Trial Rule 30

For good reason, court may allow original evidence at the rebuttal. (Good reason includes mistake, inadvertence, newly-discovered.). Case is submitted for decision on admission of the evidence, unless Court asks for memoranda or further pleadings (in which case the Court should declare when the case is deemed submitted).

The clerk of court must make sure that parties have at least 5 days advance notice of trial date. Sec. 1. This is a matter of procedural due process.

Adjournments and postponements are at the discretion of the court, subject to general limitations that: (a) cannot adjourn for longer than 1 month per adjournment; or (b) longer than 3months in all. Exception: if Court Administrator of the SC authorizes longer periods. Sec. 2.

Parties may stipulate on facts. Sec. 6. Except: actions for marriage annulment or legal separation.

Trial is of record. Sec. 7. Upon due diligence and showing of materiality, when evidence is absent, it is a ground to seek a motion to postpone trial. Sec. 3. But trial goes on if the adverse party admits the facts to be given in evidence.

Trial may be suspended: [Art. 2030, Civil Code] if a party expresses willingness to compromise if before the commencement of the action or proceeding, a party offered to discuss a compromise but the other party refused.

Requisites of motion to postpone on illness or party or counsel (Sec. 4): SIC affidavit or sworn certification presence of absentee is indispensable character of illness is serious (such as to render non-attendance excusable)

Judge normally receives evidence, but may delegate this task to the clerk of court. Sec. 9. Such delegation is subject to the ff conditions: only in default or ex parte hearings, or as agreed by litigants only by the clerk of court clerk has not power on objections or questions on admission of evidence clerk must submit report on hearings within 10 days.

Postponement cannot be controlled by mandamus (Olsen v Fressel, 37 Phil 121).

Sworn medical certificate may be dispensed with in the interest of justice. Sarmiento v Juan, 1983. If reception of evidence by the clerk of court prejudices substantial rights, the aggrieved party should be given a chance to thresh out the case in court. Laluan v Malpaya, 1975.

Contents and order of trial (Sec. 5): limit to issues in pre-trial order plaintiff/defendant/3rd party defendant/4th party, etc./defendants to counter-claims and cross-claims/rebuttal evidence.

When does trial start? End? It starts when plaintiff begins to present evidence. It ends when defense makes formal offer of his evidence.

2
When there are multiple claims, a court has discretion to make several judgments (a judgment against some but not all of the defendants) or render separate judgments (a judgment on a particular claim). See the discussion in Rule 36, Secs. 4 and 5.

Rule 30 Jara notes

Trial is only on probanda, or questions of fact. If there is complete stipulation of facts, there can be no trial.

Case law: There is no time limit beyond which no consolidation can be effected. Sideco v Paredes, 74 Phil 6.

Reverse order of trial is proper when defendant makes an affirmative defense. Rule 30, Sec. 6, describes stipulations of facts as in writing. However, verbal stipulations are also admissible and binding, such as those made under Rule 18 at pre-trial. Rule 31 consolidation and severance

How does consolidation take place? When is it discretionary? Compulsory? There are three modes of consolidation: (a) recasting cases already instituted (amendment of pleadings to join parties and causes of action) (b) holding only one hearing and rendering only one decision for two or more cases (c) hearing only the principal case, suspending the hearing on the others until judgment is rendered in the principal case.

Concept behind consolidation: it is the joint hearing or trial of matters at issue in two or more actions. What is being consolidated is not the actions but the mechanical act of trying issues of fact that are common to two or more cases. Sec. 1.

If, however, it seems convenient, a court may order the consolidation of actions. Sec. 1. Severance is the opposite of consolidation. It means the separate trial of any claim or complaint. The grounds for severance: convenience or avoidance of prejudice. Sec. 2.

Consolidation is discretionary when the cases involve the same parties and subject matter. It is compulsory when the cases are before the same judge, or if with different branches of the same RTC, one of the cases has not been partially tried (i.e., has not yet reached trial).

Courts of equal rank cannot order each other as regards consolidation, but the Supreme Court may order consolidation of cases involving substantially the same parties and issues filed in different courts of equal jurisdiction. Textbook example: vehicular accident where parties have filed similar cases in different localities.

But severance is not the same as dismissing the claim, and having it re-filed in another forum. Severance means that the same court tries a claim separately from the other claims made in the case.

Distinguish consolidation from joinder of causes of action? From joinder of parties?

3
Consolidation is the holding of a common trial, and it may or may not involve joinder of causes of action and joinder of parties. However, what matters in consolidation is the existence of common questions of fact (from which arise also common questions of law). What matters in joinder of causes of action is commonality of parties, while what matters in joinder of parties is commonality of the subject matter over which various parties have claims and defenses. Joinder of causes of action (Rule 2) is subject to the rules on joinder of parties (Rule 3). Q: What if a plaintiff files 100 cases against the same defendant alleging 100 separate causes of action based on 100 copies of the same issue of a newspaper (a libel case)? Can the defendant move for consolidation? [tba] Rule 32 Trial by commissioner

How can a party seek consolidation? Object to consolidation? Seek severance? Object to severance? [Parties seek consolidation/severance and object to it by motion, or petition if to a higher court.]

When is such a trial mandatory? [Jara notes] special civil actions of expropriation and partition settlement of estate executor/administrator submits his accounting

If two complaints are filed before the same court by one plaintiff, and one is not cognizable before that court for lack of jurisdiction, what should the court do? It does not order severance. Instead, it dismisses the case over which it has no jurisdiction, and the plaintiff may re-file it before the proper court.

What are the qualifications of a commissioner? Powers? He must have expertise on the issues; he need not be a lawyer. He acts as if he is the trial judge, but he cannot decide; he submits a report with his recommendations to the judge who appointed him.

Give an example of two cases where joinder is not allowed, and where consolidation is proper. Suppose there are two victims in a bus accident, where there is fault on the part of the driver. Joinder would not be allowed if one case is filed in MTC because the claim is small, and the other is in RTC where the claim is large. Consolidation here, using the third mode, would be for trial to be had in RTC, and then later base the decision in MTC on the findings of the RTC.

Trial may be referred to a commissioner by agreement of the parties (Sec.1) or upon motion and appointed by the court (Sec. 2).

The following are the grounds for Sec. 2 reference: examination of a long account taking of an account needed for information question of fact at any stage, or for carrying a judgment or order into effect

Jara notes: Consolidation is useful if joinder of causes of action cannot be had. It seems this usefulness worked only in the past, because now, if there is a common question of fact or law, the parties can be joined, and then the causes can be joined.

Reference is by court order, which specifies the parameters within which the commissioner is to act. Sec. 3.

4
Rules of procedure: Secs. 5-9. Commissioner sets the first meeting, which must be within 10 days from date of order of reference. Commissioner may proceed ex parte if a party is absent. Refusal of witness to obey a commissioner is contempt of court. Commissioner files his report in writing. Parties have 10 days to object to findings of the commissioner in his report. Sec. 10. Grounds raised cannot include those that were available at the trial by commissioner but were not raised. If there are objections to the commissioners report, the Court must set a hearing on it, and resolve the objection by adopting, modifying, or rejecting the report, or recommitting the matter back to the commissioner. Sec. 11. Rules: If demurrer is granted, the result is a judgment on the merits. The plaintiffs remedy is to appeal. If the plaintiff appeals, the appellate court will render judgment on the merits, without any evidence from the defendant (Sec. 1). The appellate court cannot remand the case (Radiowealth v del Rosario, 2000). If the demurrer is denied, the trial continues and the defendant presents his evidence. Denial of demurrer is not controllable by certiorari, absent grave abuse of judicial authority (Bautista v Sarmiento, 1985).

Conclude: Be careful with demurrer. If demurrer is granted and then later reversed on appeal, defendant would have lost the right to present his evidence.

Case law: If the commissioner did not hold a hearing, the court cannot approve his report over the objections of a party. Jaca v Davao Lumber, 1982.

The rules are different in criminal procedure (Rule 119, Sec. 23). In criminal action, the defendant must have leave of court to move for demurrer in order to preserve his right to present evidence in trial, and if the demurrer is granted, that would be acquittal which cannot be reversed by appeal. Also, in criminal case, court can grant demurrer motu proprio. In civil action, there is no need for leave of court to move for demurrer, and defendant retains right to present evidence if the demurrer is denied. However, if the demurrer is granted, the judgment is considered on the merits and appealable. If the demurrer is denied on appeal, the appellate court must decide the case on the evidence, i.e., without allowing evidence by the defendant. In civil action, demurrer requires a motion by defendant.

Rule 33: Demurrer is a motion to dismiss because of insufficient evidence. It is made by the defendant after the plaintiff rests.

Review: When can a court dismiss a case motu proprio? On the non-waivable grounds of JPRL (lack of jurisdiction, litis pendentia, res judicata, and statute of limitations) Rule 17, Secs. 1 or 3 (by notice or fault of plaintiff) Rule 18 (at pre-trial, on any valid ground for dismissal, or when plaintiff does not appear or file his brief at pre-trial)

If the demurrer is granted, but reversed on appeal, the defendant loses the right to present evidence. Sec. 1.

5
When plaintiff does not comply with court ordering him to file a Bill of Particulars (Rule 12, Sec. 4) When plaintiff refuses to comply during discovery. Rule 29, Sec. 5. A party may move for summary judgment on all or part of the action, after both parties have served their pleadings and given their respective affidavits, depositions, or admissions. Rule 35, Secs. 1 and 2. A genuine issue of fact is one that calls for presentation of evidence.

Jara notes: Demurrer differs from dismissal under Rule 16 in that the former is sought after the plaintiff has presented his evidence, while the latter is sought before the defendant has filed an Answer.

He may do so only in actions to recover a debt, for a liquidated sum of money, or for declaratory relief. Rule 35, Sec. 1.

Judgment on pleadings, summary judgment, summary procedure (Rules 34, 35)

Judgment on pleadings: A party may move for judgment on pleadings where there is no controversy on issues of fact, except in cases of nullity or annulment of marriage or legal separation. Rule 34, Sec. 1.

The court must hear the motion for summary judgment, and render such, but not on the amount of damages, and if the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 35, Sec. 3. [The summary judgment is on the entitlement of one party to damages, but the court must still assess the matter of the amount of damages.]

Sanctions for affidavits in bad faith are imposed on the erring party and his counsel. Rule 35, Sec. 6.

Court may, motu proprio, render a judgment on pleadings at pre-trial. Rule 18, Sec. 2(g).

Cases: If there is no hearing on the motion for summary judgment, the judgment will be set aside. Cadirao v Estenzo, 1984. Summary judgment is proper when the claim is clearly meritorious. Estrada v Consolacion, 1976. In case of doubt on a motion for summary judgment, it is resolved against the movant. Gatchalian v Pavillin, 1962. A partial summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable. Guevarra v CA, 1983.

Plaintiff moving for judgment on pleadings does not admit irrelevant allegations in the defendants answer. Araneta v Perez, 1965.

Defendant moving for judgment on pleadings is not deemed to have admitted allegations of damages in the complaint (Abubakar Tan v Tian Ho, 1962), and there can be no award of damages in such judgment in the absence of proof (Lichauco v Guash, 76 Phil 5).

Summary judgment: Proper where there is no genuine issue as to material fact, except amount of damages.

Distinguish judgment on pleadings from summary judgment.

6
In a judgment on pleadings, there is no factual issue at all, whereas in summary judgment, the only issue is recoverable damages, and the court is still required to try that issue. In judgment on pleadings, no evidence is introduced. In summary judgment, evidence by affidavits, depositions, or admissions is adduced. A motion for judgment on pleadings requires 3-day notice; summary judgment, 10-day notice. Summary judgment is a judgment based on pleadings and evidence submitted by parties, because, on motion of a party and as determined by the court, there are no factual issues other than the amount of damages. In Summary Procedure, there are genuine issues that the court must resolve, but the evidence is based only on affidavits and position papers, just as in the case of summary judgment. Summary judgment can be made on a part of the action, whereas Summary Procedure disposes of the case.

Judgment, final entry - Rule 36 Distinguish judgment on pleadings and summary judgment from default judgment. In the last, there are issues of fact and law, evidence is introduced ex parte by the non-defaulting party, and motions for default judgment may be filed ex parte (except under the rule on summary procedure, the court may render default judgment motu proprio). If no MR or new trial is filed seasonably, the judgment becomes final. The date of finality is deemed to be the date of entry. Thus, date of finality is the lapse of the reglementary period for MR or new trial (which is the same as the reglementary period for appeal). Sec. 2.

Summary of Summary Procedure: Covers civil cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, or where total of plaintiffs claim does not exceed P10K, exclusive of interest and costs. Only complaints, compulsory counterclaims, and cross-claims are allowed. Provides for Answer and Preliminary Conference (similar to pretrial). Parties submit affidavits and position papers. No trial proper is conducted. Judgment is rendered w/in 30 days from receipt of the last affidavit. Court may not resort to clarificatory procedure beyond the abovementioned 30 days.

Judgment should state the facts and the law. Judge should sign. Judgment must be in writing, personally and directly prepared by the judge, and filed with the clerk of court. Sec. 1.

Judgments may be severed as to defendants, or separated as to claims. Secs. 4 and 5.

Dispositive portion controls over the body of the decision, except on ambiguity and there is explicit discussion and settlement of the issue in the body. Millare v Millare, 106 Phil 293.

Judgment contrary to law is erroneous but not void. Once final, it becomes binding. Mercado v CA, 1988.

Distinguish summary judgment from summary procedure.

Judgment cannot be attacked collaterally. Except: on lack of jurisdiction, or irregularity of its entry.

7
Judgment on confession or compromise requires special authority of the party, cannot be entered into solely by counsel. But compromise can novate a prior final judgment. It does not require court approval, prior to, during, or after the case. But of course, as a contract, a compromise could be voidable, for reasons provided by law: fraud, intimidation, violence, falsity of documents, etc.

Rendition of judgment means its filing with the clerk of court. Other names for judgment by confession: cognovit actionem, relicta verificatione. In a judgment by confession, the defendant expressly admits his liability, not necessarily in an Answer.

A judge transferred to another court of equal jurisdiction can decide a case in his former court which was totally heard by him and submitted for decision. Valentin v Sta Maria, 1974.

An interlocutory order may be modified or rescinded before entry of final judgment (even if an appeal has been perfected). Larrobis v Wislezemers, 42 Phil 401; Regalado, 520.

Judgment by consent: results if the defendant Answers or appears in court and does not contest.

Distinguish judgment on consent (compromise, agreement) from judgment on confession. Former is a plea of unqualified agreement of the parties, entered in the record by court consent. Judgment on confession is an affirmative and voluntary act of the defendant, over which the court exercises supervision. Rep v Bisaya Land Trans., 1978.

RTR: there is no appeal from a judgment on compromise, confession, or consent. Remedy is motion to set aside, on grounds that vitiate consent. Rule 41.

Motion for reconsideration, new trial (Rule 37)

What is a judgment nunc pro tunc? Now for then it means a judgment entered to record some act of the court done at a former time but not then recorded, without any changes in substance. Jara notes Rule 36: Judgment

When should MR (motion for reconsideration) or motion for new trial be made? During the period for taking an appeal, i.e. the reglementary 15 or 30-day period.

What are the grounds for reconsideration? New trial? [Rule 37, Sec. 1] For reconsideration: DEL Judgment on compromise has the effect of res judicata. It can be enforced by execution under Rule 39. Straight compromise requires action for enforcement, since it is just a mere agreement, whereas a judgment on compromise is already judicially recognized. award for damages is excessive evidence is insufficient judgment is contrary to law

8
For new trial: FAME (fraud - extrinsic, accident, mistake, excusable negligence) Newly discovered evidence What is the remedy if the MR or motion for new trial is denied? Rules: MR or for new trial must be resolved within 30 days from submission. Sec. 4. No second MR allowed. Sec. 5. Second motion for new trial allowed if based on a ground not available at the first motion. Sec. 5. A motion not properly served does not toll the reglementary period (Rule 15, Sec. 6). MR is prohibited by Rule on Summary Procedure, and therefore is prohibited in the inferior courts. MR in RTC is valid. [Riano, bar question, 616] The denial is interlocutory and not appealable, and the remedy is appeal after judgment. Rule 37, Sec. 9. The original judgment or order is vacated, and the action is tried anew. The recorded evidence in the former trial can be used in the new trial. The grant may be partial if issues are severable, and the judgment may be stayed.

Is it proper to move, simultaneously, for reconsideration and new trial? Yes, on valid grounds. In fact, if a motion for new trial is denied, it is possible to still file MR.

Can the grounds for new trial be used in MR? [As to form, perhaps not. As to substance, the same set of facts can be the basis for a ground that would be acceptable in either motion.]

Is affidavit of merit required in MR? Motion for new trial? In the first, no; in the second, yes, if the grounds are from FAME.

MR, if based on the grounds for a new trial, has the same effect as a motion for new trial. Rodriguez v Rovira, 63 Phil 476.

What is the effect of MR or motion for new trial on the reglementary period for appeal? It tolls or suspends the running of the period. When the motion is denied, the party has the balance of the period to take an appeal.

What is the pro forma doctrine? It is the doctrine that states that a motion for new trial or reconsideration that does not add to the arguments in the trial proper is not valid, and, under Rule 37, Sec. 2, does not toll the reglementary period. The only purpose of a pro forma motion is delay. Dacanay v Alvendia, 1969.

What is the effect of granting the MR? If granted, the judgment is amended accordingly. Rule 37, Sec. 3.

What are examples of a pro forma motion for new trial? It uses the same ground raised in a previous motion for new trial or reconsideration that had been denied. It uses the same ground in a past motion to dismiss, which had been denied.

What is the effect of a grant of motion for new trial? Rule 37, Secs. 6, 7 and 8.

9
The ground in a second motion for new trial already existed, was available, and could have been alleged in the previous denied motion for new trial. It is based on insufficiency of evidence or judgment contrary to law but does not specify such. It alleges FAME but is not accompanied by affidavit of merits and/or does not specify the supporting facts. Fraud and mistake must be alleged with particularity. Mistakes of law, in good faith, particularly if the party making the mistake has limited intelligence. Vasquez v Mesagal, 100 Phil 360. Mistake of counsel is excluded because client is bound by such mistakes.

What is accident? It is an undersigned, sudden, and unexpected event (Blacks), and the party claiming accident must not be negligent. Sunico v Villapando, 1909. What is excusable negligence? It depends on the circumstances of the case (Coco-Chemical Philippines v CA, 1996).. Where the negligence was not directly attributable to the movant, or the circumstances indicated good faith, there could be excusable negligence. The following are not excusable negligence: heavy volume of work, negligence of counsels clerk or secretary, own negligence of the party movant.

Cases on pro forma motions: It is not pro forma if it specifically points out conclusions not supported by the evidence, even if it is based on the same arguments at trial. Maturan v Araula, 1982. Ground that award for damages is excessive does not require affidavit of merit. PCIB v Ortiz, 1987.

What kind of fraud is a valid ground for motion for new trial? Distinguish extrinsic from intrinsic fraud? Only extrinsic fraud is a ground for motion for new trial. Extrinsic fraud is one that prevents a party from presenting all of his case to the court, for example, as in a deliberate and successful attempt not to give notice to a party. Intrinsic fraud, on the other hand, takes the form of acts of a party in a litigation, such as the use of perjured testimony, which did not affect the presentation of the case, but did prevent a fair and just determination of the case. The remedy for extrinsic fraud is to allow the party to present his case, as in a new trial. The remedy for intrinsic fraud is for the aggrieved party to appeal, assigning the intrinsic fraud as an error that needs to be corrected on appeal.

What are the essential requisites of newly discovered evidence? [Velasco v Ortiz, 1990.] [MAD] (a) Evidence is material and would probably alter the result of the case; (b) Evidence is discovered after trial; and (c) Evidence could not have been discovered during trial even with reasonable diligence.

How is a motion for new trial proved? [Rule 37, Sec. 2] If on FAME, include affidavit of merits. If on new evidence, include affidavits of witnesses or duly authenticated evidence.

What are the mistakes included in FAME? The exceptions? Generally, mistakes of fact made by any party or the court.

Distinguish a motion to reopen trial from a motion for new trial? [Riano, 619]

10
Motion for new trial is proper only after judgment, whereas motion to reopen is made before judgment but after parties have formally offered and closed their evidences. Rules of Court recognize motion for new trial (Rule 37), whereas motion to reopen is a recognized procedural device (Alegre v Reyes, 1988). Grounds for dismissal of petition for relief from judgment: LAM Not seasonably filed (late) Lack of affidavit of merit, unless the facts in the petition are sufficient. Fabar v Rodelas, 1977; Rep v De Leon, 101 Ph 773; other cases in Regalado, 403. Lack of merit allegations of petitioner are not true.

Relief from judgment - Rule 38

Applies to judgment, order, or other proceedings (Sec. 1) or to denial of appeal (i.e., when a party was prevented from taking an appeal) (Sec. 2). Other proceeding includes order or writ of execution. Aquino v Blanco, 79 Phil 647. Also applies to special proceedings (land registration, intestate settlement, guardianship). Regalado, 401. Rule 38 does not apply to interlocutory order.

Special rules: Not proper if appeal or certiorari is available. Fajardo v Bayona, 98 Phil 659. If the petition is sufficient in form and substance, court shall order the adverse party to answer w/in 15 days from receipt of the order. Sec. 4. Court may issue preliminary injunctions to preserve the rights of the parties, upon filing by petitioner of a bond in favor of the adverse party. Such injunction cannot discharge any lien which the adverse party may have acquired on the property of the petitioner. Sec. 5. If petition is granted, the judgment is set aside, and the court hears the merits, i.e., it proceeds as in the case of a timely motion or reconsideration or new trial. Sec. 6. The order granting the petition for relief is interlocutory and not appealable. Regalado, 405. Where the denial of appeal is set aside, the effect is to give due course to the appeal. Sec. 7.

Grounds: FAME.

Where and how filed: same court that is trying or has just tried the case (Secs. 1 and 2); accompanied by affidavit with facts constituting the cause of action or defense. Sec. 3.

Reglementary period: must meet double periods (not extendible, not tolled) within 60 days after petitioner learns of the judgment not more than 6 months after judgment or final order was entered

What is the meaning of entered? It is the date when the judgment acquired finality. When the reglementary period for appeal, MR, or M for new trial has expired, the judgment attains finality and is deemed entered (Rule 36, Sec. 2).