1997Rul

esonCivilProcedur e Rule37
2001Edi
ti
on<dr
aftcopy.pl
s.checkf
orer
ror
s> NewTr
ial
orReconsi
derati
on

Rul
e37
NEW TRI
ALORRECONSI
DERATI
ON

Thecounter
partofRul
e37incriminalprocedureisRule121. I
ncr
imi
nal
pr
ocedur
e,t
hereisal
sother
emedyofnewt r
ialandreconsi
der
ati
on.

Section1.Gr oundsofandper i
odf orf il
ingmot ionf ornewt r
ialor
reconsider at i
on.Wi thi
nt heper iodf ort akinganappeal ,theaggr ieved
partymaymov et het r
ialcour ttosetasi det hej udgmentorf i
nal order
and gr anta new t ri
alf orone ormor e oft he f ol
lowi ng causes
mat eri
allyaf fectingt hesubst anti
alr i
ght sofsai dpar ty:
(a)Fr aud,acci dent,mi stake orexcusabl e negl igence whi ch
ordinarypr udencecoul dnothav eguar dedagai nstandbyr easonof
whichsuchaggr i
ev edpar tyhaspr obabl ybeeni mpai redi nhisr i
ght s;
or
(b) Newl y di scovered ev idence,whi ch he coul d not ,wi th
reasonabl edi l
i
gence,hav edi scover edandpr oducedatt hetri
al,and
whichi fpr esent edwoul dpr obablyal tert her esul t
.
Withint hesameper iod,t heaggr iev edpar t
ymayal somov ef or
reconsider at i
onupont hegr oundst hatt hedamagesawar dedar e
excessiv e,t hatt heev i
dencei sinsuf ficientt oj usti
fyt hedeci sionor
fi
nal order ,orthatt hedeci si
onorf inal orderi scont rarytol aw.(1a)

Q:Whenmayanaggr iev
edpartyfi
leamotionf
ornew t
ri
aloramoti
onfor
reconsi
derat
ion?
A:Withi
nt heperi
od fortaki
ng anappeal
.Meani
ng,befor
ethej
udgment
becomesf i
nalandexecut
ory.

Theremediesagai
nstajudgmentmayr ef
ertot hoseremediesbeforea
j
udgmentbecomes fi
naland execut
orand t
hose r
emedies af
terthe same
becomesexecut
or.

1.Bef
oreajudgmentbecomesfi
nalandexecut
or,t
heaggr
iev
edorl
osi
ng
par
tymayavai
loft
hefol
lowi
ngr
emedies:

a.
)Moti
onforReconsi
derat
ion;
b.
)Moti
onforNewTr i
al;
and
c.
)Appeal
.

Ajudgmentbecomesfi
nalandexecutor
yupontheexpi
rat
ionoft
heperi
od
t
oappealther
efr
om andnoappealhasbeenper
fect
ed(Sec.1Rul
e39)
.

2.Aft
ert
hejudgmentbecomesexecut
ory
,thel
osi
ngpar
tymayav
ailoft
he
fol
l
owi
ng:
LakasAt
eni
sta 82
At
eneodeDav
aoUni
ver
sit
yCol
l
egeofLaw
1997Rul
esonCivilProcedur e Rule37
2001Edi
ti
on<dr
aftcopy.pl
s.checkf
orer
ror
s> NewTr
ial
orReconsi
derati
on

a.
)Pet
iti
onf orReli
effr
om Judgment
;
b.
)Act
iont oAnnul aJudgment;
c.
)Cer
tiorari
;and
d.
)Col
lateralAtt
ackofJudgment.

Wehav enotyetdiscussedthelawonappealbutt
hegeneralr
uleisjustl
i
kein
cri
minalcases.Ifyoul ose,youhave15day stofi
leanappeal.Ifthereisno
appealwi
thin15days,thejudgmentwi
ll
becomef i
nalandexecut
ory.

Q: Whati
stheeff
ectwhenjudgmentbecomesfi
nalandexecut
ory?
A:UnderRule36,t hecour
tlosesjur
isdi
cti
onoverthecase. Thedecisi
on
cannotbechangedany mor
e.Butaslongasjudgmentisnotyetfi
nal,t
hecourt
canchangethedeci
sion.

Q:Whatistheeff
ectoffil
ingamot i
onfornewtri
alorreconsi
der
ati
on onthe
peri
odtoappeal
?
A:Theperi
odtoappealissuspended.Per
iodtoappeali
ssuspendedexcepti
f
yourmoti
onfornewtri
alorreconsi
der
ati
onispro-
for
maunderSect i
ons2and5.

NEW TRI
AL

Themotion i
sf i
l
ed wi
thi
ntheperi
od to appeal(Sec.1)
.No moti
on for
ext
ensi
onofti
met ofi
leamot
ionf
ornewtr
ialshallbeal
lowed(
Sec.2,
R40;Sec.
3,R41)
.

Theper i
odt oappealiswi thi
n15day safternoticet otheappell
antoft he
j
udgmentorf inalorderappealedfr
om ( Sec.2R40;Sec.3,R41;Sec.2R45) .
Wher ear ecordonappeali srequi
red,theappel lantshallfi
leanoti
ceofappeal
andar ecor
donappealwi thin30daysf rom noticeoft hejudgmentorfi
nalorder
(Sec.3R41) .Ar ecordonappealshall
ber equi
redonly( a)i
nspeci
alproceedi
ngs,
and( b)othercasesofmul t
ipl
eorseparat eappeals(Sec.3R40) .

Amotionf
ornewt ri
alispr
ohi
bit
edincasescover
edbyt heRuleonSummar y
Procedur
e(Sec.19[
c],Revi
sedRul
eonSummar yProcedur
e).Iti
salsopr
ohibi
ted
undertheRul
eofPr oceduref
orSmallCl
aimsCases(Sec.14©,A.M.No.08-8-
7-
SC).

Q:Whatar
ethegroundsforamot
ionf
ornewtr
ial
inci
vi
lcases?
A:
UnderSect
ion1,ther
earetwo(
2)GROUNDS:

1.
)Fr
aud,Acci
dent
,Mist
ake,
Excusabl
enegl
i
gence(
FAME)
;
2.
)Newl
yDiscover
edEvi
dence(NDE)

LakasAt
eni
sta 83
At
eneodeDav
aoUni
ver
sit
yCol
l
egeofLaw
1997Rul
esonCivilProcedur e Rule37
2001Edi
ti
on<dr
aftcopy.pl
s.checkf
orer
ror
s> NewTr
ial
orReconsi
derati
on

FI
RSTGROUND:Fr
aud,
Acci
dent
,Mi
stake,
Excusabl
enegl
i
gence(
FAME)

Letusr
elatethistoRule9,Secti
on3[b]onDefault.Thegroundt ol
i
ftorset
asidetheorderofdef aul
tisalsoFAME–t hathef ail
edtoanswerbecauseof
FAME.So, t
hereisaconnect i
onbetweenRule9andt hefi
rstgroundofamotion
fornewtri
al.Butthi
sisnotappli
cabl
eonlyt
oadefaulteddefendant.

Q:Howdoy oudeter
minewhent ouseRule9orRule37whenonei sdecl
ared
i
ndefault
?
A:UseRul e9,Section3[ b]afternoti
ceoft heorderofdefaul
tbutbefore
j
udgment;
UseRule37ifthereisalreadyaj udgmentbutnotyetfi
nalandexecutory.
Rule37istheremedyi ncaset hedefendantwhoisdeclar
edindefaul
tfail
ed
toavai
lofRule9,Secti
on3[ b]
.

ButRul e37onmot i
onf ornew t r
ialont hegr oundofFAMEi sbr oader.I t
appli
est oplainti
ffordef endantwhetheri ndefaultornotbecauseadef endant
canstil
llosethecaset hroughFAMEal thoughhei snotindefaul
t.Or,
forexampl e:
Theplainti
ff
,becauseofhi sfai
luretoappearinthecase, thecourtdi
smi ssedt he
case.Butt her easonwhyt heplaint
ifffai
ledtoappeari sbecauseofFAME.So
theremedyf orplaint
if
fist omov etosetasidet hedismissalandhav et hecase
conti
nuedbyf ili
ngamot ionf ornewt r
ialonthegroundofFAME.

Butdef
ini
tel
y,Rul
e37al
soappl
i
estoadef
endantdecl
aredi
ndef
aul
tandt
hat
i
stheconnecti
onbet
weenRul
e37andRul
e9.

FRAUD(
Ext
ri
nsi
c)

Whati
sFRAUD?Int
agal
og,nai
sahankaornalokoka.(
Il
onggo:na-
uti
s)Under
thel
aw,t
herear
etwo(2)TYPESofFr aud:EXTRINSI
CFRAUDandI NTRINSI
C
FRAUD

Fraudisr egardedasext r
insicorcol l
ateralincharacterwher ei tprevent
sa
par tyfrom hav ingat rialorfr
om pr esentinghi sentir
ecaset othecour t
,orwhere
i
toper atesuponmat t
erspertaini
ngnott ot hejudgmenti t
selfbutt othemanner
i
nwhi chi ti spr ocured.Theov erridingconsi derat
ionwhenext r
insicfraudis
allegedi st hatthef raudulentschemeoft hepr evail
i
ngl i
ti
gantpr eventedapar t
y
from hav i
nghi sdayi ncourt( Alabanv s.CA) .Thiski
ndoff raudpr eventsthe
aggr i
evedpar t
yfrom hav ingat ri
alorpr esentinghiscaset othecour t
,orisused
topr ocuret hej udgmentwi thoutf airsubmi ssionoft hecont roversy,aswhen
ther eisaf alsepr omiseofacompr omi seorwhenonei skeptignor antofthesuit.
(Villanuevav s.Ni t
e).
LakasAt
eni
sta 84
At
eneodeDav
aoUni
ver
sit
yCol
l
egeofLaw
1997Rul
esonCivilProcedur e Rule37
2001Edi
ti
on<dr
aftcopy.pl
s.checkf
orer
ror
s> NewTr
ial
orReconsi
derati
on

Statedinanotherway,extr
insi
cf r
audexistswhent her
ei safraudul
entact
commi tt
edbyt heprev
ail
ingpartyoutsi
deoft hetr
ialofthecase,wherebythe
defeat
edpar t
ywaspr ev
entedf r
om presenti
ngfullyhissideoft hecaseby
decepti
onpracti
cedonhim bytheprevai
l
ingparty(
Albavs.CA465SCRA495)

Theuseoff orgedinstruments,orper
juredt esti
moniesduri
ngt ri
alisnotan
extri
nsicfraud.Suchev idencedoesnotpr ecl
udeapar t
y’
sparti
cipati
onint hetr
ial
(Bobisv s.CA348SCRA23;St r
aitTimesv s.CAGR126673August28,1998) .
Offeri
ngper juredt est
imonyorof fer
ingmanuf acturedevi
dencei sint
rinsicand
notex t
rinsi
cf r
aud.I nt
ri
nsicfraudisnotsuffi
cienttoannulajudgment( Condev s.
IACGRL- 70443, Sept,
15, 1986).

I
NTRINSICFRAUDi sthatfraudwhichwasani ssueinthel
it
igati
onsuchas
perj
ury,
fal
set est
imony,concealmentofev
identi
aryfacts,
butdi
dnotpr ev
entyou
from pr
esenti
ngy ourcase.Thatisnotagr oundforannulmentofjudgment.So
takenoteofthatpri
nci
ple.

GARCIAvs.COURTOFAPPEALS
202SCRA228[1991]

HELD:EXTRI NSICFRAUDi sthattypeoffraudwhi chhaspr event

eda
partyfr
om havingatrialorfr
om presenti
nghiscasei ncourt.I
NTRI NSIC
FRAUDi sbasedont heact sofapartyinali
ti
gationduringthet r
ial
,such
ast heuseoff orgedinstrumentsorperjur
edt est
imony ,whichdi dnot
aff
ectt hepresentat
ionoft hecase,butdi dpr eventthef ai
randj ust
determinat
ionofthecase.

Q:Wheni sf r
audasuf f
ici
entgroundf ornewtri
al?
A:FRAUD,t obeagr oundf ornew t ri
al,mustbeEXTRI NSI
C – wherethe
aggriev
edpar t
ywas mi sl
edbyt headv erseparty
,andbyreasonther
eof,hewas
preventedf r
om present
inghiscasepr operly.(
Gisbur
neSupplyCo.vs.Quiogue,
34Phi l.913;Al medavs.Cruz,84Phil.636;Sterl
ingI
nvest
mentCorp.vs.Rui
z,L-
30694,Oct .31,1969)

So,
int
ri
nsi
cfr
audi
snotagr
oundf
oranewt
ri
al.

EXAMPLE:SupposeIam t helawy eroftheplainti

ffandy ouarethelawyerof
thedefendant
.Thecasewi llbet r
iedt omorrow.Icalledyouupandaskedy outo
postponethetr
ial
,“Iwil
ltel
lthecour tthatItal
kedt oyouandy ouagr
eedthatthe
tri
alwil
lbepostponed.
”Thef ol
lowingday ,Iappearedincour t
.Whent hecaseis
call
ed,Isai
dthatI’
mr eady.Cour t:“
Saanangdef endant?”Isaid,“
Wala!Awan!”I
thenmov edtoconti
nuethetrial
.

LakasAt
eni
sta 85
At
eneodeDav
aoUni
ver
sit
yCol
l
egeofLaw
1997Rul
esonCivilProcedur e Rule37
2001Edi
ti
on<dr
aftcopy.pl
s.checkf
orer
ror
s> NewTr
ial
orReconsi
derati
on

So,nai
sahankit
a.Imaneuver
edaschemei nsuchawayt hatyouwillnot
appearin court
. You l
ostyouroppor t
unit
yt o pr
esentyoursi
de. Thati s
EXTRINSICFRAUD. Yourremedynow ist ofil
eamot i
onfornew t
ri
alont he
groundthatyouhav
ebeenavict
im ofEXTRINSICFRAUDbytheplai
nti
ff
’sl
awyer.

EXAMPLE:Ther eisa casebet weeny ouandme.Dur ingthetri

al,Ipr
esented
witnessest oprovemycauseofact ion. Allmywi tnesseswer el y
ing– they
testif
iedf al
sel
y.Ipr esentedfalsi
fi
eddocument stopr ovemycase.AndIwont he
casebecauseoft hoseper j
uredtesti
moni esandf al
sifi
eddocument s.Youf i
l
ea
mot ionf ornewt r
ialallegi
ngFRAUD–t hatthet esti
moni esanddocument swer e
falsif
ied.
Q: Shouldyourmot ionfornewt ri
albegr anted?
A:NO.Yourmot ionwi llbedeniedbecauset heFRAUDi sINTRI
NSI Cbecause
youwer enotprevent edf r
om goingt ocour t.So,y ourr emedyi stoexposemy
per j
uredandf al
sifi
edev i
dence. Youcanpr esentr ebut talevi
dence.Itisyour
obligationt oprovet hatmywi t
nessesar el yingandmydocument sarefalse.
Def i
nitely,y
oucannotaskamot i
onforanewt rial.

ACCI
DENT

Whati sACCIDENT?Iti
ssomet hi
ngunf oreseen,somethingunexpect
edor
unant
ici
pated.Wheni
sacci
dentasuff
ici
entgroundf ornewt
rial?

EXAMPLE:Apar t
yf ai
l
edt oappearincourtbecausehegotsi ckatt hel
ast
minute.Or,i
nthemiddleofthetr
ial
,thelawyerofthepart
ybecomessi ck.With
that,t
hecomplai
ntwasdismissedortherewasajudgmentagainstyou.Youcan
mov efornewtri
alonthegroundofaccident
.(Phi
l.Engi
neeri
ngCo.vs.Argosi
no,
49Phi l
.983)

EXAMPLE:Thedef endantwasdecl
aredindef aultbecausehedi dnotfil
ean
answerbutactual
lyhefil
edananswerthroughmai l
,butsomehowt hepostoff
ice
di
dnotdel i
veritt
othecour .Thati
t sanacci dent.Wi t
ht hat,Icanmov efornew
tr
ialorl
if
ttheorderofdefaul
t.(
OngGuanCanv s.Centur
yI ns.Co.,45Phil
.667)

EXAMPLE:Thet r
ialwasthismor ni
ng.ButIreceivedonl
ythenoti
ceoftri
alon
Mar ch9,1998st ati
ngthatthet r
iali
sonMar ch5.Sot henoti
ceofheari
ngwas
receiv
edday safterthescheduleddate.Thatisanaccidentwhi
chisagroundfor
newt ri
al.(
Solor
iavs.DelaCruz,L-20738,Jan.31,1966)

MI
STAKE

Whati
sMI
STAKE?Mi
stake(
n)i
snagkamal
i– Iwaswr
ong.Sabi
say
apa,
‘
nasay
op.
’

EXAMPLE:Def
endantr
ecei
ved summons and compl
aint
.The def
endant
,
LakasAt
eni
sta 86
At
eneodeDav
aoUni
ver
sit
yCol
l
egeofLaw
1997Rul
esonCivilProcedur e Rule37
2001Edi
ti
on<dr
aftcopy.pl
s.checkf
orer
ror
s> NewTr
ial
orReconsi
derati
on

i
nsteadofseeki ngassi stanceofal awy er,wentt otheplaint
if
fandaskedf or
set
tlement.Theykeptont al
kingaboutt heset t
lementbuti nthemeantime,the
per
iodt ofil
eansweri sal sor unning.Fifteenday shadpassedbyt heybuydidnot
set
tley et
. Plainti
ffmov edt odecl aredef endanti ndefaul
t. Thecourtissued
j
udgmentondef ault
.Def endantsai d,“Laymanmanako.Anongmal aykodiyan
sa‘default-
default
’nay an.” Thel awy ersai d,“Sanaanswermunabef or
ey ou
set
tlewi t
ht heplaint
iff
.”Sot hel awy erfiledamot ionfornewt ri
alontheground
ofMI STAKE.Thecour tgr antedit.(Salazarv s.Salazar
,8Phil.183)

GENERALRULE: Acl i
entisboundbythemist
akesofhi
slawyerandhe
cannotf
il
eamotionf
ornewtri
alonthegr
oundofmist
akeofhi
slawyer
.Int
he
caseof

BELLOvs.LABONG
L-
10788,
April
30,1959

HELD:“ Themi stakeofanat tor

neyi snotgenerall
yagr oundfornew
tr
ial.Themi stakeorlackoff or
esightorpr epar
ati
onont hepar tofthe
attorneycannotbeadmi tt
ed asr eason fornew trialin civ
ilcases,
otherwiset her ewouldneverbeanendt oasui tsol ongasanew
counselcoul dbeempl oyedwhocoul dal l
egeandshow t hattheprior
counsel hadnotbeensuf fi
cientl
ydili
gent,orexperi
enced,orlearned.
”

Whatt heSCi stryingt osayi sthi s:Supposewewi l

lgr antanewt rialforthe
partyont hegr oundofmi stakeofhisf i
rstlawy er,andaf tert henewt ri
al,thepar t
y
sti
lllost.Sosuchpar t
ywi llnowhireat hirdlawy erwhowi l
lsay,“Doy ouknow
whyy oul ost?Thati sbecauseoft hemi st akeofy oursecondl awyersowewi ll
fi
leamot ionf ornewt r
ial.”Sot het hir
dlawy erwillallegemi stakeofthesecond
l
awy erandt henwewi l
lgr antagainanewt r
ialandt henhel osesagain.Thenhe
getsaf ourthlawy erandt hef our
thlawy erwi llal
leget hegr oundofmi stakeoft he
thi
rdl awy er.
So, t
her ewi llneverbeanendt oacase.Sot hegener alr uletorememberi s,a
cli
enti sboundbyt hemi stakesofhi slawy erandhecannotf il
eamot i
onf ornew
tri
alont hegr oundofmi st akeofhisl awy er.Sot hati snott hetypeofmi stake
contempl atedbyRul e37.

Theonl
yEXCEPTI
ONi
sbasedonequi
tydeci
si
onl
i
ket
hecaseof

PEOPLEvs.MANZANI
LLA
43Phil
.167

HELD:“Anewt ri
ali
ssomet imesgr antedwheretheINCOMPETENCY
orNEGLI GENCEoft heparty’
scounselint heconductoft
hecaseISSO
GREAT t hatpart
y’sright
sar eprejudiced and heisprevent
ed f
rom
present
inghiscauseofactionordefense.”

LakasAt
eni
sta 87
At
eneodeDav
aoUni
ver
sit
yCol
l
egeofLaw
1997Rul
esonCivilProcedur e Rule37
2001Edi
ti
on<dr
aftcopy.pl
s.checkf
orer
ror
s> NewTr
ial
orReconsi
derati
on

EXCUSABLENEGLI
GENCE

Gr
ossnegl
i
genceofcounsel
notagr
oundf
ornewt
ri
al

Pet i
ti
oner’
sar gumentt hathi
scounsel ’
snegli
gencewassogr osst hathewas
depr i
vedofduepr ocessf ai
l
st oimpress.Grossnegligencei snotoneoft he
groundsf oramot ionforanewt ri
al.Wecannotdeclar
ehi scounsel’snegl i
gence
as gr oss as t ol i
berat
e him f r
om t he ef
fect
s ofhi sf ai
lur
et o pr esent
count er
vail
ingevidence.TheCour tdoesnotconsiderasgr ossnegl igencet he
counsel’sresorttodi lat
oryschemes,suchas( 1)thef i
li
ngofatl eastt hree
mot ionstoextendt hefil
i
ngofpet i
ti
oner’
sanswer;(
2)hi snonappearancedur i
ng
theschedul edpre-tr
ial
s;and(3)thefai
luretofi
lepeti
ti
oner’spre-t
ri
albr ief,even
afterthefil
i
ngofsev er
almoti
onst oext
endthedateoffili
ng(Uyv s.FirstMet ro).

EXCUSABLENEGLI GENCE.Obvi
ousl
y,i
nexcusablenegl
igenceisnotaground
fornewtri
al.Butsomet i
mes,iti
sdif
fi
cul
ttodeterminewhetherthenegl
i
genceis
excusabl
eori nexcusabl
e.Thatisal
soverydif
ficul
tbecausetherei
snegli
gence
whetheryouli
kei tornot.

Wheni snegli
genceexcusableandwhenisiti
nexcusabl
e?Ouronlyguidehere
i
sdeci dedcasesbecauset herearemanycaseswher et
heSCsai dt hat
,itis
excusablesowewi llgr
antanew t ri
al.Orsometi
mesnaman,wal a,thatisnot
excusablesononewt ri
al.So,wecangoont hepat
ternandfi
ndoutwhatt ypeof
negli
gencewarrant
edanewt r
ialandwhatt
ypedoesnotwarrantanewt r
ial
.

I
NEXCUSABLENEGLI
GENCE;
Exampl
es:

EXAMPLE#1:I fadef endantl

ostacasebecausehi sl
awyerf
ail
edtof il
ean
answer.And the excuse ofthe lawyerwas,“ Iforgotaboutthe deadli
ne.
Nali
mutanko.Idi
dnotkeept r
actofthedeadl
i
net ofil
eananswer.
”Andt heSC
sai
d,“Nodi
ce.Thatisnotexcusableonthepartofthelawyer
.”

EXAMPLE#2:Yourcasewasdi smissedbecauseyouf ai
l
edtoappearincourt
.
Her ecomesnow y ourlawyeraskingfornew tri
alont hegroundofexcusable
negligence,“Ifail
ed to appearin courtbecause Iagai nforgotaboutthat
schedule”or“ becauseIf ai
ledtowake-upbecauset henightbefore,Iandmy
fr
iendswentt oa( Wigmor e)par
tyandIwenthomedr unk.”Doy outhinkt
heSC
willhonorthat
?I sthatexcusabl
e?Ofcoursenot!

EXAMPLE #3:In manycases,t hereason is,“Ifail

ed t
o appearincour t
becausemysecr et
aryinmyl aw offi
cefai
ledt oinf
orm meaboutt hatnot
ice.
Hindini
yanalagay‘yungnoticethatIhavet oappeari ncourtt
oday.” SCsaid,
“Youareboundbyt hemistakeofy oursecr
etaryandt hecli
enti
salsoboundby
thatmist
akeoft hel awy
er.I nthef i
rstplace,whydi dy ouhir
et hatkindof

LakasAt
eni
sta 88
At
eneodeDav
aoUni
ver
sit
yCol
l
egeofLaw
1997Rul
esonCivilProcedur e Rule37
2001Edi
ti
on<dr
aftcopy.pl
s.checkf
orer
ror
s> NewTr
ial
orReconsi
derati
on

secr
etar
y?”

EXAMPLE#4:I nsomecases,“ Well

,youseeyourhonor,Ifail
edt oappearin
courtbecausemysecr et
arydi
dnotcalendari
t.
”O,bakitni
yahindii
nil ?“
agay Well,
she’
sjustanewl yhi
redsecret
ary
,shedoesnotknowy etthei
mpor tanceofthese
thi
ngs.Fir
stti
meni ya.
”TheSCsai “
d,Hunghang!Pasensiyaka!Whydi dyounot
ori
entherbeforehir
ingher.
”

Soal
lthesethi
ngshi
ndil
umusot.Allt
hesethi
ngsfail
edt
oconv
incet
heSC
t
hatt
henegli
genceoft
hepar
tyoft
helawyeri
fexcusabl
e.

EXCUSABLENEGLI
GENCE;
Exampl
es:

EXAMPLE#1:Theanswerhast obef il
edt hefol
l
owingday.Thelawyert old
thesecr
etary,“I
’
ml eavi
ngtonight.I
’
llcomebackoneweekl at
er.Youbetterf il
e
tomorr
ow theanswerbecauset omorrow i
st hedeadli
ne.
”Thenhel ef
tbutt he
secr
etar
yfailedtofil
eitbecausesheal sogotsick.Ayan.Nagkapat
ong-patong
naangmal as.Excusablei
yan.

EXAMPLE#2:“ Ifai
ledtoappeari ncour
tbecauseIhadt ocomef rom Manila
andthepl anewasdelayedortheflightwascancel
led.Butifthefl
i
ghtproceeded
ont i
meIwoul dhavebeeni nDav aoCi t
yby7:00A. M.andIwoul dhav ebeeni n
courtat8:30A.M.”Somet i
mest hathappensehwher ethefli
ghtiscancell
edor
del
ay ed.Anongay ony an?Sabihin,youshouldhav etakent hefl
ightthenight
beforepar asi ado.“
gur Eh,thenightbeforeful
lybookedna!Anongmagagawa
ko?”Ay an.

Soi notherwords,t
hesethi
ngs,youcouldalsoconsi
deri
taswhat?Par
ang
acci
dentdinno? Magkahawigeh!Inotherwordsyoushoul
duseyourcommon
sense.Whethert
henegli
gencei
sforgi
vableornot.

Andt oborr
ow thel
anguageoft heSC,“ Thestandardofcarerequi
redofa
part
yist hatwhich an ordi
naril
y prudentman best ows on hi
si mpor
tant
busi
ness.
”(Fer
nandezvs.TanTiongTick,L-15877,
April28,1961)

So,forEXAMPLE:Youar eabusinessmanandy ouhav eanappointmentwith

somebodywhowi l
lgiveyouadealofP50mi ll
i
on.Andy ouar eschedul
edtosee
him onthisdateandont histi
me.Cany ouaffordtoforgetthatt
ransact
ion?I
thi
nkthereissomethingwrongwithyouifyouforgoti
t.Youdonotknowwhati s
i
mpor t
antandwhati snotimport
ant.(
Angimportantei
sy ungmahalaga!Diba?)

Ther
earethi
ngswhichy oufor
getandsomehowinf
orget
ti
ngi
tyoucannotbe
bl
amedbecauseit
’snotreall
yimport
ant
.Butther
earethi
ngswhi
chyoucannot
af
for
dtofor
get.

EXAMPLE:Yourclassmatetel
lsyou,“
Thi
scomingSatur
dayyougot othe
”“
house. Why
?Isther
ea( Wigmore)par
tyt
her
e?”“
Walaman.I
’mjusti
nvi
ti
ngy
ou
LakasAt
eni
sta 89
At
eneodeDav
aoUni
ver
sit
yCol
l
egeofLaw
1997Rul
esonCivilProcedur e Rule37
2001Edi
ti
on<dr
aftcopy.pl
s.checkf
orer
ror
s> NewTr
ial
orReconsi
derati
on

tocomeha? ”AndbyMonday ,“Iwaswaiti

ngfory ou, y
oudi
dnotshowup!”“Tama
‘
no? Sor ry nal
imutan ko.” Now,i sf orgett
ing y ourappoint
mentwithy our
classmatetwoday sbeforef orgi
vabl
eornot ?It hinkfor
givabl
eiyan.Any way,
i
st or
ya-i
stor
yamanl ang.Parabang,“O,sige,disasusunodnaSabadonal ang.”
Meani ng,madal i
ng ma- erase sa mi nd mo y ang mga ganyang klaseng
appointmentba!

EXAMPLE:ButsupposeonSat urdaymorningyouaresupposedt ogot o

churchforyourweddi
ng,hindikanakasi
pot
.Andt heny
out el
lyourbr
ideort he
groom,“Pasensi
yakanaha?Kasalpal anat
in,nakal
i
mutankoeh.(Sanat -
in-
ext
moako.Wal akangload‘no?hahaha!
)”Ithi
nkheorshewillki
l
lyouforthatkind
ofreasoni
ng.

EXAMPLE:I
falawyersay “
s, If
orgott
hatthisi
sthedayIshoul
df i
leananswer
formycli
ent.
”Or,
“Ifor
gottoappearincourtonthedayofhist
ri
al.
”I st
hecourt’
s
schedul
eortheschedul
eofal awyersomethingi
mportantf
orhim ornot
?It hi
nk
youknowtheanswer‘no?

Ay
an!Kay
aiy
ananggui
de.Thati
sthemeani
ngofexcusabl
enegl
i
gence.

NEWLYDI
SCOVEREDEVI
DENCE

Sect
ion1(b).Newl ydi
scover
edevidence,whichhecoul
dnot,wi
th
r
easonabl
edi l
igence,hav
ediscover
edandpr oducedatt
hetr
ial
,and
whi
chifpresentedwouldprobabl
yalt
ertheresult.

Q: WhatisNewlyDiscoveredEvi
dence( NDE)?
A:NDEi sev i
dencewhichwasdi scov er
edaftertri
al,orcannotbediscov
ered
duri
ngtrialgi
vent heexerciseofr easonabl
edi l
igence,andi fadmitt
ed,such
evi
dencewoul dprobablyalt
ertheresultofthecase.Ther eisaf i
ghti
ngchance
ba!So,youcoul dnothav ediscov
er edtheevidenceev enwithexerci
seofdue
di
li
gence.

Thi sisalsooneofthegroundsfornewtrialincr
iminalcases.Youlostacase
may bebecausey oudonothav eenoughevidencetopr oveyourcauseofact i
on.
Kulangba!Kul angkangebi
densi y
akayanataloka.Thenaf t
eryoulostthecase,
youcameacr ossanimpor
t antevi
dence,may beawi tnessoradocumentand
youl earnedaboutitf
orthef i
rstti
me.Angsay ang‘no?I fIwasablet opresent
thi
sev idencebakapanal
oako.

EXAMPLE:Youar eadefendantbeingsuedbecauseofnon- paymentofan

account.Angdepensamo,bayadna.Per osaanangr bo?“
esi Bastabinayaranko
siy
a,oknaman.Sabingani yawalanar awakongut ang.
”Now,soi t
’syourword
againsthiswor
dandthecourtdi
dnotbel i
eveyou.Thenet onamanangsabi niX,
“Nataloka?Bayadnamanyanba.”Kungganun, baki
talam mo?X: “Nandoonman
akoba.Iwast her
ewatchi
ngwheny oupai dhim.”Meani ng,kungnagtestif
yka
LakasAt
eni
sta 90
At
eneodeDav
aoUni
ver
sit
yCol
l
egeofLaw
1997Rul
esonCivilProcedur e Rule37
2001Edi
ti
on<dr
aftcopy.pl
s.checkf
orer
ror
s> NewTr
ial
orReconsi
derati
on

(
X)noon,bakadaugakobecausemydef
ensewoul
dhav
ebeencor
robor
atedby
y
ou.Yaaann!

Q:Whatar
etheREQUI
SITESf
orNDE?
A:Thefol
l
owing:

1.
)Thattheevidencewasdiscov
eredaft
ertri
al;
2.
)Thatitcoul
dnothav ebeendiscov
eredduringtr
ialev
enwit
hexer
ciseof
reasonabl
edili
gence;and
3.
)Thatifadmitt
ed,suchevi
dencewouldprobablyalt
ert
her
esult
.

THATTHEEVI
DENCEWASDI
SCOVEREDAFTERTRI
AL;

Q:Whathappensi
fevi
dencei
sthereal
lalongandyoufai
l
edt opresenti
t?
A:
ThatisnotNDE.Thati
sfor
gott
enevidenceandnotagroundfornewt r
ial
.

EXAMPLE:Ther ewasacasewher eapar ty,t

hroughhi slawy erfil
edamot ion
fornew tr
ialbasedont hisdocument .Bakithindimopr e-ni-
sentsat r
ial?“I
mispl
aceditinmydr awer .Nalimutankonamer onpal aakongr esi
bo.So,l et’
s
haveanewt rialbecauseIwi l
lnowintroduceagr oundf ornewt rial.
”Obviously,i
t
wasdiscoveredaf t
ertri
al.Itwasiny ourpossessionf orsol ong.Andaccor ding
totheSC,thati snotanewl ydiscoveredevidence.(Thatiskat angahan!)Thati s
for
gott
enev i
dencewhi chisnotagr oundf ornewt r
ial
.

THATITCOULDNOTHAVEBEENDISCOVEREDDURINGTRI
AL
EVENWITHEXERCI
SEOFREASONABLEDI
LIGENCE

Meani
ng,eveni
fyoutryyourbestt
olookf
ori
t,y
ouwoul
dnothav
efoundi
t.
Nownanatal
oka,yousuddenl
yfoundi
t.

Now,because t here ar
e clients who arelazy eh. So,mer on ka bang
dokument o?“Walaeh.Yousee, maramiakongf i
ledi
yanper otingi
nkowal aeh. ”
“Walagy ud?”“
Wala.
”So,tal
o.Wal angebidensi
yaeh!Afterawhi lepag-halungkat,
“Att
y.,naamandi ay.
”“ Mygolly!Nganongkar onmanl ang.Igav ey ousev eral
mont hstolookfort
hat.You’r
esol azy.Now, t
hatyoulost,youonl yfi
ndi tforan
hour.
”Int hi
scase,youdidnotcompl ywiththesecondr equi
si
t es–t hatitcould
nothav ebeendi scover
ed beforet r
ialevenwiththeexer ciseofr easonable
dil
i
gence.

THATI
FADMI
TTED,
SUCHEVI
DENCEWOULDPROBABLYALTERTHERESULT

Meani ng,ifthereisanew t ri
alandt henewl ydi
scov eredevidencewil
lbe
admitt
ed,itwoul dprobabl
yalt
erther esult.Probabl
ylang.Mayf i
ghti
ngchance,
o‘
per chance’l ang.Youarenotsay i
ngt hatifthenewev idencewillbeadmit
ted,
youwillautomat i
call
ywin.Thereisapr obabili
tyt
hatyouwi llwi
n.Andt hecourt
wil
lsay,“Ithi
nkpr obabl
e.Ok,newt r
ialgranted.Thendefendant,PASOK!”(
cguro,
LakasAt
eni
sta 91
At
eneodeDav
aoUni
ver
sit
yCol
l
egeofLaw
1997Rul
esonCivilProcedur e Rule37
2001Edi
ti
on<dr
aftcopy.pl
s.checkf
orer
ror
s> NewTr
ial
orReconsi
derati
on

djdgehiri
smykenri
quez?
)Then,
theev
idencewi
l
lbepr
esent
edandwewi
l
lfi
nd
outify
oucanwin.

ALv
NEW TRI s.REOPENI
NGOFTRI
AL

TheSC hasalr
eadymadepronouncementsonwhatt hereopeni
ngoft r
ial
meant
.Reopeni
ngoftri
ali
snotf
oundinthelaw.Therei
snoexpressrul
e,butit
i
sadmitt
edl
yall
owed.Nowgiv
eanexampleofreopeni
ngoftr
ial
.

EXAMPLE:Taposnaangt ri
al.Whatwi llcomenexti sdecisi
onandt henthe
partysai
d,“
Yourhonor,
couldwer eopenthet r
ial
?Mer onkamingnakal
imutaneh.
Iforgotanimpor
tantpi
eceofev i
dence.”Now,t hatcannotbenewt ri
albecause
wala pa man ang j
udgment .Rul e 37 appli
esonlywhen t hereisalreadya
j
udgment .I
ntheexample,isthatamot ionfornewt r
ial?No.I
tshouldbecall
eda
mot i
onforr
eopeni
ngoft r
ial.

Soift
hemoti
onisfil
edaf t
erthejudgmenti
sr ender
ed,i
tiscal
ledmot i
onfor
newtr
ial
.Whenthemot i
onisfil
edbeforeajudgementisrender
ed,itshoul
dbe
cal
l
edamotionf
orreopeningoftr
ial
.

EXAMPLE:Aj udgeaftertryi
ngthecase,“
Alright,
Iwi l
lnotdeci deyet.Iwantt o
got otheareaandlookatt heproper
ty.
”Meaning, t
hecour t
,oni tsown, wouldlike
toconductanocul ari
nspect i
on.Thati
sar eopeningoft hetrial.Now,wast here
anymot ionbyany body?Wal amanba.Thecour titsel
finit
iatedi t
.Andt hati s
all
owedsaidbyt heSC.Reopeni ngoftri
ali
sboundbynor ul
es.Thej udgewithor
withoutamot ioncandoi t
.Theonlygroundf orreopeningoft ri
alisinter
estof
j
ust i
ce.Andthatisver
ybr oad.Sother
earenor ules.

TheSC sai d:New tri

alshouldbedi sti
nguishedfrom t heexer ciseoft he
di
scr eti
onarypoweroft he courtto REOPEN a t ri
alfort he intr
oduct i
on of
additionalevi
dence,t
oclari
fyitsdoubtsonmat eri
alpoints.Thisdiscretionar
y
poweri ssubj
ecttonorul
eot hert
hant heparamountinterestofjusticeandwi ll
notber evi
ewedonappealunlesstheexerci
set her
eofisabused.( Arcev s.Arce,
L-13035, Nov.28,
1959)Soiti
soneoft heinherentpowersoft hecourt.

MOTI
ONFORRECONSI
DERATI
ON

Q:Whati
sthegroundf
oramoti
onf
orr
econsi
der
ati
on?
A:
Thir
dparagr
aphofSect
ion1:

Wit
hinthesameperiod,t
heaggrievedpart
ymayalsomov efor
reconsi
derati
onuponthegroundsthatt hedamagesawardedare
excessi
ve,thatt
heevi
denceisinsuf
fici
enttoj
ust
if
ythedecisi
onor
LakasAt
eni
sta 92
At
eneodeDav
aoUni
ver
sit
yCol
l
egeofLaw
1997Rul
esonCivilProcedur e Rule37
2001Edi
ti
on<dr
aftcopy.pl
s.checkf
orer
ror
s> NewTr
ial
orReconsi
derati
on

f
inal
order
,ort
hatt
hedeci
sionorf
inal
orderi
scont
rar
ytol
aw.
(1a)

Q:Whendoy ouf
il
eamot i
onforr
econsi
derat
ion?
A:Withi
nthesameperi
odforfi
li
ngamot i
onfornewt
ri
al.Meani
ng,
wit
hint
he
per
iodf
ortaki
nganappeal
.

Q:Whatar
ethegroundsforamot
ionforr
econsi
der
ation?
A:
Thefoll
owingaretheGROUNDSforamotionf
orreconsi
der
ati
on:

1.
)Thedamagesawar dedareexcessive;
2.
)Theevi
denceisinsuff
ici
entt
ojustif
ythedeci
si
onorfinal
or der;
3.
)Thedeci
sionororderiscont
rarytolaw.(
ineff
ect
,thedecisioniswr
ong)

Moti
onf
orr
econsi
der
ati
oni
smor
ecommon.Mot
ionsf
ornew t
ri
alar
ever
y
r
are.

I
namot i
onforreconsi
derat
ion,youconv
incet
hecour
tthatt
hedeci
si
oni
s
wr
ong,
thatt
hedeci
sioniscontr
arytolaw.

MOTI
ONFORNEW TRI
ALORRECONSI
DERATI
ON;
FORMALREQUI
REMENTS

Sec.2.Cont entsofmot ionf ornew t ri

alorr econsi der ati
onand
notice t hereof.The mot i
on shal lbe made i n wr it
ing st ati
ng the
groundorgr oundst her ef
or ,awr itt
ennot iceofwhi chshal lbeser ved
byt hemov antont headv ersepar ty.
Amot i
onf ornewt rialshal lbepr ovedi nthemannerpr ov i
dedfor
proofofmot ions.Amot i
onf ort hecausement i
onedi npar agraph(a)
oft hepr ecedingsect ionshal lbesuppor tedbyaf f
idavit
sofmer i
ts
whi ch may be r ebut t
ed by af fi
davit
s.A mot ion f ort he cause
ment i
onedi npar agraph( b)shal lbesuppor tedbyaf f
idav it
soft he
witnessesbywhom suchev idencei sexpectedt obegi ven, orbyduly
authent icateddocument swhi char eproposedt obei ntroducedi n
evidence.
A mot i
on f orr econsider ati
on shal lpoi ntoutspeci f i
call
yt he
fi
ndi ngsorconcl usionsoft hej udgmentorf i
nalor derwhi char enot
suppor ted byt heev i
denceorwhi char econt raryt ol aw,maki ng
expr essr eferencet ot het est imoni alordocument aryev i
denceort o
thepr ov i
sionsofl aw al l
eged t o becont r
aryt o suchf indingsor
concl usions.
Apr of ormamot i
onf ornew t ri
alorr econsiderationshal lnottol
l
ther eglement aryper i
odofappeal .(2a)

Q:Whatshouldbethef or
m ofamot i
onfornewt ri
al?
A:Itmustbeinwri
ting.Youmustst atet
hegr oundorgroundsf
orthemoti
on,
whetheri ti
sFAMEornewl ydiscov
eredevidence.Then,ofcourse,y
oumust
serveacopyoft hemot i
ontotheadversepar
ty.Meaning,youcomplywi
thal
lthe
requisi
tesofavali
dmot i
on.
LakasAt
eni
sta 93
At
eneodeDav
aoUni
ver
sit
yCol
l
egeofLaw
1997Rul
esonCivilProcedur e Rule37
2001Edi
ti
on<dr
aftcopy.pl
s.checkf
orer
ror
s> NewTr
ial
orReconsi
derati
on

PEOPLEvs.COURTOFAPPEALS
296SCRA418[Sept
.25,
1998]

FACTS:I
ndayf i
l
edamot i
onfornewt r
ialwithoutanoti
ceofheari
ng
(t
hisisavi
olati
onofpar agr
aphofSecti
on2) .Butshef i
l
edthemot i
on
wit
hin15days.Indayfi
l
edasupplementalmot i
onwi t
hnoti
ceofheari
ng
butfi
l
edbeyondt he15-
dayperi
od.Shoul
dt hecourtdenyt
hemotion?

HELD:The mot ion shoul d be deni ed.“A suppl ement alpl eading
subsequent l
yf i
ledt or emedyt hepreviousabsenceofnot icewi llnot
curet hedef ectnori nterruptthetoll
ingoft heprescribedper i
odwi t
hin
whicht oappeal .”
“Wear enoti mpr essedbyt heargumentt hatt
hesuppl ementf il
edby
theappel l
ant sonMay30shoul dbedeemedr et
roact i
v easoft hedat e
themot ionforr econsi derationwasf i
ledand, t
herefore, curedt hedef ect
therei
n.Tosoconsi deritwoul dbet oputapr emium onnegl i
genceand
subjectthefinalityofj udgment stothef orget
ful
nessorwhi msofpar t
ies
-l
it
igantsandt heirlawy ers.Thisofcoursewoul dbei nt olerableinawel l
-
orderedjudicialsy stem. ”

Thesecondparagr
aphsays,“
Amot i
onfornew tr
ialshallbeprovedi
nthe
mannerpr ov
idedforproofofmoti
ons…”Whatdoest hatmean? Whatisthe
proofofmot i
ons? Themannerorpr ovi
ngmotionsisal sofoundinRul
e15,
Section3:

Rule15,Sec.3.Contents.-Amot i
onshallstatetherel
iefsought
to be obtai
ned and the groundsupon whi ch i
tisbased,and i f
requir
edbyt heseRulesornecessarytopr ovefactsall
egedtherei
n,
shallbeaccompaniedbysuppor t
ingaf
fidav
itsandotherpapers.(
3a)

Q:Everyt
imeyouf i
leamot i
on,i
sitnecessar
ythatt
hegr
oundf oryourmot i
on
i
ssupportedbyaffi
davit
sorotherpaper
s?
A:I
fitisnecessary–YES.Ifiti
snotnecessary–NONEED.I fnecessary
,you
mustattachdocument sorsupport
ingaff
idavi
tsli
keamedicalcert
ifi
catefora
moti
ontopostponeduet oil
l
ness.

Q:I
si tnecessar
ythatwheny
ouf
il
emot
ionf
ornew t
ri
al,y
oumustat
tach
af
fi
dav
its?

REQUI
REMENTSWHENTHEGROUNDI
SF.
A.M.
E.

Secti
on2,secondparagr
aphsay s,“A motionforthecausement i
onedi n
par
agraph [
a]ofthe pr
ecedi
ng secti
on shallbe support
ed byaff
idavi
ts of
meri
ts…”Paragr
aph[
a]isFAME. So,amot ionfornew tri
alonthegroundof
FAMEmustbeaccompani edbyaf fi
davi
tsofmer its.A moti
onforthecause
LakasAt
eni
sta 94
At
eneodeDav
aoUni
ver
sit
yCol
l
egeofLaw
1997Rul
esonCivilProcedur e Rule37
2001Edi
ti
on<dr
aftcopy.pl
s.checkf
orer
ror
s> NewTr
ial
orReconsi
derati
on

ment i
onedi nparagraph“ a”shal lbesuppor tedbyaf f
idavitofmer i
t.Amot i
on
basedont hegroundi nletter“b”shallbesuppor t
edbyaf fidavi
tsofthewitnesses
bywhom such ev i
dence i sexpect ed t
o be gi v en,orbydul yauthenticat
ed
document swhichar epr oposedt obei ntr
oducedi nev idence(Sec.2) .Non-
compl i
ancewiththisr equirementwoul dreducet hemot i
ont oamer eprof orma
mot i
on.Undertheex plici
tpr ovi
sionsofther ule(Sec.2),apr oformamot ionf or
reconsider
ati
onshall nottolltheregl
ement ar
yper iodofappeal .

Af
fi
dav
itofMer
it

Theaffidavi
tofmer i
ts,mustbeoneshowi ngthefacts(notmereconclusi
onsor
opini
ons)constit
uti
ngt hevali
dcauseofact i
onordefensewhichthemov antmay
proveincaseanewt ri
alisgranted,becauseanewt ri
alwouldserv
enopur pose
andwoul djustwastethet i
meoft hecourtaswel last hepar
ti
esifthecompl ai
nt
i
saf t
erallgroundl
essort hedefenseisnilorinef
fect
ive.

Undert heRul es,themov i

ngpartymustshowt hathehasamer i
tori
ousdef ense.
Thef actsconst i
tutingt hemov ant’sgoodandsubst ant
ialdef ense,whichhemay
proveift hepet i
ti
onwer egranted,mustbeshowni ntheaf fidavi
twhichshoul d
accompanyt hemot ionf ornewt ri
al.Mereall
egati
onst hatonehasa“ mer itorious
defense”anda“ goodcause”ar emer econclusionswhi chdonotpr ovidet he
courtwi t
hanybasi sf ordeterminingthenatureandmer i
toft hecase.Anaf fi
dav i
t
ofmer itshoul d stat ef act
s,and notmer e opinion orconcl usi
ons ofl aw.
Petit
ioner’smot ion f ornew t r
ialand affi
davitofmer i
tdi d notment ion t he
evidencewhi chhewaspr eventedf r
om int
roducing,nordi di tall
eget hatsuch
evidencewoul dchanget heoutcomeoft hecase( Uyv s.Fi
rstMet roIntegr ated
SteelCor por
at i
on, G.R.No.167245, Sept
.27,2006).

AnAFFI DAVITOFMERI TSisonewhichrecit

esthenat ureandchar acterofFAME
onwhi cht hemot i
oni sbasedandst ati
ngthemov ant’sgoodandsubst ant ial
causeofact ionordefenseandtheevidenceheintendst opr esentifthemot ion
i
sgr anted,whichevidenceshoul
dbesuchast owar rantreasonablebeli
eft hat
theresultofthecasewouldprobabl
ybeot her
wise.(Pazv s.Inandan,75Phil.608;
ManilaSur et
yvs.DelRosari
o,101Phil
.412)

Meaning,youmustst atethef act

ssurroundingFAMEandy ourmer i
tori
ous
causeofact ionordefensewhet heryouaret hepl ai
nti
fforthedef endant.You
explai
nwhyy ouareav ict
im off r
aud,et
c.andt hatyouhav eagoodcauseof
acti
onordef ensewhichift
herewi l
lbeanewt rial
,youmi ghtwin.Iti
snotenough
thatyouareav ict
im ofFAME, y
oumustal sohav eamer it
ori
ouscauseofact i
on
ordefense.

Q:Whathappensifyoufil
eamotionwithoutaf
fi
dav
itofmeri
ts?
A:Then,yourmot i
onf ornew t
ri
alwi l
lbeimmediatel
ydenied.I
tisafatal
mist
ake.Yourmoti
onf ornewtri
ali
sclassi
fiedasaPROFORMAmot i
onfornew
t
ri
al.
LakasAt
eni
sta 95
At
eneodeDav
aoUni
ver
sit
yCol
l
egeofLaw
1997Rul
esonCivilProcedur e Rule37
2001Edi
ti
on<dr
aftcopy.pl
s.checkf
orer
ror
s> NewTr
ial
orReconsi
derati
on

Q:Br
ief
ly,
howdoyouclassi
fyapr
o-f
ormamotionf
ornewtr
ial
?
A:I
tisamotionf
ornewt ri
alwhi
chdoesnotcomplyi
nsubst
anceori
nfor
m
wi
thSecti
ons1and2ofRule37.

Q:WhatistheEFFECTofapr o-
for
mamot i
onfornewtr
ial?
A:Theperi
odt oappeali
sNOTi nt
erruptedbythefil
i
ngofsuchmot
ionfornew
t
ri
al.Ev
enther i
ghttoappealmaybef orfei
tedbecauseofthi
sdef
ect
.Theeffect
i
snowst at
edinthelastpar
agraphofSect i
on2:

Aprofor
mamot i
onfornew tr
ialorreconsi
der
ati
onshal
lnott
oll
t
heregl
ementar
yper
iodofappeal
.(2a)

Q:Supposeamov antwi l
lfi
leamot i
onfornew tr
ialinthegroundofFAME
withtheaffi
davit
sofmer i
tsandsay s“Iam avi
cti
m offraudandifsuchmot i
onis
granted,Ihaveagoodandmer it
oriouscauseofacti
onorgoodandmer it
ori
ous
defense.”Istheaffi
davitsuffi
cient?
A:SC–No,t hosear egener alit
ies,youmustrecit
et hefact
sconst i
tuti
ngthe
FAME.Youmustdescr i
beexact lywhathappenedt oyou.Tosayt hatyouhave
goodcauseofact ionordef enseisI NSUFFICI
ENT.

Youmustst atewhati sthenatur

eofthatcauseofactionordefenseand
evi
denceyouintendtopresent.So,t
herei
sanaffidav
itofmeritbuti
tisfat
all
y
def
ecti
ve.Againwhatwillhappentothemoti
on.Itwil
lbetr
eatedaspro-f
orma.
Theaffi
dav
itofmeriti
sdefecti
ve.

MANIPOLvs.LI
M TAN
55SCRA202

FACTS:Adef endantinanactionfordamagesbasedonquasidel i
ct
fi
l
edamot i
onfornew t rialci
ti
ngFAME.Hesay s,“
Ihav eagoodand
mer i
tor
iouscauseofact ionordefense.Ii
ntendt
oprovethatIexer
cised
duedi l
i
genceint heselectionorsupervi
sionofmydriv
ersandwhi chif
provenreli
evestheempl oyerfr
om li
abil
it
y.”

HELD:Affi
davi
tofmer it
si sdefect
ive.I
tispro-
for
mamot i
on.Itdoes
notst
atethemer i
tor
iousdefense.Ther ei
sonlyageneralst
atementor
concl
usi
onoft hedefendant.Thedefendantshouldstat
ethedetai
lsof
howhesupervi
sedhisempl oyees.Yougot ospeci
fi
cs.

Thelawi sver
yst r
ictaboutaf
fi
davit
sofmer it
s.Itisnotenoughthaty
oust at
e
yourdef ense. Youmustdemonst r
atet hatyouhav eamer i
tori
ousclai
m of
defensesot hatthemot i
onfornew t r
ialwil
lbegr ant
ed.Whati stheuseof
granti
nganewt riali
fafterthenewt r
ialyouwillst
il
lenduplosingthecase? It
wouldbeawast eoft i
me.Accor di
ngt oSC,“Itwouldbepoi nt
lesstor
eopena
LakasAt
eni
sta 96
At
eneodeDav
aoUni
ver
sit
yCol
l
egeofLaw
1997Rul
esonCivilProcedur e Rule37
2001Edi
ti
on<dr
aftcopy.pl
s.checkf
orer
ror
s> NewTr
ial
orReconsi
derati
on

caseifapar tydoesnothav eamer i

tor
iouscauseofact i
onofdefensef orl
ikea
mirageitwoul d mer el
yr ai
sef al
sehopesand att heend availthemov ant
nothi
ng.”(Arcil
l
av s.Arci
ll
a,L-46674,Sept.16,1985)Itwoul
drai
sef alsehopei f
youwi l
lgrantanew t ri
alwheni nfactthemov anthasnomerit
oriouscauseof
acti
on.It’
slikeami r
ageorill
usion–seei ngthingswhichar
enott here.[malayo
angtingi
n,hindinamandul i
ng…]

I
tseemst hattherearereal
lytwoaf fi
davi
ts.Normall
ywhenal awyerf il
es
mot i
on fornew tri
al,t
hereis one affi
davi
tr eci
ti
ng FAME and r
ecit
ing the
mer i
tor
iouscauseofactionordefense.Ifyouf ol
l
ow t
heSCt her
ear etwo( 2)
affi
davi
ts:FIRST – aff
idavi
tregardi
ng the FAME;and SECOND – af f
idavi
t
regardi
ngthemerit
ori
ouscauseofactionofdefense.

Buti
nt hecaseofPCI Bvs.ORTI Z( 150SCRA382) ,
theSCi mpliedthatthereal
Affi
davitOfMer i
ts shoul
d be t he second one – t hatIhav e a good and
mer i
tor
iousdef ense.Inreal
it
y,ther eshouldbet wo(2)af fi
davi
ts–oner eci
ti
ng
theFAMEandoner eci
ti
ngthesubst anti
alcauseofact ion.Thatiswhyamot i
on
fornew t r
ialonFAMEshoul dor dinaril
ybeaccompani edbyt woaf f
idavi
ts.One
setti
ngf orththef act
sandci rcumst ancesallegedt oconst i
tut
eFAMEandt he
otheranAf f
idavi
tofMer it
sset t
ingf orththepar ti
cul
arcl ai
mst oconstit
utethe
mov ant
’smer i
tor
iousdefenseorcauseofact ion.Ther ealAffi
davi
tofMer it
sis
thesecondone.

REQUI
REMENTSWHENTHEGROUNDI
SNEWLYDI
SCOVEREDEVI
DENCE

Q:Supposey ourgroundfornew t r
ialisnewlydiscoveredev i
dence(NDE).
Whati st he r equi
rement?
A:Sect i
on2,2ndpar agr
aph,3rdsent encepr
ovides,“Amot i
onf orthecause
ment i
onedi n(
Secti
on1)paragraph[b](NDE)shallbesuppor t
edbyaf fi
davi
tsof
thewi tnessesbywhom suchev idencei sexpected t
o begi ven,orbydul y
authenticateddocumentswhichareproposedtobei nt
roducedinev i
dence.
”

Meaning,whenthegroundisnewlydiscover
edevidence,themoti
onshallbe
supportedbyaffi
davi
tsalso–affidavi
tsofthenewlydiscoveredwi
tness–ora
copyoft henewlydi
scovereddocument.Youhav etost at
ewhatist henewly
discov
er edevi
dence,
whatthewitnesswil
lsay.

Q:Whathappenwhensuchr equir
ementi
snotcompl
i
edwit
h?
A:Themotionfornew tr
ialonthegroundofNDEistr
eat
edasPRO-
FORMA
andi
tnevert
oll
edtheregl
ement ar
yperi
odtoappeal
.

MOTI
ONFORRECONSI
DERATI
ON;
FORMALREQUI
REMENTS

Q:
Agai
n,whatar
ethegr
oundsf
oramot
ionf
orr
econsi
der
ati
on?
LakasAt
eni
sta 97
At
eneodeDav
aoUni
ver
sit
yCol
l
egeofLaw
1997Rul
esonCivilProcedur e Rule37
2001Edi
ti
on<dr
aftcopy.pl
s.checkf
orer
ror
s> NewTr
ial
orReconsi
derati
on

A:
Thef
oll
owi
ngar
etheGROUNDSf
oramot
ionf
orr
econsi
der
ati
on:

1.
)Thedamagesawar dedareexcessive;
2.
)Theevi
denceisinsuff
ici
entt
ojustif
ythedeci
si
onorfinal
or der;
3.
)Thedeci
sionororderiscont
rarytolaw.(
ineff
ect
,thedecisioniswr
ong)

Pr
ofor
maMR

Int hecaseswhereaMot ionforReconsiderati

onwashel dt obeprof orma, the
motionwassohel dbecause(1)itwasasecondMR, or(2)itdidnotcompl ywith
therulethatthemot i
onmustspeci f
yt hefi
ndingsandconcl usionsallegedt obe
contrarytolawornotsuppor t
edbyt heev idence,or(3)itfai
ledt osubst ant
iate
theal l
egeder r
ors,or(4)itmer el
yal l
egedt hatthedeci si
oni nquest ionwas
contraryt
olaw, or(
5)theadversepartywasnotgi vennoticethereof.

Q:Cany oufi
leamot ionforreconsi der
ati
onbyj ustsimplystati
ngt hat“t
he
decisioni swrongorcont rar
yt ol aw,”or“ thefi
ndingsoft hejudgear enot
suppor tedbyevi
dence”?
A:NO.UnderSect i
on2,3r dpar agraph,youmustpoi ntoutspecifi
call
ythe
fi
ndingsorconclusionsofthejudgmentorf i
nalor
derwhi charenotsuppor t
edby
theev i
denceorwhi char econtrar
yt ol aw,makingexpr essref
erencet othe
testi
moni alordocumentaryevidenceort otheprovisi
onsofl aw all
egedt obe
contrarytosuchfindi
ngsorconclusions.

So,y oumustpoi ntoutwhatf i

ndi
ngsisnotsuppor t
edbyev i
dence–what
conclusi
oniscontr
ar ytolaw.Donotl etthejudgelookforit
.Thej udgewil
l
neverbothert
olookf ori
t.Youtel
lhi
m whatpor
tionofthedeci
si
oniswrong.You
havet ocit
etheevidencet ooandthelaw whi
chi svi
olat
edorwhatpr ovi
si
ons
apply
.

Q:Whathappenwheny oufil
eamot i
onforreconsi
der
ationwit
houtmaki
ng
anyref
erence,exhi
bitetc?Meaning,
y oudi
dnotcompl ywi
ththe3rdpar
agr
aph.
A:Youmot ionwillbedeniedbecausei tisPRO-FORMA.Thus,itwil
lnev
er
i
nter
ruptthereckoni
ngoft heprescr
ipti
veperi
od.

Aproformamot ioni
sonewhi chdoesnotsat i
sfyther equi
rement
softhe
rul
es and one which wi
llbe treated as a motion int
ended to del
ay t
he
proceedi
ngs(Mar
iki
naDevelopmentCorporat
ionvs.Floj
o,251SCRA87) .

TheSConcedefi
nedaprof or
mamotionasonef
il
edf
ort
hesakeoff
orm.(
Dapi
n
vs.Di
onal
do,
G.R.No.55488,May15,
1992)

Anot
herPOINT:wheny oufil
eamot i
onforreconsiderati
ononthegroundthat
thejudgmentiscontr
arytolaw,itisnotenoughfory out osaythat
.Youmust
alwayspointoutcl
earl
ywhyi tiscont
rar
ytol aw,otherwiseyourmoti
onwi l
lbe
deniedort
reatedaspro-
for
ma.
LakasAt
eni
sta 98
At
eneodeDav
aoUni
ver
sit
yCol
l
egeofLaw
1997Rul
esonCivilProcedur e Rule37
2001Edi
ti
on<dr
aftcopy.pl
s.checkf
orer
ror
s> NewTr
ial
orReconsi
derati
on

Q:Wheny ouf i
leamot ionf orreconsider
ationanditi
sdenied,
doesitmeanto
saythatyourmot ionispro-forma?
A:NO,becausemay bet hej udgewasnotconv i
ncedbutyoutri
edyourbest.
Thedeni alofmot i
onf orr econsiderat
ionont hegroundthatthedeci
sionor
j
udgmenti swr ongdoesnotaut omat i
call
ymaket hemot i
onapr o-
for
ma.What
makesi tpro-f
ormai s,ify ourmot i
onf orreconsi
derat
iondoesnotspeci
fical
l
y
poi
ntoutwhyj udgmenti swr ong. Buti fyoucompl ywithSecti
on2,thatis
al
readysuffi
cient.

I
nthecaseof
MARI
KI T.CORP.v
NAVALLEYDEV’ s.FLOJO
251SCRA87[1995]

HELD:“ Amot ionf orreconsi der ationmer el yrei terat esorr epleadst he
samear gument swhi chhadbeenpr ev iousl yconsi der edandr esol vedi n
thedeci sionsoughtt ober econsi der ed, themot ioni sapr of ormaone. ”
“Theci rcumst ancet hatamot ionf orr econsi der ationdeal swi ththe
samei ssuesandar gument sposedandr esol vedbyt het rialcour tinits
deci sions does not necessar ily mean t hat t he mot ion must be
char act erizedasmer el
ypr of orma.A pl eaderpr epar i
ngamot ionf or
reconsi der ati
on mustofnecessi tyaddr esst he ar gument smade or
accept edbyt het rialcour tini tsdeci si on.Themov anti sv er yof t
en
conf inedt ot heampl ifi
cati
onorf urtherdi scussi onoft hesamei ssues
alreadypasseduponbyt het rialcour t.
”Pr eci sely ,whenIf il
edamot i
on
forr econsi deration, wewi llgoov ert hesamepoi ntswhi cht hecour thas
alreadydi scussed.
“Wher et heci rcumst ancesofacasedonotshow ani ntentont he
par toft hemov antmer elyt o del ayt hepr oceedi ngs,ourCour thas
refusedt ochar act er i
zet hemot ionassi mpl ypr of orma.Thedoct ri
ne
relatingt opr of or mamot ionsf orr econsi der at i
oni mpact supont he
realityandsubst anceoft hest atut or yr ightofappeal ,t hatdoct ri
ne
shoul dbeappl i
edr easonabl y,rat hert hanl iter ally.Ther ightt oappeal ,
wher eitexi st
s, i
sani mpor tantandv aluabl er i
ght .”
“Amot i
onf orr econsi derationwhi chi snotasst ar klybar ebutwhi ch,
asi twer e,hassomef l
eshoni tsbones,maynev erthelessber endered
prof ormawher et hemov antf ailst omaker efer encet othet est i
moni al
anddocument aryev idenceonr ecor dort hepr ov isionsofl awsai dt obe
cont raryt ot het rialcour t
’sconcl usions.I not herwor ds,t hemov anti s
alsor equir edt opoi ntoutsucci nct lywhyr econsi der ationi swar rant ed.
”
“Iti snotenought hatamot i
onf orr econsi der at ionshoul dst atewhat
par toft hedeci sioni scont raryt ol aw ort heev i
dence;i tshoul dalso
pointoutwhyi tisso.Fai l
ur et oexpl ai nwhywi llr endert hemot ionf or
reconsi der ati
on pr of orma. ”Meani ng,when Ipoi ntoutpar toft he
deci siont hati scont r
arytot hel aw,i tisnotpr of or ma.Butst i
l
li tispr o
formai fIwi llnotst atethati tiscont rar yt ol aw.
LakasAt
eni
sta 99
At
eneodeDav
aoUni
ver
sit
yCol
l
egeofLaw
1997Rul
esonCivilProcedur e Rule37
2001Edi
ti
on<dr
aftcopy.pl
s.checkf
orer
ror
s> NewTr
ial
orReconsi
derati
on

“
Wher easubst antialbonafi
deef f
ortismadet oexpl ai
nwher eand
whyt het ri
alcour tshoul d ber egar
ded ashav i
ng erred ini
tsmai n
decisi
on,thef actt hatt hetri
alcourtthereaf
terf
oundsuchar gument
unmer i
tori
ousorasi nadequatetowar rantmodif
icati
onorr eversalof
the main decision,does not ,ofcour se,mean t hatthe mot i
on f or
reconsi
derati
onshoul dhav ebeenr egarded,orwaspr operl
yregar ded,
asmer elyproforma. ”

So,Ipointt
hedecisi
onbutthecourtdoesnotagr
eewit
hme.Thatdoesnot
meant hatmymotionisaut
omat i
cal
l
yprof or
mabecauset
her
ewasattemptto
conv
incethecour
twhyitiswrong.

EFFECTSWHENMOTI
ONI
SGRANTED

Sec.3.Act i
onuponmot ionf ornew t
ri
alorr econsiderati
on.The
tr
ialcourtmaysetasi dethej udgmentorfinalorderandgr antanew
tr
ial,uponsucht er
msasmaybej ust
,ormaydenyt hemot i
on.Ift
he
cour tfi
ndsthatexcessiv
edamageshav ebeenawar dedort hatt
he
j
udgmentorf i
nalorderiscont rarytotheev i
denceorl aw,i tmay
amendsuchj udgmentorfinal or
deraccor
dingly.(
3a,R37)

Sec.6.Effectofgr anti
ngofmot i
onf ornew tr
ial
.Ifanew t r
iali
s
grantedinaccor dancewi ththepr ovi
sionsoft hi
sRul e,t
heor i
ginal
j
udgmentorf inalordershallbev acated,andtheact i
onshallstand
fortri
aldenov o;butt herecor
dedev i
dencetakenupont heformer
tri
al,i
nsof arast hesamei smat eri
alandcompet enttoestabl
ishthe
i
ssues, shal
lbeusedatt henewtrialwithoutr
etaki
ngthesame.( 5a)

Q:InSect
ion3, howwi l
lthecour
tresol
veyourmoti
onf ornewtr
ial?
A:Thecour tmayei t
herdenyormaysetasidethejudgmentorfinalorderand
gr
antanewt rial
.Lit
eral
ly,i
fthej
udgmentissetasi
de,
therewilbeat
l ri
aldenov o,
aLati
nwordf ornewt ri
al.

BARQUESTI ON:I fCholof i

lesaMot i
onForNew Tr ialandi tisgranted,wil
l
t
hereal
way sbeat r
ialdenov o?
A:I
tDEPENDSont hegr oundf orthemot i
on:
a.
)Ifthe ground i s FAME,t here wi
l
lbe a t ri
alde nov o because the
proceedi
ngwi llbesetasi de;
b.
)Ifthegroundi sNDE,t herei snotrialdenovo.Theev i
denceadmi t
ted
whichi sbasedont hesamedeci sionwillr
emai n.Thecasewi l
lbe
openedonlyf orthepur poseofadmi tti
ngthenewev idence.

Q:I
fCholofi
lesaMotionForReconsi
derat
ionanditi
sgranted,
wil
lther
ebea
tr
ialdenovo?
A:Ther
ei sNOtri
aldenov o.Thecour
twi l
lsimpl
yamendi tsj
udgment.I
tis
onlyar estudyofprov
ision.Thecour
twillstudyit
sdeci
sionandgoov erthe
LakasAt
eni
sta 100
At
eneodeDav
aoUni
ver
sit
yCol
l
egeofLaw
1997Rul
esonCivilProcedur e Rule37
2001Edi
ti
on<dr
aftcopy.pl
s.checkf
orer
ror
s> NewTr
ial
orReconsi
derati
on

ev
idenceandf
indoutwhet
heri
tmadeami
stakeornot

Per
iodt
oResol
veMot
ionf
orNewTr
ial
orReconsi
der
ati
on

Sec.4. Resolution of motion. A moti

on for new tr
ialor
r
econsider
ati
onshallberesol
vedwi t
hint
hir
ty(
30)day
sf r
om t
hetime
i
tissubmitt
edforresol
uti
on.(n)

Therei
snow adeadl
i
neforthecour
ttoactont
hemot
ion–wi
thi
n30day
s
f
rom thet
imei
tissubmi
tt
edforr
esol
uti
on.

Deni
aloft
hemot
ion;
the“
freshper
iod”r
ule

Ift hemotionisdenied,themov anthasa“ f

reshperiod”offif
teen( 15)day s
fr
om r ecei
ptornoticeoftheorderdenyi
ngordismissi
ngt hemot i
onf ornewtrial
withinwhichtof i
l
eanot iceofappealforthesamer easonandgr oundsast he
“f
reshper i
od”rul
egov er
ningadenialofamotionforreconsider
ati
on( Neypesv s.
CA, G.R.No.141524,Sept.14,
2005)

Thef r
eshper i
odr ul
eappl iestoRul e41gov erni
ngappeal sfrom theMTCt o
theRTC;Rul e42onpet i
tionsf orr ev
iew f r
om theRTCt ot heCA;Rul e43on
appeal sfr
om quasi-
judi
cialagenci estot heCAandRul e45gov erni
ngappeal sby
certior
arit
ot heSC.Accor dingly,t
hisrulewasadopt edtostandardizetheappeal
periodsprov i
dedintheRul esandt oaffordfairopport
unit
yt oappealtheircases
andt ogivethetri
alcour tanot heroppor tuni
tytor evi
ew theircaseand,int he
process,mi ni
mizeanyerrorofj udgment .

I
tisclearfr
om Neypesthatt
her ul
ingshal
lnotbeappli
edwherenomot
ionfor
new t
ri
alormot i
onforreconsi
derati
onhasbeenf i
ledinwhichcaset
he15-day
per
iodforappeal
shal
l r
unfrom noti
ceofjudgment.

Or
derofdeni
al,
notappeal
abl
e

Thefr
eshper i
odr ul
edoesnotr efert
ot heper
iodwit
hinwhi
chtoappealfr
om
theorderdenyi
ngt hemotionforreconsi
derati
onbuttot
heperi
odwit
hinwhichto
appealf r
om t he judgmenti t
selfbecause an orderdenyi
ng a moti
on for
reconsi
derat
ionornewt ri
ali
snotappeal able(
Secti
on9)
.

Remedywhenmot
ioni
sdeni
ed

Theremedyfrom anorderdeny
ingamot i
onf orr econsiderat
ionisnotto
appealfrom t
heor derofdeni
albecausesuchor deri snotappeal abl
e.The
remedyistoappealfr
om t
hejudgmentorf
inalorderitselfsubjectofthemoti
on
(Sec.9)
.

LakasAt
eni
sta 101
At
eneodeDav
aoUni
ver
sit
yCol
l
egeofLaw
1997Rul
esonCivilProcedur e Rule37
2001Edi
ti
on<dr
aftcopy.pl
s.checkf
orer
ror
s> NewTr
ial
orReconsi
derati
on

Cananor
derofdeni
albeassai
l
edbyapet
it
ionf
orcer
ti
orar
iunderRul
e65?

Notanymor e.Ef f
ectiv
eDecember27,2007,anor derofdenialisnol onger
assail
ablebycer ti
oraribecauseoft heamendmentt oRul e41byA. M.No.07- 7-
12-SC.Deletedfrom thosemat tersfrom whichnoappealcanbet akenandf r
om
whichorderRul e65pet it
ionmaybeav ai
ledof,i
s“anorderdenyingamot i
onf or
new tri
alorar econsiderati
on”.Theamendmentobv i
ouslyseekst opreventthe
fi
li
ngofapet i
ti
onf orcert
iorar
iunderRul e65basedonanor derdeny i
ngamot ion
fornew trialoramot i
onf orreconsiderati
on.Theremedyav ailabl
etherefore,
wouldbet hatpr escri
bedunderSec.9,i .
e.,t
oappealfrom t
hej udgmentorf inal
order.

SECONDMOTI
ONFORNEW TRI
ALORRECONSI
DERATI
ON

Sec.5.Secondmot ionfornew trial

.Amot i
onf ornew tri
alshal
l
i
ncludeallgroundsthenav ail
abl
eandt hosenotsoi ncl
udedshallbe
deemedwai ved.Asecondmot i
onf ornew tri
al,basedonagr ound
notexisti
ngnorav ail
ablewhent hef i
rstmot i
onwasmade,maybe
fi
ledwithi
nthet i
meher einprovi
dedexcl udi
ngthet i
medur ingwhich
thefir
stmotionhadbeenpendi ng.
Nopartyshall
beallowedasecondmot i
onforreconsider
ati
onofa
j
udgmentorf inalor
der.(4a,R37;4,
IRG)

Asarule,t
hemoti
onfornewt
ri
alshalli
ncludeal
lgroundst
henavail
ableand
t
hosenotincl
udedar
edeemedwai
ved.So,ift
hemot i
onfornewtri
ali
sbasedon
t
wo(2)grounds–FAMEandNDE–ei therorbothgr
oundsshouldbeincl
udedin
t
hemotion.

Q:Supposeamoti
onfornewtri
al,whichisbasedonlyonFAME,wasdeni
ed,
cant
herebeasecondmoti
onfornewt r
ialonthegroundofNDE?
A:I
tDEPENDS:

a.
)Ift
heNDEi sal readyexi
sti
ngwhent hef i
rstmoti
onwasf i
l
ed,thenthe
secondmot ionfornewt ri
alwil
lbedeniedbecauseoffail
uretorai
se
itearl
ier–t hesecondgr oundisdeemedwai vedforfai
luretorai
se
thesame;
b.
)Howev er
, i
fthegr oundforthesecondmot i
onfornewt r
iali
ssomething
notknownornotexi sti
ngornotav ai
l
ablewhent hepar t
yfi
ledthe
fi
rstmot ion,thenthesecondmot ionisall
owed.Thesecondmot i
on
isnotapr of ormamot i
on.

So,whatt helaw pr
ohibi
tsi
sy oufi
l
eamot i
onfornew tr
ialandy oudonot
i
ncludeallt
hegroundsthenavai
labl
e.I
fthegroundsur
facedonlylat
er,t
heniti
s
al
lowed.Theref
ore,t
hemot i
onfornewtri
ali
sanexampleofomni busmot i
onas
defi
nedinRule15,Sect
ion8:

LakasAt
eni
sta 102
At
eneodeDav
aoUni
ver
sit
yCol
l
egeofLaw
1997Rul
esonCivilProcedur e Rule37
2001Edi
ti
on<dr
aftcopy.pl
s.checkf
orer
ror
s> NewTr
ial
orReconsi
derati
on

Sec.8.Omnibusmotion.-Subjecttot
hepr ov
isi
onsofsection1of
Rule9,amotionatt
acki
ngapl eading,or
der,j
udgment,orproceedi
ng
shalli
ncl
udeallobj
ecti
onst henav ai
l
able,andallobj
ecti
onsnotso
i
ncludedshal
lbedeemedwai ved.(8a)

Q:Whathappensifyoufil
easecondmot ionfornewt ri
alonagroundwhichis
thenavai
labl
ewhent hefir
stmotionwasfil
ed?
A:The second motion i
sa pr oforma mot ion and wil
lnotinter
ruptthe
remaini
ngbalanceoft heper i
odt oappealafterthef i
rstmoti
onwasdeni ed.
Therewasacl earv
iol
ati
onofomni busmotionrule.

Q:So, ther
ear et
wo( 2)t
ypesofproformamot ionfornewtri
alunderRule37.
Whataret hey?
A:Thef oll
owing:
1.)Amot i
onfornew tr
ialwhi
chisnotsuppor tedbyaffi
davi
tsofmer i
ts–
onewhi chdoesnotcomplyinsubst
anceori nfor
m wit
hSection2;and
2.)Asecondmot i
onfornew tri
alonagr oundav ai
l
abletothepartywhen
thefir
stmotionwasf i
l
ed(Secti
on5).

Takenotethatthe2ndpar
agr
aphofSect i
on5provi
desthat“Nopart
yshallbe
al
lowed asecond mot i
onforreconsi
der
ationofaj udgmentorf i
nalorder.
”
Theref
ore,asecondmotionf
orr
econsider
ati
onisalwaystr
eatedasaproforma
motionbecauseiti
stot
all
ypr
ohi
bitedbySecti
on5.

ALv
NEW TRI s.MOTI
ONFORRECONSI
DERATI
ON

TakenotethatinNew Tri
al,therecoul dpossi blybetri
aldenov o.Ifgrant
ed,
everyt
hingi
ssetasi deandthepar tywi l
lnowpr esentthei
rev i
dence.Butintri
al
denov o,wewi llnoteraseev ery
thing.Pr oceedingsorev idenceadmi t
tedwi l
l
remain.Onl
y,wewi l
lopenitforthepur poseofi ntroduci
ngthenewev i
denceand
thenthecourtwil
lstudyi
tall
ov eragain.

InMot i
onf orReconsi
derat
ion,ther
ei snoreopeni
ngofthecasebecauseall
thecourthast odoistogoov ertheevidenceagai
nandgoov erthedeci
si
onto
fi
ndoutwhet herit
sdecisi
oniswr ongandshouldchangeit
.So,therei
sactual
l
y
notri
aldenov oinamot i
onforreconsi
derati
on.

Q:Di
sti
ngui
shaMot i
onf
orNewTr i
alf
rom aMot
ionf
orReconsi
der
ati
on.
A:
Thefoll
owingar
ethedi
sti
nct
ions:

1.
)Astogr
ounds:
I
naMOTI ONFORNEW TRIAL,
thegroundsareFAMEandNDE, whereas
I
n a MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION,the gr
ounds ar
e excessiv
e
damages,deci
sioni
snotsupportedwithevi
dence,ordeci
sionis
LakasAt
eni
sta 103
At
eneodeDav
aoUni
ver
sit
yCol
l
egeofLaw
1997Rul
esonCivilProcedur e Rule37
2001Edi
ti
on<dr
aftcopy.pl
s.checkf
orer
ror
s> NewTr
ial
orReconsi
derati
on

cont
rar
ytol
aw;

2.
)Astotri
al:
I
faMOTI ONFORNEW TRIALisgr
anted,t
herecoul
dbeatri
aldenovo;
whereas
I
fasMOTI ON FORRECONSI
DERATION isgrant
ed,t
her
eisnotri
alde
novo.Thecourtwi
l
lonl
yamenditsdeci
sion

3.
)Ast oasecondmoti
on:
AsecondMOTI ON FORNEW TRI ALisall
owedifthegroundwasnot
exi
sti
ngwhent
hef i
rstmot
ionf
ornewtri
alwasfi
l
ed;whereas
AsecondMOTI ONFORRECONSI DERATIONisalwayspr
ohibit
edunder
therul
es.

Sec.7.Par ti
alnew t r
ialorreconsiderati
on.Ifthegroundsf ora
mot i
onundert hisRul eappeartothecour ttoaffecttheissuesast o
onlyapar t
,orlessthanal loft
hemat terincontr
ov er
sy,oronlyone,or
l
esst hanal l
,oft heparti
est oit,t
hecour tmayor deranew t r
ialor
grant reconsiderat
ion as t o such i ssues if sever
able without
i
nterfer
ingwitht hejudgmentorf i
nalorderupont herest
.(6a)

Q:Istheresuchat hi
ngasmotionforpar
ti
alnewt r
ialoramoti
onforpart
ial
reconsider
ati
on?
A:YES,ifthepar t
yisquest
ioningonl
yoneaspectorpor ti
onofthecase.
Therefore,
therestcanbecomefi
nalwhil
ethedisput
edporti
ondoesnotbecome
fi
nal.

So,t
herecouldbeanewt r
ialorreconsi
derationonlyonsuchissuesandt
her
e
wi
llbeaf i
nalj
udgmentwithrespecttotheot herissuesofthecase.Howcoul
d
t
hishappen?ThebestexampleisRule31,Section2:

Rule 31,Sec.2.Separ atet r

ial
s.The court,infurt
herance of
conveni
enceort oav oi
dprej
udice,mayor derasepar
atetri
alofany
cl
aim,cross-cl
aim,counter
clai
m,ort hi
rd-
partycomplai
nt,orofany
separat
e issue or of any number of cl aims, cr
oss-cl
aims,
counter
clai
ms,thir
d-par
tycomplaint
sorissues.(
2a)

I
ft hecr osscl
aim orthi
rd-
part
ycomplai
ntaretri
edsepar
atel
y,ther
ewillbe
diff
erentjudgments.Andi neff
ect,y
oucanfil
eapar t
ialmot
ionfornew t
ri
alor
reconsiderati
ontothefact
scontemplat
edbythecase.

Sec.8.Ef
fectofor derforparti
alnew t
ri
al.Whenl essthanallof
thei
ssuesar
eor deredretr
ied,thecourtmayeitherenterajudgment
orfi
nalorderas t ot he rest,orstaythe enf or
cementofsuch
j
udgmentorfi
nalorderunti
l aft
erthenewtri
al.(
7a)

LakasAt
eni
sta 104
At
eneodeDav
aoUni
ver
sit
yCol
l
egeofLaw
1997Rul
esonCivilProcedur e Rule37
2001Edi
ti
on<dr
aftcopy.pl
s.checkf
orer
ror
s> NewTr
ial
orReconsi
derati
on

Thi
sisacont
inuat
ionofSect
ion7.

Q:Whent hereisaparti
alnewtri
al,whatwil
lhappentothej
udgmentont
he
undi
sputedfacts?
A:Ei
ther:
a.)thecourtwi
ll
ent
erjudgmentonit;or
b.)thecourtmayst
aytheenfor
cementunti
laft
erthenewtr
ial
.

Thef
oll
owi
ngr
uleswi
l
ldescr
ibet
hesi
tuat
ioni
nSect
ion8:

e36,Sec.5.Separ
Rul atejudgment s.Whenmor ethanonecl aim
forreli
efi spresent edi nanact ion,t hecour t,atanyst age,upona
determinationoft hei ssuesmat erialtoapar t
icularcl aim andal l
counterclaimsar i
singoutoft het ransact i
onoroccur r
encewhi chis
thesubj ectmat teroft heclaim,mayr enderasepar atej udgment
disposingofsuchcl aim.Thej udgmentshal lter minatet heact i
on
withrespecttot hecl aim sodisposedofandt heact i
onshal lproceed
ast other emainingcl aims.Incaseasepar atejudgmenti sr endered,
thecour tbyor dermayst ayitsenf orcementunt ilther enditionofa
subsequent j udgment or j udgment s and may pr escribe such
conditi
onsasmaybenecessar yt osecur ethebenef i
tt hereoft othe
partyinwhosef av orthej udgmenti sr endered.(5a)

Final
it
yofj udgmentwi t
hrespectt oonepor t
ionoft hecaseandt hetr
ial
cont i
nueswi t
ht heotherporti
on.Ther eareseveraljudgmentsinv
olvi
ngone
actionandt echnical
l
y,ifoneisf i
nished,i
tcanbeenf orcedunl
essthecourt
prov i
dedotherwi
se.Anotherpr
ovisi
onisRule39,Secti
on2[ b]:

Rule39, Sec.2.Discreti
onar yexecuti
on.
xxxxx
(b)Executionofsev eral
, separat
eorpar t
ialj
udgments.—Aseveral
separateorparti
aljudgmentmaybeexecut edunderthesamet erms
andcondi ti
onsasexecut ionofaj udgmentorf i
nalorderpendi
ng
appeal.(2a)

Discr
eti
onar
yexecut
ionorexecut
ionpendi
ngappeal
.Incaseofanappeal
,
Sect
ion1,Rul
e41[g]
:

Rule41,Sect
ion1.Subjectofappeal
.Anappealmaybet aken
fr
om ajudgmentorf
inalor
derthatcompl
etelydi
sposesoft
hecase,
orofaparti
cul
armattert
herei
nwhendeclaredbytheseRul
estobe
appeal
abl
e.
Noappealmaybetakenfrom:
xxxxx
LakasAt
eni
sta 105
At
eneodeDav
aoUni
ver
sit
yCol
l
egeofLaw
1997Rul
esonCivilProcedur e Rule37
2001Edi
ti
on<dr
aftcopy.pl
s.checkf
orer
ror
s> NewTr
ial
orReconsi
derati
on

(
g)Ajudgmentorf i
nalorderfororagainstoneormor eofsever
al
part
iesorinsepar at
ecl aims,count
ercl
aims,cross-cl
aimsandthir
d-
part
ycompl ai
nts,whi l
et hemai ncaseispendi ng,unl
essthecourt
all
owsanappeal therefr
om; and
xxxxx
Let
’sgobacktoRul e37.

Sec.9.Remedyagai nstorderdenyi
ngamot i
onf ornew t
rialor
r
econsi
derat
ion. An order denying a mot
ion for new tr
ialor
r
econsi
derat
ionisnotappealable,ther
emedybei
nganappealf r
om
t
hejudgmentorfi
nalorder.(
n)

Anor derdenyi
ngamoti
onfornew t
ri
alorr
econsi
der
ati
oni
snotappeal
abl
e
c.
( f.Rule41,Secti
on1[
a].Ther
emedybeinganappealfr
om t
hej
udgmentor
f
inalorder
.

I
LLUSTRATI ON:Thej udgmenti sagainstyou.Soy oufiledamot i
onf ornew
tr
ialorr econsiderat
ion.Thecour tdeniedy ourmot i
on.Sot hereisanor der
denyingyourmot ionfornewt r
ialorr
econsiderat
ion.Now,youwantt oappeal.
Q:Appealfrom what ?From t hemainjudgmentorf r
om theor derdenyi
ngy our
mot i
on?
A:Youappealf r
om thej udgment.Youcannotappealf rom theor derdenying
yournewmot i
onf ornewt ri
al.Thatisrel
atedtoRule41,Sect i
on1[ a]
:

Rule41,Section1.Subj ectofappeal.Anappealmaybet aken

fr
om ajudgmentorfinalordert hatcompl
etelydisposesofthecase,
orofaparti
cularmatterthereinwhendeclaredbyt heseRulestobe
appeal
abl
e.
NOAPPEALmaybet akenf rom:
(a)Anorderdenyi
ngamot ionfornewtr
ialorreconsider
ati
on;
xxxxxx

Well,ofcour
se,thefi
li
ngoft hi
smot i
onwi l
lstopt
her unni
ngoft he15-
day
peri
od,unl
essyourmoti
onf ornewt ri
ali
spro-f
orma.Generall
y,t
helawdoesnot
al
low anappealfr
om theor derdenyingyourmotionf
ornew t r
ial
.Youappeal
fr
om thedecisi
on,notfr
om t heorderdenyingyourmoti
on.Thi sprovi
si
onwil
l
comeoutagainwhenwer eacht herul
eonappeal.

-
oOo-

OUTLI
NEoft
hepr
ocess:
(af
tert
ri
al)

1.
)Deci
sion/Judgment;
2.
)Moti
onf orNewTrialorReconsi
der
ati
on(
Rul
e37)
;
LakasAt
eni
sta 106
At
eneodeDav
aoUni
ver
sit
yCol
l
egeofLaw
1997Rul
esonCivilProcedur e Rule37
2001Edi
ti
on<dr
aftcopy.pl
s.checkf
orer
ror
s> NewTr
ial
orReconsi
derati
on

3.
)I
fdeni ed,courtmakes a orderdenyi
ng yourmoti
on fornew tr
ialor
reconsi
derat
ion;
4.
)Appealbased on the deci
sion/
judgmentand notbased on t
he or
der
denyingyourmoti
on.

LakasAt
eni
sta 107
At
eneodeDav
aoUni
ver
sit
yCol
l
egeofLaw