Remedial Law Doctrines

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

IT IS A WELL-SETTLED RULE THAT A PARTY WHO DELIBERATELY ADOPTS A CERTAIN THEORY UPON WHICH THE CASE WAS DECIDED BY THE LOWER COURT WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO CHANGE [IT] ON APPEAL.
It is a well-settled rule that a party who deliberately adopts a certain theory upon which the case was decided by the lower court will not be permitted to change [it] on appeal.( Pasco v. Pison-Arceo Agricultural and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 165501, March 28, 2006, 485 SCRA 514, 523.) Petitioner is bound by the statements and stipulations he made while the case was being heard in the lower courts.( Roman Catholic Archbishop of Caceres v. Heirs of Manuel Abella, G.R. No. 143510, November 23, 2005, 476 SCRA 1, 8.) In Manila Electric Company v. Benamira,( 501 Phil. 621 (2005).we said: [I]t is a fundamental rule of procedure that higher courts are precluded from entertaining matters neither alleged in the pleadings nor raised during the proceedings below, but ventilated for the first time only in a motion for reconsideration or on appeal. The individual respondents are bound by their submissions that AFSISI is their employer and they should not be permitted to change their theory. Such a change of theory cannot be tolerated on appeal, not due to the strict application of procedural rules but as a matter of fairness. A change of theory on appeal is objectionable because it is contrary to the rules of fair play, justice and due process. (Id. at 638.) (RODOLFO MORLA VS. CORAZON NISPEROS BELMONTE ET AL., G.R. NO. 171146, DECEMBER 7, 2011, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:)
Posted by Christian G. Villasis at 4:15 PM 0 comments Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook Links to this post

Reactions:

JUSTICE MARTIN VILLARAMA, JR.: RIGHT TO APPEAL

The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process, but merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with

the provisions of the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the rules, failing in which the right to appeal is lost. (Producers Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126620, April 17, 2002, 381 SCRA 185, 197.) (HEIRS OF AGAPATIO T. OLARTE AND ANGELA A. OLARTE ET AL. VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES ET AL., G.R. NO. 177995, JUNE 15, 2011, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).
Posted by Christian G. Villasis at 4:12 PM 0 comments Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook Links to this post

Reactions:

RELEVANT DOCTRINAL PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT ON THE SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(i) Indeed, a second MR as a rule, is generally a prohibited pleading.( Alcantara v. Ponce, 514 Phil. 222 (2005); Tirazona v. Philippine EDS Techno-Services, Inc., G.R. No. 169712, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 625, 628, citing Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. Velasco, 324 Phil. 483, 489 (1996). The Court, however, does not discount instances when it may authorize the suspension of the rules of procedure so as to allow the resolution of a second motion for reconsideration, in cases of extraordinarily persuasive reasons (Alcantara v. Ponce, 514 Phil. 222 (2005); Tirazona v. Philippine EDS Techno-Services, Inc., G.R. No. 169712, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 625, 628, citing Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. Velasco, 324 Phil. 483, 489 (1996). such as when the decision is a patent nullity.( Ramos vs. NLRC, 358 Phil. 705 (1998). Time and again, the Court has upheld the theory that the rules of procedure are designed to secure and not to override substantial justice.( Cando v. Olazo, G.R. No. 160741, March 22, 2007, 518 SCRA 741.) These are mere tools to expedite the decision or resolution of cases, hence, their strict and rigid application which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must be avoided.( Peosa v. Dona, G.R. No. 154018, April 3, 2007, 520 SCRA 232.) (UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST VS. UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, G.R. NO. 179593, SEPTEMBER 14, 2011, MENDOZA, J.).
(ii) SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS PROHIBITED: Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that [n]o motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained. Moreover, Section 3, Rule 15 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court (A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC.) decrees viz: SEC. 3. Second motion for reconsideration. - The Court shall not entertain a second motion for reconsideration and any exception to this rule can only be granted in the higher interest of justice by the Court en banc upon a vote of at least two-thirds of its actual membership. There is

reconsideration 'in the highest interest of justice' when the assailed decision is not only legally erroneous but is likewise patently unjust and potentially capable of causing unwarranted and irremediable injury or damage to the parties. A second motion for reconsideration can only be entertained before the ruling sought to be reconsidered becomes final by operation of law or by the Court's declaration.

Well-settled is the rule that issues or grounds not raised below cannot be resolved on review by the Supreme Court, for to allow the parties to raise new issues is antithetical to the sporting idea of fair play, justice and due process. Issues not raised during the trial cannot be raised for the first time on appeal and more especially on motion for reconsideration. Litigation must end at some point; once the case is finally adjudged, the parties must learn to accept victory or defeat. Cuenco v. Talisay Tourist Sports Complex, Incorporated, G.R. No. 174154, July 30, 2009, 594 SCRA 396, 399-400.) (JOEB M. ALIVIADO VS. PROCTER & GAMBLE PHILS. INC. AND PROMM-GEM INC., G.R. NO. 160506, JUNE 6, 2011, DEL CASTILLO, J.:) .:)
(iii) As a rule, a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading pursuant to Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Civil Procedure which provides that: No second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained. Thus, a decision becomes final and executory after 15 days from receipt of the denial of the first motion for reconsideration. However, when a motion for leave to file and admit a second motion for reconsideration is granted by the Court, the Court therefore allows the filing of the second motion for reconsideration. In such a case, the second motion for reconsideration is no longer a prohibited pleading. (LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (LCP) ET AL, VS. COMELEC ET AL., G.R. NO. G.R. NO. 176951, FEBRUARY 15, 2011, BERSAMIN, J.:) (iv) We deny Judge Motion for Reconsideration for Reconsideration. Rule reconsideration filed before the Dilags Motion for Leave to Admit Attached Second and note without action the appended Second Motion 52, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, on motions for Court of Appeals, reads: for

Sec. 2. Second Motion for Reconsideration. No second motion reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained.

Taken in conjunction with Rule 56, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, the aforequoted provision is also applicable to original cases filed before the Supreme Court, which includes disciplinary proceedings against judges, such as the one at bar. A second motion for reconsideration is, therefore, a prohibited pleading. The rule against entertaining a second motion for reconsideration is rooted in the basic tenet of immutability of judgments. At some point a decision becomes final and executory and, consequently, all litigations must come to an end.

Indeed, there have been instances when we gave merit to second motions for reconsideration, but only when there are extraordinary persuasive reasons and only after an express leave shall have been obtained.( Tirazona v. Philippine EDS TechnoService, Inc., G.R. No. 169712, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 625, 628.) (NIDA VERGINESA SUAREZ VS. JUDGE RENATO DILAG & CONCEPCION A. PASCUA, A.M. NO. RTJ-06-2014, AUGUST 16, 2011, PER CURIAM)

Posted by Christian G. Villasis at 12:11 PM 0 comments Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook Links to this post

Reactions:

JUSTICE MARTIN VILLARAMA, JR.: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PRO FORMA

The Supreme Court has held that mere reiteration of issues already passed upon by the court does not automatically make a motion for reconsideration pro forma. What is essential is compliance with the requisites of the Rules. Indeed, in the cases where a motion for reconsideration was held to be pro forma, the motion was so held because (1) it was a second motion for reconsideration, or (2) it did not comply with the rule that the motion must specify the findings and conclusions alleged to be contrary to law or not supported by the evidence, or (3) it failed to substantiate the alleged errors, or (4) it merely alleged that the decision in question was contrary to law, or (5) the adverse party was not given notice thereof. (FERNANDO V. GONZALES VS. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 192856, MARCH 8, 2011, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).
Posted by Christian G. Villasis at 12:04 PM 0 comments Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook Links to this post

Reactions:

SUMMARY JUDGMENT:
Summary judgments are proper when, upon motion of the plaintiff or the defendant, the court finds that the answer filed by the defendant does not tender a genuine issue as to any material fact and that one party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. (RULES OF COURT, Rule 35. A deeper understanding of summary judgments is found in Viajar v. Estenzo: (178 Phil. 561 (1979).
Relief by summary judgment is intended to expedite or promptly dispose of cases where the facts appear undisputed and certain from the pleadings, depositions, admissions and affidavits. But if there be a doubt as to such facts and there be an issue or issues of fact joined by the parties, neither one of them can pray for a summary judgment. Where the facts pleaded by the parties are disputed or contested, proceedings for a summary judgment cannot take the place of a trial. An examination of the Rules will readily show that a summary judgment is by no means a hasty one. It assumes a scrutiny of facts in a summary hearing after the filing of a motion for summary judgment by one party supported by affidavits, depositions, admissions, or other documents, with

notice upon the adverse party who may file an opposition to the motion supported also by affidavits, depositions, or other documents x x x. In spite of its expediting character, relief by summary judgment can only be allowed after compliance with the minimum requirement of vigilance by the court in a summary hearing considering that this remedy is in derogation of a party's right to a plenary trial of his case. At any rate, a party who moves for summary judgment has the burden of demonstrating clearly the absence of any genuine issue of fact, or that the issue posed in the complaint is so patently unsubstantial as not to constitute a genuine issue for trial, and any doubt as to the existence of such an issue is resolved against the movant. (Id. at 572-573. Citations omitted.)

A summary judgment is permitted only if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and [the] moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.( Eland Philippines, Inc. v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173289, February 17, 2010, 613 SCRA 66, 81-82.) The test of the propriety of rendering summary judgments is the existence of a genuine issue of fact, (Estrada v. Consolacion, 163 Phil. 540, 549 (1976).as distinguished from a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim. (Eland Philippines, Inc. v. Garcia, supra at 88. [A] factual issue raised by a party is considered as sham when by its nature it is evident that it cannot be proven or it is such that the party tendering the same has neither any sincere intention nor adequate evidence to prove it. This usually happens in denials made by defendants merely for the sake of having an issue and thereby gaining delay, taking advantage of the fact that their answers are not under oath anyway. (Concurring Opinion of Justice Barredo in Estrada v. Consolacion, supra at 554. Emphasis supplied.) In determining the genuineness of the issues, and hence the propriety of rendering a summary judgment, the court is obliged to carefully study and appraise, not the tenor or contents of the pleadings, but the facts alleged under oath by the parties and/or their witnesses in the affidavits that they submitted with the motion and the corresponding opposition. Thus, it is held that, even if the pleadings on their face appear to raise issues, a summary judgment is proper so long as the affidavits, depositions, and admissions presented by the moving party show that such issues are not genuine.( Eland Philippines, Inc. v. Garcia, surpa at 82. Emphasis supplied) (ANICETO CALUBAQUIB ET AL. VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS., G.R. NO. 170658, JUNE 22, 2011, DEL CASTILLO, J.)
Posted by Christian G. Villasis at 11:35 AM 0 comments Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook Links to this post

Reactions:

Older Posts Home

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

About Me

Christian G. Villasis

Atty. Christian "Kit" Villasis is a professor and BAR Reviewer on Remedial Law of several law Schools and Review Centers. Aside from being a litigation (civil and criminal) lawyer, Prof. Villasis has a diversified general law practice. He handles all aspects of corporate, commercial business and banking transactions, protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, collection, admiralty and maritime practice, labor-management relations, election, administrative and local government cases, family cases, real estate transactions, land titles, deeds and conveyances, foreclosure of mortgages, taxation, regulatory compliance, etc. View my complete profile