Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Must Disregard Any Error or Defect Which Does Not Affect Substantial Rights of The Parties
Must Disregard Any Error or Defect Which Does Not Affect Substantial Rights of The Parties
HARMLESS REMEDY
(1) The judicial system follows a ladderized scheme which in essence requires that lower courts initially decide on a
case before it is considered by a higher court. Specifically, under the judicial policy recognizing hierarchy of courts, a
higher court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts.
[Riano citing Santiago v. Vasquez (1993)]
(2) The principle is an established policy necessary to avoid inordinate demands upon the Court’s time and attention
which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to preclude the further clogging of the
Court’s docket [Lim v. Vianzon (2006)].
(3) When the doctrine/principle may be disregarded: A direct recourse of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to
issue writs (referring to the writs of certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus) should be allowed only when there are
special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. [Mangahas v. Paredes (2007)].
The Supreme Court may disregard the principle of hierarchy of courts if warranted by the nature and importance of
the issues raised in the interest of speedy justice and avoid future litigations [Riano].
(4) This is an ordained sequence of recourse to courts vested with concurrent jurisdiction, beginning from the lowest,
on to the next highest, and ultimately to the highest. This hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and is
likewise determinative of the proper forum for petitions for extraordinary writs. This is an established policy necessary
to avoid inordinate demands upon the Court’s time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its
exclusive jurisdiction, and to preclude the further clogging of the Court’s docket (Sec. 9[1], BP 129; Sec. 5[1], Art.
VIII, Constitution of the Philippines).
(5) A higher court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts.
The SC is a court of last resort. It cannot and should not be burdened with the task of deciding cases in the first
instances. Its jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs should be exercised only where absolutely necessary or where
serious and important reasons exist.
(6) Petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level courts should be filed with the RTC and those
against the latter with the CA. a direct invocation of the SC’s original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be
allowed only where there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition.
(7) The doctrine of hierarchy of courts may be disregarded if warranted by the nature and importance of the issues
raised in the interest of speedy justice and to avoid future litigations, or in cases of national interest and of serious
implications. Under the principle of liberal interpretations, for example, it may take cognizance of a petition for
certiorari directly filed before it.
Clarificatory Judgment
One rendered to clarify an ambiguous judgment or one difficult to comply with. Where the judgment is difficult to
execute because of ambiguity in its terms, the remedy is to fila a motion for clarificatory judgment and not to assail
the judgment as void. It is allowed when what is involved is a clerical error, or not a correction of an erroneous
judgment, or dispositive portion of the Decision.
Where there is an ambiguity caused by an omission or mistake in the dispositive portion, the court may clarify such
ambiguity, mistake, or omission by an amendment; and in so doing, it may resort to the pleadings filed by the parties,
the courts findings of facts and conclusions of law as expressed in the body of the decision (Sps. Mahusay vs. B.E.
San Diego, Inc., G.R. No. 179675, June 8, 2011).
DUAL FUNCTION OF APPELATE COURT (A.M. No. CA-13-51-J July 2, 2013)
An appellate court serves a dual function. The first is the review for correctness function , whereby the case is
reviewed on appeal to assure that substantial justice has been done. The second is the institutional function , which
refers to the progressive development of the law for general application in the judicial system.
Differently stated, the review for correctness function is concerned with the justice of the particular case while the
institutional function is concerned with the articulation and application of constitutional principles, the authoritative
interpretation of statutes, and the formulation of policy within the proper sphere of the judicial function.
The duality also relates to the dual function of all adjudication in the common law system. The first pertains to the
doctrine of res judicata, which decides the case and settles the controversy; the second is the doctrine of stare
decisis, which pertains to the precedential value of the case which assists in deciding future similar cases by the
application of the rule or principle derived from the earlier case.
With each level of the appellate structure, the review for correctness function diminishes and the institutional function,
which concerns itself with uniformity of judicial administration and the progressive development of the law,
increases.24
In the appellate stage, therefore, the rigid policy is to make the consolidation of all cases and proceedings resting on
the same set of facts, or involving identical claims or interests or parties mandatory. Such consolidation should be
made regardless of whether or not the parties or any of them requests it. A mandatory policy eliminates conflicting
results concerning similar or like issues between the same parties or interests even as it enhances the administration
of justice.
During the pre-trial, the judge shall be the one to ask questions on issues raised therein and all questions or
comments by counsel or parties must be directed to the judge to avoid hostilities between the parties. [SC AM 03-1-
09-SC]
(1) The conduct of a pre-trial is mandatory. Pre-trial is a procedural device intended to clarify and limit the basic
issues between the parties. It thus paves the way for a less cluttered trial and resolution of the case. Its main
objective is to simplify, abbreviate and expedite trial, or totally dispense with it (Abubakar vs. Abubakar, 317 SCRA
264). It is a basic precept that the parties are bound to honor the stipulations made during the pre-trial (Interlining
Corp. vs. Phil. Trust Co., GR 144190, March 6, 2002).
(2) Pre-trial is a procedural device held prior to the trial for the court to consider the following purposes:
(a) The possibility of an amicable settlement or a submission to alternative modes of dispute resolution;
(b) Simplification of issues;
(c) Necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings;
(d) Possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents to avoid unnecessary
proof;
(e) Limitation of the number of witnesses;
(f) Advisability of a preliminary reference of issues to a commissioner;
(g) Propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings, or summary judgment, or of dismissing the action
should a valid ground therefor be found to exist;
(h) Advisability or necessity of suspending the proceedings; and
(i) Other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the action (Sec. 2, Rule 18).
(2) An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction. As long as the court acts
within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than
mere errors of judgment. Errors of judgment include errors of procedure or mistakes in the court’s findings.
(3) Errors of judgment are correctible by appeal; errors of jurisdiction are correctible only by the extraordinary writ of
certiorari. Any judgment rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be struck down at any time, even on
appeal; the only exception is when the party raising the issue is barred by estoppel.
(4) When a court, tribunal, or officer has jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter of the dispute, the
decision on all other questions arising in the case is an exercise of that jurisdiction. Consequently, all errors
committed in the exercise of said jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment. Under prevailing procedural rules and
jurisprudence, errors of judgment are not proper subjects of a special civil action for certiorari.
(1) Where an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s
pleading, the court may, on motion of that party, direct judgment on such pleading. However, in actions for declaration
of nullity or annulment of marriage or for legal separation (or for unliquidated damages, or admission of the truth of
allegation of adverse party), the material facts alleged in the complaint shall always be proved (Sec. 1).
(2) The requisites are: (a) there must be no genuine issue as to any material fact, except for the amount of damages;
and (b) the party presenting the motion for summary judgment must be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
(1) In the judgment on the pleadings, the answer does not tender an issue; in summary judgment, there is an issue
tendered in the answer, but it is not genuine or real issue as may be shown by affidavits and depositions that there is
no real issue and that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of right;
(2) In judgment on the pleadings, the movants must give a 3-day notice of hearing; while in summary judgment, the
opposing party is given 10 days notice;
(3) In judgment on the pleadings, the entire case may be terminated; while in summary judgment, it may only be
partial;
(4) In judgment on the pleadings, only the plaintiff or the defendants as far as the counterclaim, cross-claim or third-
party complaint is concerned can file the same; while in summary judgment, either the plaintiff or the defendant may
file it.
NEYPES RULE APPLICABLE ONLY TO RULES 40 & 41 BUT NOT IN 42, 43 AND 45
Neypes elucidates that the "fresh period rule" applies to appeals under Rule 40 (appeals from the Municipal Trial
Courts to the RTC) and Rule 41 (appeals from the RTCs to the CA or this Court); Rule 42 (appeals from the RTCs to
the CA); Rule 43 (appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the CA); and Rule 45 (appeals by certiorari to this Court). A
scrutiny of the said rules, however, reveals that the "fresh period rule" enunciated in Neypes need NOT apply to
Rules 42, 43 and 45 as there is no interruption in the 15-day reglementary period to appeal. It is explicit in Rules 42,
43 and 45 that the appellant or petitioner is accorded a fresh period of 15 days from the notice of the decision, award,
judgment, final order or resolution or of the denial of petitioner’s motion for new trial or reconsideration filed (Rolex
Rodriguez vs. Peopl, G.R. No. 192799, October 24, 2012).
It is, thus, now settled that the fresh period rule is applicable in criminal cases, like the instant case, where the
accused files from a judgment of conviction a motion for new trial or reconsideration which is denied by the trial court.
The accused will have a fresh 15-day period counted from receipt of such denial within which to file his or her notice
of appeal (Rolex Rodriguez vs. Peopl, G.R. No. 192799, October 24, 2012).