REMEDIAL LAW NOTES

Harmless Error Rule

THE ENGLISH EXCHEQUE RULE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PHILIPPINES
This stance is a specie of a mid-1800 rule known as the English Exchequer Rule pursuant to which "a trial
court's error as to the admission of evidence was presumed to have caused prejudice and therefore,
almost automatically required a new trial." The Exchequer rule has long been laid to rest for even English
appellate courts now disregard an error in the admission of evidence "unless in its opinion, some
substantial wrong or miscarriage (of justice) has been occasioned." (People vs Teehankee Jr. G.R. Nos.
111206-08, October 6, 1995).

THE HARMLESS ERROR RULE AND ITS APPLICABILITY IN THE PHILIPPINES

American courts adopted this approach especially after the enactment of a 1915 federal statute which
required a federal appellate court to "give judgment after an examination of the entire record before the
court, without regard to technical errors, defects, or exceptions which do not affect the substantial rights
of the parties." We have likewise followed the harmless error rule in our jurisdiction. In dealing with
evidence improperly admitted in trial, we examine its damaging quality and its impact to the substantive
rights of the litigant. If the impact is slight and insignificant, we disregard the error as it will not overcome
the weight of the properly admitted evidence against the prejudiced party (People vs Teehankee Jr. G.R.
Nos. 111206-08, October 6, 1995).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harmless Remedy (Nunc Pro Tunc Entries)

The object of a judgment nunc pro tunc is not the rendering of a new judgment and the ascertainment
and determination of new rights, but is one placing in proper form on the record, the judgment that had
been previously rendered, to make it speak the truth, so as to make it show what the judicial action really
was, not to correct judicial errors, such as to render a judgment which the court ought to have rendered,
in place of the one it did erroneously render, nor to supply nonaction by the court, however erroneous
the judgment may have been (Wilmerding vs. Corbin Banking Co., 28 South., 640, 641; 126 Ala., 268.).
A nunc pro tunc entry in practice is an entry made now of something which was actually previouslydone,
to have effect as of the former date. Its office is not to supply omitted action by the court, but to supply
an omission in the record of action really had, but omitted through inadvertence or mistake (Perkins vs.
Haywood, 31 N. E., 670, 672).
Nunc pro tunc entry is one of the exceptions to the rule on the immutability of final judgments; to wit, (1)
the correction of clerical errors, (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any
party, and (3) void judgments (One Shipping Corp. vs Penafiel, G.R. No. 192406, January 21, 2015).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1
 Ladder-like Theory (Hierarchy of Courts)
A common refrain in jurisprudence is that, where courts have concurrent jurisdiction over a subject
matter, the doctrine of hierarchy of courts should be observed. Under this doctrine, a case must be filed
before the lowest court possible having the appropriate jurisdiction, except if one can advance a special
reason which would allow a party a direct resort to a higher court. (RIANO 2014, p. 57)
The Supreme Courts original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, habeas corpus and injunction is not exclusive to the Supreme Court. Its jurisdiction is concurrent
with the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court. This concurrence of jurisdiction does not grant
upon a party seeking any of the extraordinary writs the absolute freedom to file his petition with the court
of his choice like filing the petition with Supreme Court which is a court of last resort, and must so remain
if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it but the Constitution and what the court referred
to as an immemorial tradition (Cruz vs Gingoyon, 658 SCRA 254).
The doctrine of hierarchy of courts may be disregarded in certain cases, to wit:
(a) When there are special and important reasons clearly stated in the petition;
(b) When dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy;
(c) When demanded by the broader interest of justice;
(d) When the challenged orders were patent nullities; or
(e) When analogous exceptional and compelling circumstances called for and justified the immediate
and direct handling by the Court (Republic vs Caguiao, 691 SCRA 306, February 20, 2013).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two Stage of Litigation Process

In Administrative Circular No. 3-99, there two stages of litigation process: first is the pre-trial; second is
the trial.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DUAL FUNCTION OF THE APPELATE COURT

A.M. No. CA-13-51-J July 2, 2013;
Re: Letter complaint of Merlita B. Fabiana against presiding Justice Andres B Reyes, Jr., et al.
J. Bersamin:
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.

2
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.

CONSOLIDATION OF CASES IS PERMISSIVE AND A MATTER OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN THE TRIAL COURTS;
BUT ITS PERMISSIVENESS DOES NOT CARRY OVER TO THE APPELLATE STAGE
It is true that under the Rules of Court, the consolidation of cases for trial is permissive and a matter of
judicial discretion. This is because trials held in the first instance require the attendance of the parties,
their respective counsel and their witnesses, a task that surely entails an expense that can multiply if there
are several proceedings upon the same issues involving the same parties. At the trial stage, the avoidance
of unnecessary expenses and undue vexation to the parties is the primary objective of consolidation of
cases. But the permissiveness of consolidation does not carry over to the appellate stage where the
primary objective is less the avoidance of unnecessary expenses and undue vexation than it is the ideal
realization of the dual function of all appellate adjudications.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ROLE OF THE JUDGE IN PRE-TRIAL

Administrative Circular No. 3-99
At the pre-trial conference, the following shall be done:
[a] The judge with all tact, patience and impartiality, shall endeavor to persuade the parties to
arrive at a settlement of the dispute; if no amicable settlement is reached, then he must
effectively direct the parties toward the achievement of the other objectives or goals of pre-trial
set forth in Section 2, Rule 18, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
[b] If warranted by the disclosures at the pre-trial, the judge may either forthwith dismiss the
action, or determine the propriety of rendering a judgment on the pleadings or a summary
judgment.
[c] The judge shall define the factual issues arising from the pleadings and endeavor to cull the
material issues.
[d] If only legal issues are presented, the judge shall require the parties to submit their respective
memoranda and thereafter render judgment.

3
 [e] If trial is necessary, the judge shall fix the trial dates required to complete presentation of
evidence by both parties within ninety [90] days from the date of initial hearing.
After the pre-trial conference, the judge should not fail to prepare and issue the requisite pre-trial order,
which shall embody the matter mentioned in Sec. 7, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Failure of the plaintiff to appear at the pre-trial shall be a cause for dismissal of the action. A similar failure
of the defendant shall be a cause to allow the plaintiff to present his evidence ex-parte and the Court to
render judgment on the basis thereof.
Failure to file pre-trial briefs shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial.
The judge should encourage the effective use of pre-trial discovery procedures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Error of Judgment vs Error of Jurisdiction

We have set a clear demarcation line between an error of judgment and an error of jurisdiction. An error
of judgment is one in which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and which error is
reviewable only by an appeal, while an error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued
by the court, officer or a quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction, and which error is correctable only by
the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled in dismissing the petition
for certiorari of petitioner. The ruling is in accord with the settled principle that certiorari will not be issued
to cure errors in proceedings or erroneous conclusions of law or fact, x x x. (Toh v. CA, G.R. No. 140274,
November 15, 2000, 344 SCRA 831)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reverse Order Trial

Section 11, Rule 119, Rules of Court
The trial shall proceed in the following order:
(a) The prosecution shall present evidence to prove the charge and, in the proper case, the civil
liability.
(b) The accused may present evidence to prove his defense, and damages, if any, arising from the
issuance of a provisional remedy in the case.
(c) The prosecution and the defense may, in that order, present rebuttal and sur-rebuttal evidence
unless the court, in furtherance of justice, permits them to present additional evidence bearing upon
the main issue.
(d) Upon admission of the evidence of the parties, the case shall be deemed submitted for decision
unless the court directs them to argue orally or to submit written memoranda.
(e) When the accused admits the act or omission charged in the complaint or information but
interposes a lawful defense, the order of trial may be modified.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4
 Summary Judgment vs Judgment on the Pleadings
a. In a judgment on the pleadings, there is an absence of a factual issue in the case, because the
answer tenders no issue at all. A summary judgment involves an issue but the issue is not genuine.
In a summary judgment, the issue is only as to the amount of damages but not as to any material
fact.
b. A motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed by a claiming party like a plaintiff or
counterclaimant (Section 1, Rule 34, Rules of Court). A motion for summary judgment may be filed
either by the claiming or the defending party (Section 1, Rule 35, Rules of Court).
c. A judgment on the pleadings is based on the pleadings alone (Section 1, Rule 34, Rules of Court).
A summary judgment is based on the pleadings, affidavits, depositions and admissions (Section 3,
Rule 35, Rules of Court).
d. Only a three-day notice to the adverse party is required prior to the date of hearing in a motion
for judgment on the pleadings based on the regular rules on motions (Section 4, Rule 15, Rules of
Court). A ten-day notice to the adverse party is required in a motion for summary judgment. The
adverse party in turn may serve opposing affidavits, depositions or admissions at least three days
before the hearing (Section 3, Rule 35, Rules of Court).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fresh Period Rule

To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal
their cases, the Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice
of appeal in the Regional Trial Court, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial
or motion for reconsideration (Neypes vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 241524, April 14, 2005).

While Neypes involved the period to appeal in civil cases, the Courts pronouncement of a "fresh period"
to appeal should equally apply to the period for appeal in criminal cases under Section 6 of Rule 122 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (Yu vs Tatad, G.R. No. 170979, February 9, 2011).
Neypes elucidates that the "fresh period rule" applies to appeals under Rule 40 and Rule 41; Rule 42; Rule
43; and Rule 45. 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 petitioners motion for new trial or reconsideration filed. (People vs Rodriguez, G.R. No. 192799,
October 24, 2012).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5
 The Final Judgment Rule
Under this Rule, an appeal may be taken only from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of
the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable. (Sec. 1, Rule 41
of the Rules of Court)
Exceptions to the Final Judgment Rule are:
a. Statutory Exception (for example, an appeal from a partial judgment or order rendered for or
against one or more of several parties, or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims, and
third-party complaints, while the main case is pending if allowed by the trial court);
b. Discretionary Exception (this involves the Supreme Courts plenary discretion to accept or refuse
invocations of its appellate jurisdiction);
c. Collateral Order Exception (this involves a decision or order which determines a matter collateral
to the rights underlying the action and which is too important to be denied review);
d. Cases where some immediate harm might occur to the appellant if review is postponed.
(BERSAMIN, p. 120-121)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doctrine of Finality of Judgment or Immutability of Judgment

Under the such doctrine, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and
may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous
conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court
of the land. Any act which violates this principle must immediately be struck down.
The only exceptions to the rule that final judgments may no longer be modified in any respect are:
a. The correction of clerical errors;
b. The so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party;
c. Void judgments;
d. Whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust
and inequitable (FGU Insurance Corporation vs G.P. Sarmiento Trucking, G.R. No. 161282,
February 23, 2011).

*** The difference between the Final Judgment Rule and the Doctrine of Finality of Judgment is that the
former determines whether a decision or order is final such that an appeal is an appropriate remedy for
the decision or order; while the latter is a rule which states that an order or decision, once final, can no
longer be modified by any subsequent recourse.