[SPiP] Additional Situations + FAQs Flashcards
Apple entered into a contract of loan with Jon whereby Apple loaned the amount of 3M pesos from Jon payable by next year. After a year, Jon demanded the amount of the loan from Apple, but Apple could only pay 1.5M, promising to pay Jon the full amount by next month. After a month, Jon once again demanded payment from Apple and this time Apple made good on her promise paying the full amount.
After some time, and much to Apple’s surprise, Jon filed a collection suit against her with the RTC of Cebu. Jon demanded payment for 1.5M pesos representing the second half of the loan which Apple supposedly did not pay. Trial ensued, and Apple was only able to present the receipt for the first payment but not the second one. The trial court ruled in favor of Jon. After judgment, Apple suddenly remembered that Bren was with her when she made her second payment. Bren is from Bohol and was visiting Apple that day in order to give her some kalamay. Apple immediately contacted Bren who agreed to testify on her behalf. Apple then proceeded to file a timely MNT citing newly discovered evidence.
If you were the judge, would you grant the MNT? Explain.
Forgotten Evidence not a ground
Apple entered into a contract of loan with Jon whereby Apple loaned the amount of 3M pesos from Jon payable by next year. After a year, Jon demanded the amount of the loan from Apple, but Apple could only pay 500k, promising to pay Jon the full amount by next month. After a month, Jon once again demanded payment from Apple and this time Apple made good on her promise paying the full amount.
After some time, and much to Apple’s surprise, Jon filed a collection suit against her with the RTC of Cebu. Jon demanded payment for 2.5M pesos representing the second half of the loan which Apple supposedly did not pay. Trial ensued, and Apple was only able to present the receipt for the first payment but not the second one. After the trial but before the court issued a judgment, Apple suddenly remembered that Bren was with her when she made her second payment. Bren is from Bohol and was visiting Apple that day in order to give her some kalamay. Apple immediately contacted Bren who agreed to testify on her behalf. Apple then proceeded to file a timely MNT citing newly discovered evidence.
If you were the judge, would you grant the MNT? Explain.
No judgment therefore MNT is not allowed. The proper remedy is Motion to Reopen Trial which may be had only [either or both] parties have formally offered, and closed their evidenced [but] before judgment
Comelec using its quasijudicial functions disqualified the candidacy Jake ruling that he was a nuisance candidate. What is Jake’s remedy if he wants to question the Comelec ruling?
COMELEC & COA - 65
CSC - 43
Aploy filed a case in the RTC questioning the validity of the Board of Directors electing a replacement for Arman who resigned as director. RTC ruled against Aploy.
a) What is her remedy if she is questioning the judgment on a pure question of law?
b) Let us vary the situation, What is her remedy if she is questioning the judgment on both fact and law?
Both R43 — RTC acting as special commercial court
All decisions and final orders in cases falling under:
— Interim Rules of Corporate Rehabilitation, &
— Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies under RA 8799
shall be appealable to the CA through a [petition for review under 43]
LB: A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC, September 14, 2004
Ethan filed a civil case for collection of sum of money for the unpaid car he sold worth Php1,200,000 that Jon failed to pay for in the MTC of Cebu. The MTC ruled in favor of Ethan. Jon appealed the ruling of the MTC to the RTC using Rule 40 wherein he questioned the ruling based purely on law. The RTC likewise ruled in favor of Ethan thus Jon likewise appeal the case using Rule 45 directly to the Supreme Court again questioning the ruling based purely on law. Ethan in its comment to the Supreme Court pointed out that the case should be dismissed as the proper remedy should be Rule 42 as it was the judgment of the RTC in its appellate jurisdiction. What remedy should have been pursued by Jon?
MR then R65 is proper remedy - summary procedure cannot be appealed anymore
Bren filed a case questioning the registration by Jon on a parcel of land worth P80,000 located in Dumaguete in the MTC of Dumaguete. The MTC ruled in favor of Jon wherein Bren received the copy of the judgment on September 1. Bren filed an appeal using Rule 45 to the Supreme Court as the he questioned the ruling purely based on law. Jon in its comment to the Supreme Court pointed out the case should be dismissed as Bren used the wrong remedy and that correct remedy should be Rule 40 to the RTC even if it was a question based purely on law as it is only judgments of the Sandiganbayan, RTC, CTA en banc, and CA that could be questioned using Rule 45. Was Jon correct?
45
delegated JD of MTC as if its RTC in its
OG JD + pure qeuestion of law so 45
A case was filed in the MTC. The case was rendered in favor of Mark. Fulton on the other hand wants to assail the judgment and so he filed a motion for new trial. A motion for new trial was granted. However, Mark wants to assail the order granting the new trial. What is the remedy of Mark?
Suppose that the remedy of Mark was granted how then can Fulton appeal from any adverse judgement?
Rule 65 to assail the MNT. Now that your R65 is granted in the RTC, and R65 is a OG action thats why it is Rule 41 (OG JD)
TN: R42 (appellate JD)
Bren filed a civil case to collect the 2.5m debt from Jon in the RTC. Bren connived with clerk of court making it appear that Jon received the summons. The court then issued an order of default against Jon.
a) What is the remedy of Jon who was erroneously declared in default when there was already service of the order of default but before judgment upon default is rendered? If so, where do you file it?
b) What is the remedy of Jon who was erroneously declared in default when there is already a default judgment but not yet final and executory? If so, where do you file it?
c) What is the remedy of Jon who was erroneously declared in default when there is already a default judgment, and the judgment is already final and executory but received the copy of the order of default and the default judgment 4 months after judgment was entered? If so, where do you file it?
d) What is the remedy of Jon who was erroneously declared in default when there is already a default judgment, and the judgment is already final and executory but received the copy of the order of default and the default judgment 7 months after judgment was entered? If so, where do you file it?
suggested answer:
a) motion to set aside default order
b) motion for new trial
c) Petition for relief from judgement
d) Petition for annulment of judgement (and) injunction to stay judgement
all filed where court rendered judgment/final order
Assume that you have received an adverse decision and filed a MR which was denied
Give the reglementary periods for the filing of the following
- Notice of Appeal to CA
- Petition for Certiorari under R65
- Petition for Review to CA under R42
- Petition for Review on Certiorari to the SC under R45
- Petition for Certiorari under R64
Millyn filed a case against bren for a collection of sum of money amounting to 1.9m pesos, however after being given due notice on the day of the hearing Bren thereafter failed to show up to the trial. After which Bren received an adverse judgement. Lets say he was given due notice 15 days before the trial date
- Will appeal be a remedy for bren? explain
- Suppose Bren showed up to trial and thereafter filed a petition as he believes that Millyn connived with the judge to hand to him an adverse judgement, will Mandamus be a successful remedy? Explain
suggested answer
1. Yes. Appeal is a remedy in SumPro
re: appeal from judgments from the CTA, pwede siya Rule 43 nya pwede pud siya Rule 45. Pero, how do we reconcile it, if Rule 43 allows pure questions of law, while ang ground pud for Rule 45 is pure question of law sad? Or, pwede ra mo choose ang CTA where to file if diretso sa CA or SC
if CTA rendered decision en banc choose r45
if CTA rendered decision by division choose r43
TN: 9 is en banc
Apple perfected an appeal from the RTC to the CA under rule 41. However, while the records of the appeal were still the the RTC, Judge Coliflores found out that the case should have been dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Judge Coliflores argues that since the case records were still with his court, he can motu proprio dismiss the case based on the grounds that the case before his sala was not cognizable in his court. Is Judge Coliflores correct? Explain
No. What the court can still exercise is only the residual jurisdiction involving the dismissal of the appeal if it is not paid on time or the nonpayment of filing fees. Here, it was want of jurisdiction, only the CA can dismiss this appeal.
RTC has no JD to deny notice of appeal on an entirely different ground other than [a] appeal being filed out of time or [b] non-payment of appeal fee
Arman filed a case against Ethan for a collection of sum of money amounting to 5m. Trial ensued and after which Ethan received an adverse judgement to which he filed an appeal to the RTC which he perfected.
During the pendency of the appeal, Arman and Ethan entered into an amicable settlement agreement wherein Arman agreed that to settle this case quickly Ethan should only pay the amount of 3m because Ethan reasoned to Arman that he was insolvent and moved for the approval thereof.
However, before the court could approve the amicable settlement agreement Arman found out that Ethan was indeed not insolvent
Arman filed a motion to cancel the amicable settlement agreement. Ethan, quick on the trigger contended that the appeal should be dismissed as they had already entered into an amicable settlement agreement which is one of the grounds for dismissal contemplated under rule 50. Is Ethan’s contentions correct? Should the CA grant the dismissal?
If the ground for dismissal on appeal to the CA is based on A.S., discretionary na sa court kung e dismiss
grounds for dismissal nga discretionary sa court
- parties entered into A.S.
- appealed case become moot & academic
- appeal is frivolous or dilatory
Shyra filed a complaint with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) against Adrian Rivera for failure to comply with a contract to sell a residential property. After a hearing, HLURB issued a decision in favor of Shyra, ordering Adrian to comply with the contract. Adrian received the notice of the judgment.
13 days later, he filed a Motion for Reconsideration; however, this Motion was denied. He then filed an appeal on the judgment before the CA. Is the filing of an appeal by Adrian beyond the reglementary period of 15 days valid?
No.
Neypes rule covers only judicial proceedings. Hence [does not apply to administrative appeals] like those from:
- decision of the HLURB Board of Commissioners to Office of President
- DENR Regional Office to DENR Secretary
- LBAA to CBAA
