.
 
CIVILPROCEDURE3
 
Failure to file an answer to the petition for relief does not constitute default as even withoutsuch answer, the court will still have to hear the petition and determine its merits.
 
An order granting a petition for relief is interlocutory and non-appealable.
38.7RULE 40: APPEAL FROM MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS TO REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS40.1
 
Sec. 18 of BP 129 provided that SC shall define the territory over which the RTC shall exercise itsauthority. Territory thus defined shall, inter alia, determine the lower courts over which the saidbranch may exercise appellate jurisdiction.
 
Starting with AO No. 3 (1983) the SC defined the territorial jurisdiction of the RTCs andspecifically that of the branches thereof.
40.2
 
Pursuant to RA 7691, MTC now have probate jurisdiction where the gross value of the estate,whether testate or intestate does not exceed P 100,00 or if in Metro Manila P 200,000.
o
 
As provided in Sec 3 of this rule an appeal from such special proceeding shall be byrecord on appeal.
o
 
The reglementary periods of appeals from inferior courts are the same as those fromthe RTCs.
 
Second paragraph regarding the interruption of the period of appeal and the prohibition of amotion for extension to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration is likewise the same as rulein RTCs (41.3)
o
 
This s in consonance with the policy on uniformity of procedure in both courts (Rule 5)
40.3
 
Notice of appeal shall indicate (same as 41.5)
o
 
not only the parties
o
 
but also the judgment or final order or part thereof appealed from,
o
 
together with the material dates showing the timeliness of the appeal.
 
The last mentioned requirement is the same as the “material data rule”
applicable to records on appeal with respect to the contents thereof, and forthe same reasons which impelled the adoption of that rule.
40.4
 
Since appeals from the inferior courts may now be either by notice of appeal or record onappeal, the rules on perfection and effect thereof are the same (see 41.9)

Activity (6)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Daniel Brown liked this
Faith Laperal liked this
Resci Rizada liked this
Jantzen Chua liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->