11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.

59 MIN] January 11, 2014

9:49 I have thought that the topic for tonight would only be from rules fifty-one to fifty nine. Theres a rule that we are to be allow one session delayed. So tonight we will take up fifty-one to fifty-six and then fifty-seven to sixty-one on Traditional Remedies.

Okay.

10:48

Rules

11:11

Fifty-one to Fifty-six. These rules have to do with the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.

Rule Fifty-one covers Judgment. This, the new provision on Section 1 of this rule, is intended to clarify and provide specific rules on what a case, or when I should say, when a case is deemed submitted for judgment or decision.

Depending on whether what is involved, is it ordinary appeal; a petition for review or an original action and whether or not the hearing was conducted by the upper court.

12:02

The determination of the date of the submission of the case is for judgment is made being important by department under the Constitution. Such date, is the reckoning point of the periods for the solving the case of matter and which periods are mandatory in nature. Okay.

12:27

I suggest that you take note of the enumeration when the appeal is [inaudible, 12:30] omitted for judgment or decision which Section 1 has to reiterate ordinary appeals or deal actions and petitions for review.

12:43

Also be sure to pay attention to the difference and the kind and nature of the opulent remedy between ordinary appeals on the one hand and the way actions and petitions for review on the other. They are not difficult to remember.

13:00

An ordinary appeal is deemed omitted for judgment and that is provided over in the

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

rules. Now, you will note that in Section 2, it is mandated that beckon it is mandatory because it uses the word skull. But the judgment are to be rendered by the members of the court participated in the deliberation on the merits of the case for its assignment proponent or the one who derived the decision for the writing of the decision. Okay.

13:38

So in other words for a ponentius start writing the decision there will be consultation, they may do it in session or by a you know mere discussion among themselves of the issues of the case and they will have to make decision on how the case should be resolved and it is our [inaudible, 14:02] that its the proponent to write the decision based on the consultation. Okay.

14:09

Then also Section 3, directs the different situation of all three justices; these are, by the way this covers the court of appeals no, all the participation of all three justices of the division at the deliberation and their unanimous vote is required to pronounce judgment or final resolution.

14:32

Now where the three do not reach unanimous decision the chairman of the division would refer the case together with the minutes of the deliberation to the presiding justice of the court of appeals. Who shall designate two justices chosen by raffle for among all the other members of the court to sit with them. Forming a special division of five justices. Okay.

A components of the majority of five is requirement for the pronouncement of a judgment or a final resolution. Okay.

15:09

Now, what happens when a case degenerates into multiple proceedings?

Well you should refer to the case of Crystal versus Court of Appeals. Which is the case in point. In the case below, the source of the case, it was entitled Ocampo versus Vidal Monteverde as the Administrator of Nicholas Ramos the CFI of Cebu, rendered judgment ordering the defendant to pay plaintiffs Thirty Thousand Plus as damages.

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

On appeal the supreme court affirm the decision of the Trial Court and after the judgment became [inaudible, 15:54] and executor, a writ of execution was issued.

Five parcels of land belonging to the estate sold a public auction to Vilabia Ocampo, as the highest bidder. The heirs of Nicholas Ramos assigned the right of retention to Raymundo Crystal. Okay. which ascendant has approved with the proving court on May 23, 1958. That upon Crystal deposited the check worth Eleven thousand two hundred, with the provincial sheriff with an issued a deed of redemption.

Okay. Crystal took possession of the lands and cultivated and you know and developed it. However, in 1960, February. Claiming that the check paid by Crystal with the redemption dishonored Ocampo took possession of the four parcels of land.

Crystal filed a motion in Civil Case number R1666, to cite Ocampo for contempt of court. However, that the court denied the motion, observing that another action not contempt was proper proceedings where the validity of the redemption will be raised. There was a [inaudible, 17:14] saying that they should file a separate case. And Crystal did file a separate case, thats Case Number 62-B against Ocampo declaration of ownership and damages.

17:31

However, the tendency of that case number 62-B, Crystal was able to regain possession of the parcels of land. Okay. Nagkaroon sila ng tug of war.

17:51

Now, on 1969, the court in Civil Case the original case rather than the repossession of the four parcels of land to Oca naman. On Crystal suppose to tell courts aside its order of June 23, 1969 another writ of repossession in favor of Ocal. Pabalik-balik.

18:09

Ocal move for reconsideration which Crystal opposed. They filed an expired demotion for each ones alias writ of possession in this was reiterated on August 15, 1970.

On May 31, 1971 the trial court issued an order reviving its 23 June 1969 order issuing

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

evey put possession in favor of Ocal declaring the definite sale executed by the sheriff and the writ of possession by declare of court in full cause and effect.

18:44

Again, Crystal filed a motion for reconsideration, but this was the libel [inaudible, 18:49] Crystal [inaudible,18:50] back to the court of appeals on a petition for review, petition for certioari numeric injunction for annulment of the May 31 1971 order of the trial court.

19:04

When the CA dismissed the petition on November 3, 1972, Crystal elevated the case to the Supreme Court on a petition for review on certioari.

19:15

And a decision of February 25, 1975, the Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision, April 23, 1975, Crystal file a motion for reconsideration, and the Supreme Court by resolution of June 18, 1976 reconsidered and modified this decision by demanding the [inaudible, 19:35] for the trial court for further proceedings that the whole case of the proceedings contemplated or to be held the civil case number R1666 of original action

19:49

Rendering academic, yung fi-nile ni Crystal na civil case number 62-3, and another case reviewed the same, not specifically identified into decision of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decision as modified we give final el 4xecutor on July 30, 1976. Now, what happened to us after further proceedings and directly by the Supreme Court, the trial court on December 8, 1982 read that judgment declaring Ocang and their children has have been fully-paid the redemption price of their four parcels of land and the deed of redemption valid and effective as of date it was executed. In other words, Crystal won, on this hearing by the trial court, accordingly the trial court declared Crystal; the owner of the four parcels of land. Ocang acted the decision to the CA and you have to remain standing.

20:44

However, on February 23, 1979, exactly two years six months and fifty three days after the supreme court, judgment have become filed under 4xecutor, Ocang filed an urgent motion for contempt and prohibited contempt of TRO. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss their motion for having become mood and academic, and that with is decision having become final and 4xecutor on July 30, 1976 in the case mother to grant court which is internal already render these decision and the case. The Supreme Court no longer had jurisdiction with the case as to result by near motion issues having to do with the rights of the parties to the case.

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

21:26 Now the supreme court stressed the litigation must come to an end and terminate sometime and somewhere as it is sensitive and effective beneficial administration of justice that once a judgment has become final and executor, the willing party may not [inaudible, 21:44] of the verdict. You can see here, sobrang laban na nung parties noh, but [inaudible, 21:51] Crystal won, because the only issue there was whether or not the redemption of the properties by Crystal was the assignee of the right of redemption was effective and valid. This was questioned by Ocang because he said that the payment: the check payment was not effective when account of the banc will be checked, [inaudible, 22:24] bounced turn-out later on when there was this re-trial by the trial court that the check was good, the redemption was effective and it transferred the property to Crystal was valid and this was sustained by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Courts decision was became final and 5xecutor and all that basis, the subsequent motion of Ocang to declare Crystal impotent and other remedies was no longer buffer as the case has already become, the decision has already become final and 5xecutor. 23:05 For that ended the whole case. You can just see, the long period of time involve in this litigation started, when, more than ten years, from 1958 to 1971, 1982 pa umabot ng 1982 and that is the kind of justice that our judicial system administers. 23:42 Okay, now if you review the decisions of the Supreme Court will stand, you will see specially in civil cases, that the final decision of the case would take, maybe more the ten years, a lot of them , this is one example of how efficient our jurisdiction of justices. Now, we go to motion for reconsideration, and this is covered by rule fifty two. Under, this rule, the losing party is given fifteen days to file the motion for reconsideration of a judgment of final resolution pag date of notice. 24:21 Okay, with group of service on the others party, the conjugal bills of result the motion to the consideration within ninety days, the date when the court declares it [inaudible, 24:33] resolution. Ah madaya yung formulation ng period no, 5xecu. The ninety day period will start to run, from the moment, only for the moment that the CA will declare demand the motion submitted for the dismission. 24:55 So if the [inaudible, 24:56] to declare it submitted for resolution, and the order including it, submitted for resolution [inaudible, 25:06] more than one year, then the ninety [inaudible, 25:09] will put start to run.

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

25:15 After two hundred [inaudible, 25:16] So, the way we formulate our, the way, rules are formulated always favor the decision maker, okay? Its not the party. 25:39 Now, As I said, the court of appeals has a ninety day period, within we sue, to resolve a motion for reconsideration from date when it declares that motion submit the proresolution. Note that a second motion for reconsideration is not allowed. In Badiola versus the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, upheld the denial of second motion for reconsideration upon will petition because such motion is exclusively for strive or prohibited by section two of rule fifty two. 26:17 Now, what is the effect of the timely finding for motion for reconsideration? Well, it states the execution of the judgment or final resolution so to be reconsidered unless the court directs otherwise. In other words, even when you file a motion for reconsideration, if the prevailing party files a motion for execution for a valid and substantial grounds, the court may grant the execution. 26:46 Even if, as a general rule the filling for the motion for reconsideration states the finality of the judgment or the judgment from becoming 6xecutor. Now, must a losing party files a motion for reconsideration before taking further [inaudible, 27:07] of remedies with the Supreme Court, the answer is yes. This is the existing judicial policy. The decision for this is not the court that render the decision must be given opportunity to take a second look at this decision and therefore the chance to reconsidered its judgment. And this is, this really favors the party, well, the losing party because, you see when you got to the Supreme Court as I said before, you are really gambling because its absolutely [inaudible, 27:27] to the part of the Supreme Court whether or not to entertain your petition for you. Okay? 27:45 Now we go to a new trial, now this is governed by rule fifty three. Ah yung sa lower court i think its rule fifty seven. 27:55 Ah the new trial that is, that is [inaudible, 27:27] speak off is before the Court of Appeals, you need to distinguish the new trial under rule fifty three from the new trial under rule fifty seven which refers to the new trial before the RTC, As i just said, you must take note that the new trial under new fifty three maybe had only on the ground of newly discovered evidence and we discussed this last time ano? Which could not have been discovered prior to the trial of the case in the lower court by exercise of due diligence and which is the character, of the character as would [inaudible, 28:32] the

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

chase the outcome of the case. 28:33 So the law elements yun ano, number one, you must prove to file for a motion for a new trial for the ground of newly discovered evidence, you must have to prove to the court that despite the diligence the new evident, that evidence that you are going to present and could not be found, and number two that the character that the newly discovered evidence is of such character that rule probably change the outcome of the case or in other words, the decision would have, would be different at that piece of evidence been presented during the trial. 29:21 Now, on the other hand the new trial under rule thirty seven maybe had aside from newly discovered evidence where, where there was fraud, yung pain ba, fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence which ordinary prudence would not have gathered against and by reason of which the agreed party has been probably impaired in his rights. Of course in the case of new trial under rule thirty seven, the motion has to be filed within the period for taking appeal. Meaning, before the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case on account of the appeal taken from this decision. So, where the appeal has already been perfected and the case elevated to the uplift court, rule fifty three applies, not anymore rule thirty seven. The motion must already been filed with the Court of Appeals. Now, where does the [inaudible, 30:21] has already decided the case, rule fifty three says "the motion for new trial must have be filed before the CA loses jurisdiction over the case." because once that jurisdiction is lost then that motion can no longer be entertained. Okay? 30:38 Now we go to law of the case. What is law of the case? When an uplift court has once decided or declared the law in the case, such declaration continues to be the law of the case even on a subsequent appeal, okay? The rule made by an uplift court which it may be, while it may be reversed in other cases cannot be departed from in subsequent proceedings in the said case. The rule is necessary as a matter of public policy in order to end litigation, okay? The long the case has been defined as the opinion delivered on a former appeal, it means that whatever it wants irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or decision within the parties. Whether correct on general principles or not. Tama man o mali, so long as the facts of which such decision was [inaudible, 31:46] continues to be the facts of the court, before the court, then that the law of the case applies, the rule on law of the case applies.

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

31:59 Now, this, ito ngang rules fifty to fifty seven, It's a bit boring because, because includes you're having to proceed the internal business rules of Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. And you may, I would like make [inaudible, 32:23] for you. 32:25 Now internal business, this is governed by rule fifty four. All the cases of the Court of Appeals are alloted among the different divisions for hearing and decisions, okay? The one that makes the allotment of the cases in the Court of Appeals is the Court of Appeals in banc. Okay, It is the [inaudible, 32:50] band that makes proper orders or rules to govern the allotment of cases among the different divisions of Court of Appeals, the constitution of each division, the regular rotation of justices among the division that filling-up of vacancies hiring in the divisions and other matters relating to the business of the court which rules continue enforce in until refilled or altered by the Court of Appeals or by the Supreme Court. Okay? 33:22 What is the quorum of the court? We must understand that there are divisions; The Court of Appeals, operates by division, di ba? Or in banc, di ba? So, in majority of the actual members of the court shall constitute a quorum for a session in banc, majority lang, okay? On the other hand, three members shall constitute the quorum for the session of a division. Now, how many members does a division have? Tatlo lang, so that means that we cannot conduct any business or any deliberation unless all of the three are present, because by the rules, all three constitute the quorum for a division, okay? They are [inaudible, 34:16] vote of the majority of the members present is necessary to pass a resolution of the court in banc. As we [inaudible, 34:23] division, the affirmative vote of three members of a division is necessary for the pronouncement of a judgment or final resolution. The decision or final resolution with division is required to the reach and consultation before the writing of the opinion by any member of the division. 34:40 What happens if the three members of a division, do not agree or there is no unanimity in the decision? Di ba? May problema yun. What happens under the rules as we [inaudible, 35:01] later is that they will have to draw two other members to refer to the presenting justice, presenting justice for the referred raffle committee, i think and they will assigned to justices within the station, to sit in their division, no longer of three but of five. The vote, of, the majority vote of the five member division would be required to pronounce a judment or resolution, okay? Now, let us go to the

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

organization of the Court of Appeals. I was actively thinking of why we should talk about this. I have not come across a part question on this [inaudible, 35:59]. This should give you an idea of what would, of the court, when you would become a justice of the Court of Appeals later on. Ang composition ng Court of Appeals at present is, you have a presiding justice and sixty eight associate justices, dami no? 36:30 It's each and banc or in twenty three divisions of the justices each, okay? Now, what are the stations and place for holding sessions of the CA? The permanent stations of the CA are; The first seventeen divisions of the station in Manila, seventeen, four cases coming from the National Capital Region, ibig sabihin mas [inaudible, 36:59] yung Metro Manila, o ayan o. And the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth judicial regions, sa Luzon yan eh, the eighteenth and nineteenth second division, ano? So ang, ang coverage or [inaudible, 37:16] jurisdiction of the Manila divisions , in seventeen divisions in Manila eh sa National Capital Region tapos yung first, second, third, fourth, and fifth judicial regions in Luzon, okay. 37:55 And the twenty first, twenty second, and twenty third divisions which are stationed in Cagayan De Oro City, they now, they cover naman cases coming from the ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelve judicial regions, so that's how it is distributed. I have thought that there was a CA in Davao, wala pala eh. Sa Cagayan De Oro lang, what is funny I have a friends would not appointed to the CA, when you are [inaudible,38:30] you get thrown-out of the bundoks of Cagayan De Oro or Cebu, some of them fall in love with the place, so they prefer to stay there but others for a business [inaudible,38:46] those who preferred to stay Cagayan De Oro or Cebu. They want to go to Manila. So, they find padrino, etc. and they, before you knew it they're already in Manila. 39:02 But i think being a justice of corny job is boring. Okay, let's go to the exercise of powers and [inaudible, 39:08] of the CA. The Court of Appeals exercises each adjudicative powers, functions ,and duties through each division, okay? It's each invite and exercise of its administrative ceremonila and non-adjudicative functions, so yun ang destinction. The divisions of the adjudicative units of the Court of Appeals as far as the administration, ceremonial, and non-adjudicative function, functions, those are under by the CA in banc. Now, the presenting justice or in his absence, the most senior justice in attendance presides over the Court of Appeals in banc. The majority of the members of the court have prosecute a quorum for recession in banc. The affirmative

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

vote of the majority of those in attendance and who are participating shall be necessary to approve any matters submitted for the consideration of the Court of Appeals in banc, okay? 40:20 Now attendance of members maybe through teleconferencing or video which means that they can be counted for the purpose of determining the existence of quorum and the vote required for approval of any matter before the court. So, a justice maybe in New York or Singapore, if he, if he wants to participate in the deliberation and the division for instance, is able to put-up the facilities for tele-conferencing then the justice can validly participate in the deliberation of the division and for that matter, I think even the deliberation of the CA in banc, okay? 41:15 Now, you must take note that the CA in banc is mandated to discuss and dress-out the [inaudible, 41:21] on a particular question of law so as to raise a consensus there on or minimize if not eliminate conflict in decisions and resolutions the different divisions on the interpretations and application of the provision of law. So, there is, this is the mechanism that the internal roots of the CA has deviced in order that the divisions not decide cases in a manner that the decisions called [inaudible, 41:57] they are the divisions, because there should be [inaudible,42:01] being uniform with the and the way cases are resolved and decided which is a challenge. Now this is i think a very important function of CA in banc, it is a CA in banc where this venue for discussion of [inaudible, 42:24] of a the justices on a particular question of [inaudible, 42:30] can be done and consensus reach 42:37 Okay, we go to process of adjudication, but I suggest that you pay particular attention to rule six of the 2009 CA internal rules on the process of adjudication. Section one rule six says "that every case assigned to a justice whether appeal or original shall be retained by him or her even if he or she is transferred to another division in the same station, okay, by station [inaudible, 43:08] station or Cebu Station, or Cagayan de Oro Station because there are three stations actually, as I have already mentioned awhile ago. So, for as long as a justice who is assigned to be the ponente of the case that assignment is retained by her or him whether he or she is transferred to another division provided that transfer is within the same station, say Manila kung Manila, Cebu kung Cebu, Cagayan de Oro kung Cagayan de Oro, okay? 43:55 A judication of cases have been made by the justice to whom the case is assigned and

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

the members of his or her division okay? Now, you must relate to this to section 2-D of the same rules sec six, which says " that when in an original action or petition for review any of the following has taken place, namely; giving due course, granting TRO, read of criminal justice of new trial, granting the petition for habeas corpus of Enrico Bambaro or Rico Bambeas Lata, granting an application for a peace order and granting judicial authorization under the human security act of 2007, the case have remain with the justice to whom the case is assigned and the justices, who participated the read, okay? 44:45 justice takes along with him or her that case assignment, okay. If any of this instances has transpired, giving due course, granting TRO, read of criminal injunction or new trial , granting an application for habeas corpus [inaudible,45;33] or writ of habeas data granting an application for a peace order, and granting judicial and authorization under the human security act of 2007. The members, the whole division that actually acted on this, on the case would remain to be assigned to that case, okay? there can be no new assignments for as long as those justices remain in the same station, okay. However, if only one member of the division of participated in any of the proceedings mentioned in sub-paragraph D remains the rank of committees and automatically assigned the case to him or her. The only time when a new ponente maybe assigned is when or the members of the division have siezed to be members of the court or have been transferred to other stations, ok? so, basta't nandun ka sa station na yun, ah ikaw ang may tangan ng kaso. 46:49 Now, this rule has become very controversial, and you must have read or heard or watched on TV a case where a justice was fire by the Supreme Court for insisting, for retaining the case that was assigned to him to the point that he was accused of himself making his old notes of the consultation of the division with the members of his division. Apparently, some other kasi justice have become interested in the case and the case broke into a good long scandal. The justice, i know him personally, well i don't know, Its quite a while a very good 47:25 lawyer, I mean, i think he was given an always due [inaudible,47:36] The, they said awhile ago he was notorious. okay. There was a case, there is actually a case that I was, I counseled for one of the parties, naming that there were not notified of the annual stock holders meeting which was held, not at the pincipal office, and not on the time

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

prescribe in the by-laws of the corporation. This group of the stockholders filed a complaint with the RTC sa Pasig for the nullification of the meeting, okay? When my client was named the respondent because he was one of those elected as member of the board. 48:29 to the law. So, sabi ko, so anung ipa-file natin? We cannot, respondent ka, may petition against you o complaint against you. O what do you do now? What do we do? Eh kasi kung totoo nga yun, hindi ba naman yun ang batas? As i [inaudible, 49:19] suggests, you are correct, talaga namang kapag walang notice yung stockholder, kahit na isang share ka lang, kapag hindi ka na-notify and you are complained, you can nullify a stockholder on an annual stockholders meeting or even special stockholders meeting, and that is a certain rule in corporation law, okay? So, what would you do if you are in my place in such situation? If you were, well if you [inaudible, 49:52] of my client, would you advice your client not to do anything? Afterall, ma-declare kang default di ba? Ok lang, manalo yung petitioner, sympathetic ka naman sa cause nila. So, it was [inaudible, 50:07] di ba, kasi wala namang gagawin, so you have to do something di ba. Otherwise, the client will just terminate the engagement, wala naman palang gagawin attorney, i-terminate na lang natin. Would you declare or would you advice your client, okay lang ma-declare kayong 50:30 default, pwede yun pero mukhang nakakahiya, just take the case sitting down or would you insist that your client oppose the petition by filing under [inaudible,:50:48] position, Afterall, you got elected, ikaw eh elected as member of the board di ba? And therefore, you should align this interest with the interest of the elected board. 51:08 But if your client was really insistent, as in the case of my client. What would you file in order that somehow di ba , you can ventilate his position before the court, and of course at the same time, you should make yourself, you make yourself important to your client, what I did was, I filed a comment to the effect that the whole case was a matter of evidence. I said, if the petitioner's have proof that they were not properly notified and if the notice not complied with the requirements of the law and rules particularly the corporation bylaws then the petitions would be granted, if no such evidence presented then the petition should be dimissed. So that was what they filed, and my client is very happy. Okay, anyway the RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners, and nulified the annual stockholders meeting and because of that nulification, the court

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

also ordered the holding of another annual stockholders meeting that would comply with the bylaws and [inaudible, 52:34] laws. The respondence, excep my my client and those aligned with him, there were about 52:38 three or four of them, they filed four separate petitions for review with the Court of Appeals, apat, hindi sila nag-file ng isa lang, apat, I believe on the expectation that if they lose, if they fail to get a TRO in one, at least they can or two or three, at least of the four siguro natamaan nila kung pagbibigyan ang TRO ng Court of Appeals, so i said "hindi ba quorum shopping yan?" that experimenting with the court, but a [inaudible, 53:28] how can it be "quorum shopping when there were different respondence kung ang bail of their quorum, affiliate remedy di ba? So, while the petitioner's are now their respondence in the court of appeals raised that issue, i think the CA ignored it. 53:55 Now, but the important thing and the reason why i decide I'll make [inaudible, 54:00] to this kwento is, for you to appreciate yung goal, internal rules ng CA , that once a case is assigned to a particular justice, that assignment will eventually have, specially so if a TRO is issued, mga ganun. So, the justice assigned to the case with the lowest number issued a TRO, but directed that the old board should be reinstated to manage the company, hindi yung elected during the disputed unnoticed stockholders meeting and that the stockholders that, another stockholder's meeting be convene so that, that would be compliant with the bylaws and regulation, law and regulation. Now, the other justices, the other justices result to hold the [inaudible, 55:01] the mother of issuing TRO after the case or the case was submitted for inclusion. So yung isa, [inaudible, 55:09] yung TRO. Now, nothing happened in the case until my client as directed by the CA called the holding of the proper stockholder's meeting and [inaudible, 55:26] stockholders meeting. Suddenly, there was envy of the new council for the petitioners, yung mga na, mga board of directors na natalo sa lower court. Followed by excremental motion for reconsideration, and all to suddenly after the oppositions were filed they say through a new ponente granted the motion for reconsideration on the same day sent for the stockholder's meeting. It turned out, that they say also issued a writ of criminal injuction in joining and restrain the holding of the stockholder's meeting prohibiting the election of a new board of directors and if one had already been elected, disallowing them to assume office as it reinstated that the board elected during the annual stockholder's meeting that was declared null and void

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

by the lower court. Okay? 56:26 But then, the service of the writ if criminal injuction was late. It was served on the corporation when the meeting was practically through. Naka-elect na sila ng bagong board and it turned out also that the corporation properly rejected the service of that criminal injunction because the one served it was not even a process server of the CA or [inaudible, 57:03] from the CA but council for the petitioner, one of the associates of the petitioners. So what does that indicate to you? Naluto ng husto yung kaso di ba? Magaling yung law firm, that's why it's called a firm, okay? Okay, ma-drama yung meeting eh, because the petitioners in that case, the main petitioner in that case sa CA was present in the stockholder's meeting and he participated, and we know them, I was there eh. They were raising every question that they can raise in pertinent questions. In then we realize, they were delaying the early completion of the meeting because they were waiting for that injuction to be, to be served of the corportation. Dun lang sila nagkamali, walang process server atsaka xerox copy lang yung binibigay na notice o copy of the writ of criminal injunction, so it was properly refused. But the thing is, that injuction order, the writ of injunction also restrains the assumption of office of the newly re-elected board of directors, [inaudible, 58:37] nagkagulo, the [inaudible; 58:41] in the Court of Appeals have been re-filed and that [inaudible, 58:45] case against that justice over and at the same time they file a motion for reconsideration. So,effectively the argument is, na-extend yung writ of criminal [inaudible, 59:01] Umabot na sa Supreme Court, magulo wag ng paguluhin and this is a mining company and the, they are now, there is a tug-of-war in the control of mining site and one, one of the security guards have been shot to death, okay? Kasi the estimate is that the gold in that mining claim is worth mga two billion US dollars, so ganun kalaki. Now, as I said, the case is now with the Supreme Court. 59:58 We now brought to the power of the CA to receive evidence. We have noted earlier that the Supreme Court not being the trial of facts cannot receive elements. Now we are talking about the CA, the CA is unlike the Supreme Court [inaudible, 1:00:14] okay? Section three rule six of the CA [inaudible, :1:00:22] rules tells you the instances for the CA may receive evidence. These are; one, in actions falling within the [inaudible, 1:00:33] jurisdiction such as, sensorary, prohibition and mandamus, annulment of judgment or final order, quo warranto, habeas corpus, amparo, habeas data, money

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

laundering, and a petition to for judicial authorization under the human security act of that 2007, okay? 1:00:55 Number two, in appeals in civil cases for CA grants and new trial, the ground of newly discount evidence for pursuant to section three rule fifty three of the rules of court. Number three, in appeals in criminal cases where the CA grants a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence pursuant to section twelve rule one twenty four of the rules of court, this is the criminal procedure, and in appeals in forming claims for damages arising from provisional remedies. We will later on learn that claims for damages against the writ of attachment, writ of replevin should be filed in the same case otherwise wala na yun, and the claim for damages against the bond issued for the writ should be can be filed in the Court of Appeals, okay? And the Court of Appeals can take judicial, take notices of it and hold a trial to determine the validity of the claim, the extent of the damages and make award as a maybe warranted by the evidence, okay? 1:02:21 Now, we go to hearing on criminal injunction, note that under the CA internal rules, the requirement of a hearing on an application or prayer to the issuance of criminal injunction, is satisfied with the issuance of the CA over resolution served upon the parties sought to be joined requiring him or her to comment on the application of prayer within a period of not more than ten days from notice. The party may attach documents to the comment is may show why the application or prayer should be denied then a reply maybe to the comment if he recored the CA or the applicant in five days or receive of the comment, of course if the party sought to be joint face to comment as required, the CA may resolve the application or prayer on the basis of the petition and it's in excess, okay? 1:03:19 In the Supreme Court, there was a case, a very popular case, this was the case filed by GMA and former first gentleman to a nullify the hold orders issued against them issued by the Department of Justice, and they other prayer for the issuance of a TRO or writ of criminal injunction, okay? It may file this in time for while GMA claimed was for her to secure medical attention abroad and also to deliver some speeches abroad, so the government, the DOJ opposed it because they said "if she can lecture, then what medical attention does he need?" okay? 1:04:46 They expected, the DOJ cause Pnoy expected that the TRO maybe issued, so to prevent

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

it, they asked the solicitor general by the name of Joel Cadiz to oppose it, to oppose the issuance of a temporaty restraining order. So, dutifuly the solicitor general filed opposition, with motion to set that opposition for over argument, okay? kakatuwa ito. So, he filed opposition to the application for TRO and all a writ of criminal injunction and coupled it with a motion for oral argument. However, in his motion, he included a paragraph that says "if the court would not allow oral argument then to treat his motion as is opposition to the application for TRO or a writ of criminal injunction" ,okay? And the court issued a TRO, di ba? nagkagulo. And GMA initiative on to the airport di ba? May mga [inaudible, 01:06:27] pa eh, cause you [inaudible, 01:06:31] because the secretary of justice has balls, and really opposed the prevented the former first family, first husband, president and her first gentleman from leaving the country despite this was by the Supreme Court of TRO, that's why she is now until now facing a disbarment proceedings before the Supreme Court. But going back to the filing to the solicitor general, he filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that they will they will frank in process di ba? because sobrang argument was [inaudible, 01:07:25] so were not heard sabi nya, tinawanan lang siya ng Supreme Court "pambihira ka naman, you said in your motio, that if a the oral argument is note heard, is not granted then your motion for oral argument and the arguments contained in that motion would be opposition to the application for TRO of the, of GMA and the first gentleman, the former first gentleman. Therefore, you were heard". Now, when that pissed the president, he fired the solicitor general di ba. Of course, they should have totally so that he will not be embarrassed, afterall, he was a loyal [inaudible; 01:08:12] of Pnoy during the election. 1:08:15 O di ba exciting? so but these are the dynamics that you would, you might find yourselves in once you become lawyers and you get in case with the practice of law, particularly litigation. Will be confronted a lot of this insighting instances and more so if you are the one involve, when you are the one who's suppose to file that kind of motion or that kind of opposition, so talagang palaban na, but be careful specially so if you on a highly political position, because, masyadong maybe you are [01:09:10] get it to your head so yayaman ka ng husto, you may feel like you are you [inaudible, 01:09:15] them all. 01:09:19 Parehong vulnerable, mga ganyan, don't everything done because when you are a

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

public official, always sets a highly sense of sensitive political position, you are [inaudible, 01:09:30] operating in a what? house of glass, kitang-kita ka kung anung ginagawa mo and that glass can be easily be broken and down you go, di ba? Ok now, as I said, the allowance given to an opposing party to file comment, actually and resolution ng court office would say "file comment not a motion to dismiss" okay? within ten days of the petition. Ok? Now, once you make a comment, then that is already a compliant with the requirement of due process, notice and hearing. Because what you file, already articulates your arguments di ba? on the matter under consideration by the Court of Appeals. That is why no hearing, no actual hearing or oral argument is necessary which is you know, corny because you want to be arguing for the Court of Appeals, you will be writting the justices in their roves and roves, and you, they will give you, totoy na totoy pero magaling. Totoy na totoy pero marunong mga ganun. 01:11:21 But be careful also because the justices study the cases and well worst if they are kung natimbrehan sila ng kalaban mo and feel ka nila that happens all the time and which case the oral argument [inaudible, 01:11:53] for you. But then, my in my case, i always say there is always a second time, so if I [inaudible, 01:12:03] up the first time, i will come back the next time and be really prepared. Now, sa mga oral argument sa Supreme Court ministers, don't ever lecture to them on Supreme Court decisions, don't ever lecture to them on what the law is, you argue only of the basis of the facts, because if you try to lecture to them on decisions that the Supreme Court renders and the law they'll tell you "we wrote that why are you lecturing [inaudible, 01:12:37] What do you think of us, we don't know what we have written?" And they can be nasty, if you think that this justices as nice guys, [inaudible, 01:12:49] smile with you, they will shake hands with you, but once they are seated in that in their up there, trono, they are transformed. But if you are very good in argumentation and you are, you can use charisma ba, they can also be very nice to you to the [inaudible, 01:13:25] of you opponent. Siguro natandaan na lang ganito si justice, okay? Now, also the CA in its some discretion may set the application for pleriminary injunction for hearing during which the parties may present their respective positions or submit evidence and support of that position or their respective position. Now, i have had experience on this, the, nakakatuwa yan because when you get a advice or notice from the CA that

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

the application for your application for issuance of a writ of criminal injunction be set for hearing, you prepare not only the night before but several weeks before, aaralin mo yun, yung mga yung tags ka pa di ba? But if he ask is "wag ganun-ganung sagot" he ask is. Only, the thing is when you go there, absent yung isang justice so postponed or the justices says" what do we just refer to our [inaudible, 01:14:40] dun na lang tayo mag-usap or your kalaban "paero, sabihin sayo, why don't we just submit memorandum and if you do not agree, you want to argue eh na convey na ng court, and this kalaban, may statue siya sa practice, and he says "you honor, actually the case is, not to be complicated that an oral argument is necessary, perhaps if the your honor [inaudible, 01:15:16] will just file a memorandum within thirty days. Okay, but you'd say tapos sasabihin mo "I want to argue you know, I want you to give my voice and wala na yung preparasyon mo. But the thing is, nakapag-prepare ka and you can tell your client "I prepared", di ba? Okay. 1:15:45 Action by a justice, you should likewise know that all members of the division should act on the application for TRO and pleriminary injunction. However, if the matter is of extreme urgency and the member of a division is absent, the other two member should act on the application, if only the ponente is present he or she can act alone on the application, the action of the two members or of the ponente however should be submitted to the next courting day on the next working day to the absent member or members of the division for ratification, modification, or recall. Now, the rules actually allow a justice to issue TRO, okay? So a justice of the Supreme Court or a justice of a Court of Appeals is allowed to issue a TRO but on a motion for reconsideration he would no be the one alone to resolve it. It has to be resolved by the whole division, okay? 01:17:01 But then, you have this internal rules that upon there upon the situation of a justice or two justices issuing a TRO, they have to submit the matter on the next working day to the absent member or members [inaudible, 01:17:29] for ratification, for modification or even recall of the TRO, okay? Long that before the petition for review is giving due course, the CA may require the court the law or the quasi judicial agency to either elevate the original records of the case or supply it with copies of readings of documents which the CA needs in acting on the petition at the stage of the proceedings, okay? Kasi when you file a petition for certiorari for instance, you attach

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

your petition as an excess they're pertinent relevant pleadings, motions, etcetera etcetera together with duly certified copy of the question, resolution or resolutions and. However, that does not prevent the CA from requiring the lower court to forward the record to the Court of Appeals for [inaudible, 01:18:33] kasi it may not really be that justices do not trust you but they want a fuller appreciation of the entire case not only kasi if you file a petition for certiorari it is singular to the matter that you would want the CA to review on certiorari. It was certiorari of jurisdiction issue yan eh and you are saying the risk of being a discretion, the judge acted without lack of jurisdiction something like that. So, for issuing this particular order but the CA may require a fuller for a fuller appreciation of the whole case that the court, the trial court or it was a judicial body forwardly the entire records of the case or certain [inaudible, 01:19:31] that help Court of Appeals may determine necessary for each full appreciation of your petition. 01:19:41 Now, if the petiotion is giving you course, the court may either require the lower court of quasi judicial body to elevate the records of the case or set the case for oral argument or require the parties to submit memoranda or consider the case submitted for decision. So, the CA has a wide latitude of choices of, wild latitude of discretion as what to do with the case. Now, up to the oral argument or upon submission of the memoranda or explanation of [inaudible, 01:20:21] given for the finding of the memoranda, the case should begin submitted for resolution. Now, we go to justices who sell act one motions for reconsideration; if the completion of records states, if during the completion of the records states there is no unanimous concurrence of the members of the division on the resolution disposing human interlocutory order or interlocutory matter and a division of file is constituted, this division of file shall act on said matter only up to the resolution of the motion for reconsideration of said interlocutory order. The judication [inaudible, 01:21:04] of their case remains to be made by the current members of three in a division to whom the case is assigned. So in other words, kung hindi nga magkasundo doon sa interlocutory order, then they have to bring it to more justices [inaudible, 01:21:23] file, but that file will not take over the whole case but only as far as that motion for reconsideration is concerned. The original division of three will be the one that would render or resolve the case of the marriage. Note that the motion for reconsideration of a decision of final resolution shall be acted

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

of by the ponente and the other members of the division whether three or five and whether regular or acting whom participated in the rendition of the decision or final resolution regardless of whether such members are already in other divisions at the time the motion for reconsideration is filed or acted on provided there is still with the same station. 01:22:06 This I already mentioned this awhile ago that the telling element is that the justice or justices are still same at the same division, okay? Now, this brings us to, what is a special division and now you see [inaudible, 01:22:28] those of you have worked or are working in law offices, you maybe encountered a resolution from the CA indicating the division that issued is was special division or a former division, nalakagay sa taas yan eh, di ba? Special division, special courting division, ganyan or former eleventh division. Now, when does this happened or how is a special or former division created? Well, a special division of the court of appeals comes about where one or both of the members of a division are on leave of absence, disqualified, transferred or no longer members of the Court of Appeals, their replacement shall be chosen by raffle noh, from among the justices in the same station, meaning; Manila, Cebu or Cagayan de Oro. The division that is created is called a special division, okay? On the other hand, where the composition of a division is that decided the case has changed, the division which shall subsequently act on the case shall be called the former eleventh or twelfth division. Because the same justices in the original division would be the one to decide the case, okay? Magulo eh pero that's how we please them. So, the sa division one ka dati and then you are very slow in deciding the cases, then you get back to [inaudible, 01:24:11] division twelve, dadalhin mo yun sayo. Now, for the decision noon, yung the same composition of the division you were with, namely division one will be the one to decide it and the you will be known as former first division, okay? 01:24:31 We go to action on interlocutory matters by presiding justice or executive judge. When a petition involves an urgent matter such as an application to the writ of habeas corpus di ba? writ of amparo or writ of habeas data or TRO, temporary restraining order. Such an application, and there is no way of convening the rack of committee or calling in of it's member the presiding justice of the Court of Appeals or the executive justice of the station as the case maybe or in his or her absence the most senior justice present may conduct the raffle or act on the petition subject to the raffle in the latters case on the

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

next working day in accordance with June 3. So, ibig sabihin niyan, even if the presiding justice or any justice is absent or the raffle committee noh members are absent doesn't mean that worked in the ano resolution of certain resolution or action on their matters is suspended, hinde. The internal rules of the Court of Appeals direct that the presiding justice of the executive justice of the station can a have the case raffle of act on the urgent relief sought by the applicant, okay? So, if you are asking for TRO, a TRO can be issued by as I said awhile ago justice. In this case, a presiding justice ot the executive justice. What is an executive justice; they are the parang the head of the station. So, it's [inaudible: 01:26:33] but executive justice in a [inaudible, 01:26:27] law of executive justice in Manila and you have the presiding justice, okay? Now, we go to inhibition of justices. There are two kinds of inhibition of internal rules and I think even under the rules of court. One is mandatory inhibition and the other one is voluntary inhibition. 01:26:28 Now, this is covered by rule five of the CA in the none rules. Mandatory inhibition refers to the disqualification of judges under any of the grants enumerated the first paragraph of section one rule one fifty seven of the rules of court and rule three point twelve of the code of judicial conduct. The justice is under mandatory inhibition where without the written consent of all the parties and interests signed by them and signed by them and then to the records he or she, his or her spouse or child is pecuniarily interested as if [inaudible, 01:27:39] predator or otherwise in the case or where the justice is related to either the party we need the sixth civil degree of [inaudible; 01:27:52] or affility or to counsel one of the layers within the fourth degree. Kapag counsel mas malapit ano kapag relative, sixth degree, okay? Computed according to the rules of civil law, you know naman how to compute sinong first cousin, anung di ba? anung distance mo sa first cousin, second cousin, third cousin, okay. Now, the justice as I said you would be under a mandatory inhibition 01:28:34 The other instance is a where the justice has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or councils where he or she has presided in an inferior court when his or her ruling is a subject of review, Now, when any of these grounds exists, the justice is mandated to immidiately notify the rank of commitee and the members of his or her division that he, he is a inhibity himself or that is mandated to inhibit himself. Now, the inhibition of a justice when a mandatory or voluntary must be made in the entire

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

working days from his discovery of a just and valid reason to inhibit. Pero mandatory yun ten days. Now, this is different the rule of voluntary inhibition is different. The voluntary inhibition of a justice is based on the reasons other than those enumerated in section one of rule one thirty seven of the rules of court and rule three point twelve of the code of judicial conduct. Usually this is sought by motion of one of even to a both parties to a case. It is required that a motion for inhibition must be writing and under oath and set a straight the grounds for inhibition. In motion for inhibition of a division or justice must be acted on by the division or the justice concerned has the case on leave with them ten working days from a is or his receipt of the motion except where there is an application for TRO in this case the motion should be acted upon immidiately. So, if there is an application for TRO with the division to risk the case was assigned and a justice feels that he is ano, a motion for the disqualification or inhibition of a justice is filed that motion must have to be resolved immidiately, so that the justice was inhibition result would not participate in the deliberation of whether to issue or not to issue a TRO. 01:30:58 Now, note that internal rules of the CA disallow a motion fo inhibition of a justice where a division after a decision of the on the merits of substance of the case has been rendered by any division except for a valid or just reason. For instance, in case there is negation of corrupt motives. So, para mapa-inhibit mo siya even after a [inaudible, 01:31:21] nagko-commit na yung judgment, you must have probably the very good reason and a what reason is corrupt motiff, ibig sabihin nalagyan di ba yung ano, nalagyan, problema mo diyan would be quest two, okay? And you should be ready to prove it, okay. We go to the supreme court, again a internal rules of a Supreme Court, the briefing structures of the Supreme Court. First exercise of judicial and administrative functions. The Supreme Court exercises its judicial functions and its powers of administrative supervision of an old courts and their personal to the court in banc for each divisions. The chief justice administers, administers the activities of the supreme court who may prosecute supervisory or special committee setted by the individual members of the court or working committees of the court official or court officials and personnel. Of eight members shall constitute the quorum of the court and the absence of the chief justice, the most senior chief justice shall chair the sessions of the court in banc, okay? or in division known in banc, okay.

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

01:32:52 We go to the court in banc matters and case. Now, this Supreme Court and banc acts on the value matters and cases and you this is to file before the constitution and in the rules of court. Again, carried over by the into the internal rules of the Supreme Court and these are cases enlist the constitutionality or validity of any treaty international or executive agreement, law, executive order, presidential decree, proclamation order, instruction ordinance or regulation in question, okay? Constitutionality question yan. Number two, criminal cases where the appealed decision imposes the death penalty or reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. Number three cases raising novel questions of law, okay. Itong novel questions of law, you have to be very good at formulating it because you are required by the Supreme Court to prove that it is really a novel question of law. In other words, what is a novel question of law? A novel of question of law is a question that has not been resolved by the Supreme Court before, okay? that's why it is novel, okay? 01:34:17 Now, number, number four, cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls where five cases involving decisions, resolutions and orders of the Civil Service Commision, the COMELEC, and the Commission on Audit. Number six, cases where the penalty recommended or imposes dismissal of a judge, the disbarment of a lawyer, the suspension of any of them for a period of more than one year or a fine exceeding forty thousand pesos, mababa lang ano? Number seven, cases covered by the preceeding paragraph and involving the reinstatement in the judiciary of a judges suspension or a lawyer's suspension from the practice of law. Number eight, cases involving the discipline of the member of the Supreme Court or a presiding justice, or any associate justice of the collegial act of report. Number nine, cases where a doctrine of principle laydown by the Supreme Court in bag or [inaudible, 01:35:18] division may be modified or reversed. Number ten, cases involving conflicting divisions of two or more divisions. 01:35:27 Number eleven, division cases where the subject matter has a huge financial impact or businesses or affects the welfare of the community, whoever is started laughing, it was, mukhang may [inaudible:01:35:48] consideration yan noh? Malaking pera yan ah, so the banc takes over the case. Then number ten, cases involving the fifteen decisions are, [inaudible, 01:35:57] eleven and a twelve subject to section eleven B other division cases that in the opinion of least three of the division are who are voting and present an appropriate for transfer to the Supreme Court and banc. Thirteen, cases that a

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

Supreme Court [inaudible, 01:36:16] deemed of sufficient importance to merits attention and for [inaudible, 01:36:16] all matters including policy decisions in the administrative supervision of all or [inaudible, 01:36:26] personnel. Okay? 01:36:34 Supreme Court in banc shall be cognizable by the divisions. So latak na sa kanila yan, which is not true. Now we go to composition and quorum of a division. Now, unless otherwise decreed by the Supreme Court in time a quorum of a divisions had consists of a majority of its members and an absent of non-participating regular member of a division maybe replaced at the request of the regular members by a member designated by from another division in order to constitute a comment. This is different from the rule in the senate [inaudible, 01:37:21] in the Court of Appeals. Coz in the Court of Appeals, quorum of a divisional is three and there are only three member of a division. Now, in the Supreme Court i think there are five justices. Now, [unaudible, 01:37:35] quorum of a division would be majority of the five justices, okay? Action on cases you filed to the Supreme Court in banc. You will note that when a division may resolve to refer a case to the Supreme Court in banc, it does not mean that the Supreme Court in banc will accept the referral. I was thinking this provision where a case can be, be filed to the Supreme Court in banc by the vote of at least three members of the division [inaudible, 01:38:13] like the case should be resolved by the Supreme Court. So, this means that if you are already practicing law and you feel like your case will be lost in the division [inaudible, 01:38:30] it should be decided in banc, lalapitan mo na rin yung kilala mong justices sa Supreme Court, well who belong to the division to which you case is assigned and pwede kang mag [inaudible, 01:38:47] "kuya pwede bang paki-refer na lang sa in banc. Because you cannot file, you cannot, once you can file a motion for consideration in banc but the division will always deny it. So the best thing, the best thing to do is really [inaudible; 01:39:08] if you know the a justice er office to which be part of the division to which your case is filed, you talk to him, "O ito o may dala ka pang executive summary, nakita mo? Aba maganda nga ito, kapag bumalik lang. So ayan" The bind the justice naman, dahil malakas ka sa kanya, will talk to the other justice, di ba? Then they come out with the resolution to refer the case to the Supreme Court in banc. 01:39:42 And now, as I was saying that referral of the division in Supreme Court in banc, is not a automatically accepted by the Supreme Court in banc, the Supreme Court in banc has

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

discretion to accept or not to accept the referral by the division. First of all where a division denies a motion for referral of a case to the Supreme Court in banc such denial is final, it's not be appealable to the Supre Court in banc. We have already discussed why there can be no appeal to the Supreme Court in banc because there is no, that because the Supreme Court in banc that was not constitute another tier or level of appeal in the Supreme Court, the sup there is only one Supreme Court and that operates by the division or in banc, di ba? and operately has division with banc or by division is operating only as a single core, di ba? Well di ka puwedeng mag-appeal to the Supreme Court in banc, unlike in the CTA, you can appeal the CTA in banc, di ba? Now, where anyway a division makes a referral of a case to the Supreme Court in banc, the Supreme Court in banc will nevertheless decline to take cognizance of the case and retend to the division, if there is no sufficient reason or reasons given for the referral. Note that no motion for reconsideration of the resolution of the Supreme Court in banc declining cognizance of a referral of a division shall be entertained. In other words, the rejection is final. 01:41:34 Okay, but if you are the one a justice and you convince two other justices to join you in persuading your division to refer their case to the Supreme Court in banc, you must have a good and valid reason, di ba? That's why parang naka-insulto naman yung sabihin na wala kang reason eh di ba? Now, we go to exercise of judicial [inaudible, 01:42:01]. The Supreme Court is a court of law and its primary task is to resolve and decide the case or decide cases and he who's presented by litigants according to the law. However, it may apply equity where the Supreme Court is enable to arrive at the conclusion of judgment strictly on the basis of law due to a gap, silence, obscurity or vagueness of the law that the Supreme Court can still ligitimately remedy and the special circumstances of the case, so kung may mga kulang nga sa batas and the Supreme Court can [inaudible, 01:42:43] act on the matter, it would come a [inaudible, 01:42:46] exercise its power its equity power and this would make the resolution to the case, coz that the vicious that come from tide by a particular, by the law, by, by the law that is closest to the factual situations in the case. As I have imposes previously, the Supreme Court is not a trial of facts, It's role is to decide cases based on the findings of fact before it. However, where the constitution, the law of the Supreme Court itself in the absence and the exercise of this jurisdiction, decides to receive

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

evidence, the reception of evidence maybe delegated to a member of the Supreme Court to either the clerk of court of the Supreme Court or one of the division clerrks of court or to one of the upper net courts on its justices who shall submit to the Supreme Court a reported recommendation of the basis of the evidence presented to [inaudible, 01:43:50] noh. So, it's not up to the Supreme Court, so the Supreme Court is not a stymying from a making resolution of, from taking from the sands of a factual issue but which requires a hearing or reception of evidence. While the Supreme Court cannot hear the evidence, it can delegate the hearing of the evidence or the presentation of evidence to the Court of Appeals or any of, anyone of its justices, to the clerk of court of the Supreme Court or the clerk, anyone of the clerks of court of the division or as I said. How do you vent to the RTC, non-RTC judge, to a RTC judge? As i have mentioned before, the case of Banco Filipino was referred for trial by the Supreme Court to a court of resistance at the time new RTC [inaudible' 01:45:08] pa yan. 01:45:08 Judge in Makati, later on the judge surrendered the, who was assigned that case became also member of the Supreme Court, okay. Equal important, note that the Supreme Court cannot issue advice of the opinions or the state and meaning of laws or take cognizance of [inaudible, 01:45:31] and academic questions subject only to locomotive [inaudible, 01:45:35] involving constitutional issues, okay. Now, it the scheme of government who renders legal decisions for the government, well a it is the Department of Justice, okay? Yung Department of Justice renders a legal opinion for the office of the president. And a, you would encounter a lot of legal opinions of the secretary of justice, in fact; I used one such legal opinion in favor of a fine. And the legal opinion of the DOJ involve the validity of a [inaudible, 01:46:26] member of a contract that was assigned by his Senator Enrile, senator, and a parang sinasabi doon na senators or members of congress cannot simply be entering [inaudible, 01:46:55] into contracts with the government, di ba. May prohibition yan. 01:47:00 Okay we go to cases with the Supreme Court to determine fact judicious. Last time we discussed exceptions to the rule that the Supreme Court cannot be entertained fact judicious. Those expections are borned by your students. The Supreme Court internal rules can affect that catalog or co-defied all they had no exceptions in section four rules four of its internal rules. Well, i think a hindi rin kumpleto yung enumerations nila because a this is juris by, jurisprudential ano yun? Base of your students and so as

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

there as [inaudible, 01:47:38] decisions it would create more exceptions. Now in this exceptions, as we have already noted are whether conclussion is a finding grounded inter-speculation, surmices, or conjectures were the inference may dismanifest the wrong or mistaken or where there is grave abuse of dispense in the part of the judge or when the judgment is based on [inaudible, 01:48:01] of facts or the findings of facts are convicting or the collegial appellate force went beyond the issue of the case, meaning kapag di sinasabing collegial appelate course is Court of Appeals na naman yun or [inaudible, 01:48:19] so, and their findings are [inaudible, 01:48:22] of both [inaudible,01:48:24] and a [inaudiblle, 01:48:25] or the findings of fact of the collegial appellate force are contrary to those of the [inaudible, 01:48:32] where set findings of fact are conclusions with the citation of the specific evidence on missed their based or the facts have formed in the petition as well as in the petitioners main and replied briefs are not disputed by the respondents or the fact, the finding of facts of the collegial up to the court that premised on the supposed evidence but are contradicted by the evidence of the record and eleventh of the other or all the others, all other similar and exceptional cases warranting a review of the lower courts findings of facts. So there is this blanket clause, all other cases similar cases. 01:49:19 Supreme Court's regular raffle is held on Mondays for in banc cases and Wednesdays for division cases where an initiatory pleading raise for the issuance of TRO or an urgent and extraordinary lead such as; habeas corpus, amparo, habeas data, and the case cannot be included in the regular raffle, the Supreme Court, clerk of court is mandated to immidiately call the attention of the chief justice or in his absence, the most senior member of the Supreme Court. The chief justice or the most senior member may directly conduct of a special raffle. Of course if you are the party seeking the issuance of TRO and to you time is really of the essence, you can file yourself a motion for a special raffle if you know that you filed a case your petition outside of well the, the [inaudible, 01:50:42] after the raffle for division cases has already been done, so puwede kang humingi ng special raffle. Now, yung inhibition of Supreme Court justices are the same, ground for inhibitions of the justices for in the Court of Appeals. There are also so many administrative circulars that the Supreme Court has issued and which are very important for your practice, one of these is the effective use of paper rule, no? Alam mo papel, Now you see, in administrative market or AM 11-9-4SC dated

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

30 November 2012, and this is told effective use of paper rule. The Supreme Court took serious note of excessive quantities of costly paper by both defense and the back. Sobra-sobrang papel daw eh noh? They urgently to save the forests because paper is produced from trees di ba? So trees, when you cut them, in a, excessively it would cost landslides di ba? So and so the need to concern precious water and mitigate the worsening effects of climate change. This rule mandates that in all pleadings and motions and similar papers intended for the court and pass the judicial bodies selfly written in single space, dati-rati kasi double, double-double space, ngayon single space na lang with one and a half space between paragraphs, so dati dalawang spaces yan, so binawasan na lang, one and a half, using easily readable fourteen size font style of the parties choice. 01:53:01 Malaki yung fonting di ba? Sa aking ginamit ko twelve. Well, kasi maganda pa mata ko eh di ba? fourteen yata because they cannot read and the more matatanda na yung mga mahistrado natin. And then, and a thirteen inch by eight point five inch wide white bond paper, okay? So yun ang dapat mong gagawin sa pleadings mo, single space. And all decision, resolutions and orders issued by the courts and by quasi division bodies including the ports submitted to the courts and transcript of his denographic notes shall comply with this requirements. Nagtataka ako bakit nagdedesisyon. Of all its known that the Supreme Court rides its decision to single states, malalaki yung korte nila. Siguro sabi nila ginagawa namin di gawin ninyo, noh. So that;s why they have come out this rule. Now, this rule also covers the number of copies required to be filed. Marami noon, noon napakadaming kopya, I think mauna sa twenty seven copies sa Supreme Court, ano. Sa court office mga twelve, seventeen mga ganyan. So talagang waste, waste pagdating sa Supreme tinatapon naman nila yun eh or binibigay na lang, balewala yan eh. So, so if provides for the number of courtbound papers to the parties required of desires to file, as follows; for the Supreme Court, one original, pop properly stamped lalgayan mo ng properly marked o lagyan mo diyan hearing order or marka ng original, no? 01:55:02 Ayan, and four copies, apat na lang, so limang kopya lang unless the case si referred to the SC in bank in which event your parties have filed ten additional copies. At sabi ko na nga ganyan eh, ten. So, pinafile mo na sa Supreme Court for something like seventeen copies eh. So now, you only file one plus four so five kapag in-bank, yung

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

five plus ten, fifteen kasi kinse nga sila eh di ba? [inaudible:01:55:35] sila noh? For the in banc the parties have required to submit only to sense of unaccessed. One attached to the original of the petition and an extra copy. So dalawang sets lang talaga, now the same applies to the division. In the CA, and the Sandigan Bayan, one original, again, properly marked, original, and two copies with an excess. Now in the court of tax appeals, one original , again, properly marked and two copies with an excess. For [inaudible, 01:56:14] bank, one original properly marked and eight copies with an excess. In other courts, one original properly marked with stated the excess attached to it, so isa lang talaga sa other, kasi sobra namang kung dalawa, besides sa [inaudible, 01:56;38] wala na ngang ispasyo sa lower court eh. 01:56:44 Okay, now parties to the cases with the Supreme Court are fond to require, the attention to this because this is a new requirement and to me it is practically impossible requirement. Specially for those lawyers in the provinces. Okay, parties to the, to cases from the Supreme Court are further required on the [inaudible; 01:57:12] for the first six months following the effectivity of the rule and compulsarily thereafter to submit simultaneously in the court bound papers, soft-copies, soft-copies of said papers and their in-excess this in-excess should be in PDF format, no. Either by email to the CA, to the Supreme Court email address or by compact disc, can you imagine? This requirement is in preparation for the eventual establishment of a kuwan e-filling paperless system in the judicial. So talagang [inaudible, 01:57:51] technology age. Nung pansit kalokohan ko yan. 01:58:04 Di ba may mga kopya ng SCRA o Supreme Court Decisions in this? Do you find it convenient? I do not find it convenient, in fact you can, you can just mark and then copy noh sa feedings mo. Ako, I'm willing to [inaudible, 01:58:23] and be frank the hard copy, I like the feel of [inaudible, 01:58:29] that's all [inaudible, 01:58:30] to be called so be the piece of [inaudible, 01:58:31] di ba? Kasi parang napi-feel mo abogado ka talaga. Natutuwa yung iba eh. I don't know, when we, I'm just a old fashioned. Okay, so itong e-finding rule, i think is would be very difficult to comply with. In fact, we are already starting to comply with it. We had to file a manifestation and formade the court that our tardy compliance with the e-filing, yung ini-email-email na ganyan, it was because may bagong rule. Utak yata nito ni justice abad eh. Well si chief justice Sereno, I understand was into this kind of a publication eh meron silang gumagawa sila

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

ng CD ng [inaudible, 01:59:40] anung take nila, like SCRA na education and they, they would sell. I don't know what happend to that na. Now, an excess served on the adversed party. Note that a party required to serve a copy of this court-bound paper, party required to serve a copy of this court-bound paper on the adversed party need not, beed not, hindi na kailangan in close copies of those in-excess that based on the record of the court such party already has in this possesion. So hindi ka na required, but that party can still request you to give him a second in-excess while in court. In this case, you will have to give him that copy within five days from notice to comply with the request, okay? Kala mo di na puwede, okay? 02:00:50 The Supreme Court also issued part of the issuance were guidelines on compliance with the rule. On the guidelines of submission and processing of soft copies of Supreme Court-bound papers pursuant to the rule. you may refer to SC resolution dated September 10, 2013 approving the guidelines, okay? Among other things, the guidelines direct that well; one, soft copies of all Supreme Court bound papers and their in-excess must be submitted simultaneously with the hard copy if by compact disc or within 24 hours from the filing of the hard copy if by email. So kapag soft copy twenty four hours, pero kung compact disk, sasama mo muna dun sa filing mo, "why?! no!" why? I think [inaudible, 02:04:50] making absence of the court is difficult, di ba? Because guaranteed ng access ng andito sa court. Anyway, Number two, the soft copy must be in PDF hindi "PDAF" ha, PDF form. Anak ng tawa yan. Lagi akong nag-e-explain sa PDAF noh. The soft copy must be in PDF format so that it cannot be edited noh, or changed or erased, diba? And individually saved as well individually attached to the email if applicable. Now, the filename of the soft copy must be the same as the document title. Number three, soft copy submitted by email must be addressed to the appropriate docketing office of the court concerned, naka-identify doon yung mga offices na yan to get the copy of that resolution of the Supreme Court although the guidelines itself, themselves. 02:02:57 And then number four, the email must be used, must used the prescribed format. Can you imagine and hirap naman practice ng ganun Diyos ko. Kumbaga, litigation noh? ang pinapractice. Now we go to publication of judgment and final resolutions. This rule, rule fifty six only talks of the official publication and you are talking of the official decent and the philippine reports, okay? May mga annotation yan, republish ganyan.

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

Ang nagpa-publish nyan is the printing office, so it's really an official publication. Yung Philippine reports, and pinapublish niyan mainly, Supreme Court decisions and resolutions. However, yung official decent also publishes decisions of the Court of Appeals, okay? These are the official publications and therefore you could make [inaudible, 02:04:08] to them in your billings. However, the Supreme Court reports annotated or SCRA is already recognized by the Supreme Court and you can make presentation from SCRA, okay? In fact now, SCRA has opening them na out-taste na niya yung Philippine reports no. Ever think a up to date and Philippine reports compared to SCRA, SCRA is [inaudible, 02:04:50], okay. What is the procedure in the Supreme Court you may require to rule fifty six. This rule covers the cases that are recognizable by the Supreme of Supreme Court both in this original and accredited station. As we have already noted on the petition for certiorari, [inaudible, 02:05:08] o warrant to habeas corpus, disciplinary proceedings against members [inaudible, 02:05:13] of attorneys and this is affecting ambassadors at and into other public ministers and consuls have re-filed originally in the Supreme Court, the procedure in the original cases for certiorari revision mandamus quo warranto and habeas corpus of the in accordance with the pick of a provisional constitution law and rules forty six, forty eight, forty nine, fifty one, fifty two, and fifty six except that all references in those rules to the CA shall be understood as applying also to the Supreme Court. And that portion of said rules dealing solely to appeal cases in the [inaudible, 02:05:52] column itself have not be applicable to the Supreme Court. By the [inaudible, 02:05:58] in the number of copies petition can now be considered amended by the official use of paper rule and the rules on the filing. Will be not [inaudible, 02:06:09] or seventeen by the Supreme Court. 02:06:10 Now on this appelate jurisdiction, appeal to the Supreme Court, anung oras na ba? Can we have a, I'll just finish this. On this appelate jurisdiction, appeal to the Supreme Court may be taken only by petition for review in certiorari, except in criminal cases where the penalty impost instead or reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. The appeals have been disposed off in accordance with the paper work provisions again of the prosecution of the laws and rules forty five of page and section one, two, and five, eleven of rules fifty one, fifty two, and fifty six. Now, dismissal of appeal note that the Supreme Court may dismiss [inaudible, 02:06:55] or motion or correspondent from the

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

following grounds. They dismiss the petition. Well you know all of this already, failure to take the activity of the period, so nag-lapse appeal. Number two, lack of merit in the petition. Number three, failure to pay docket and other double fees or to make a deposit for cost. Number four, failure to comply with a requirements becoming proof of service, contents of and the documents which and accompany the petition. [inaudible, 02:07:29] failure to comply with any Supreme Court circular directive or order without justifying its cause. One circular that would really get to your mind is circular which is now part of the rules of court on forum shopping, okay? Than number six, error in the choice of mode of appeal and number seven the fact that the case is not appealable to the Supreme Court. How do you do dispose, how, how are raw erroneous of ano, how are improper appeals disposed of where except as [inaudible, 02:08:07] for in section three rule one fifty two regarding appeals of criminal cases for the penalty is dead or reclusion perpetua and appeal taken to the Supreme Court by notice of appeals [02:08:18] this case, okay? In proper opinion. While to be in Supreme Court may refer an appeal by certiorari from the RTC submitting issues of part to the CA for decision or appropriate action. Again, if you do that, you're gambling with your case because the Supreme Court simple just dismisses. In fact, for appeals. So i think you must have some kind of godmother or a godfather in the Supreme Court that you're [inaudible, 02:08:53] appeal to be referred to the CA. 02:08:58 Okay, we go to procedure of opinion, procedure of [inaudible. 02:09:07] if the opinion is equally divided. Now, where the Supreme Court in fact is equally divided in opinionor the necessary majority cannot be had, the case shall again be delivery to the hall, and if after such deliberation no decision is still reached, the original action comments have been dismissed in appealed cases, the judgement or the oder appealed from shall stand affirm and on all incidental matters the petition or motion shall be denied so three instances yan ano, ah kung original action and no decision is reached by the Supreme Court that action will be dismissed, number two, if on appeal and no decision cannot be, and no decision can be reached by the Supreme Court despite a second deliberation then the after decision have stand as a firm. And number three, on all an incidental matters the petitions or motions shall be denied, okay let's take a tell when you pray. When we recontinue we will take up to visual remedies rule fifty seven to sixty one. Yung given date wala na? Constantino? Codiera?

11.29.2013 053404 PM [131.59 MIN] January 11, 2014

Alameda,...Thank you.

END OF TRANSCRIPTION [2:11:59]