Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

GOMEZ-ESTOESTA // APPRAC-A

BAÑADERA • CADIENTE •CARIAGA • CHENG • DE LUIS • DUEÑAS • ESCASURA • GARCIA • ORQUINAZA • RUBIO • SANTOS • YU

What May Not Be Appealed  Subsequently a compromise agreement was entered into by both parties
which was submitted to the MTC.
PASCO v. HEIRS OF DE GUZMAN (Cheng)  Despite the MTC approving the compromise agreement, the petitioners
[GR. No. 165554; July 26, 2010] filed a verified motion to set aside the decision on the ground that “the
Remedies when a motion to set aside judgment is denied. Remedy can Agreement was written in a language not understood by them, and the
be either Rule 38 or Rule 65. terms and conditions thereof were not fully explained to them.”
 The MTC denied such motion, prompting the petitioner to file a Petition for
Recit-Ready: Certiorari and Prohibition with Application for Temporary Restraining
Facts: The Heirs of De Guzman had filed a complaint for sum of money Order/Preliminary Injunction before the RTC.
against Pasco. Subsequently both parties allegedly agreed to enter  The RTC ruled that “the MTC’s approval of the Compromise Agreement
into a compromise agreement. However, after approving the was not done in a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary manner; thus,
compromise agreement, Pasco files a motion to set aside the petitioners’ resort to certiorari under Rule 65 was improper.”
compromise agreement (judgment) as he allegedly did not  The CA ruled the Pasco had improperly sought recourse before the RTC
understand the compromise agreement. The respondent judge through a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, when the proper remedy
gave an order denying the motion to set aside judgment on was a Petition for Relief from Judgment under Rule 38.
compromise. Thus, Pasco elevated the case to the MTC by way of
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to the MTC. The RTC ruled that Issue/s: Whether Pasco resorting to Rule 65 in questioning the motion to set
the MTC’s decision does not fall under grave abuse of discretion aside is the proper remedy instead of Rule 38. -- Yes
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Thus, such decision
was elevated to the CA. The CA argues that the petition under Rule Held/Ratio:
65 to the RTC. It should have been a petition for relief from  The SC that based on the language of Rule 41, therefore, the MTC’s
judgment under Rule 38. denial of petitioners’ Motion to Set Aside Decision could not have been
appealed.
Issue/s: Whether Pasco resorting to Rule 65 in questioning the motion to o Indeed, a decision based on a compromise agreement is
set aside is the proper remedy instead of Rule 38. -- Yes immediately final and executory.
o It cannot be the subject of appeal, for when parties enter into a
Held: SC stated that pursuant to Rule 41, the MTC’s denial of Pasco’ compromise agreement and request a court to render a decision
Motion to Set Aside Decision could not have been appealed. The on the basis of their agreement.
Court stated that there is more than remedy to question the order o It is presumed that such action constitutes a waiver of the right to
denying the motion to set aside the compromise agreement. Thus, appeal said decision.
Pasco has every right to file a petition under Rule 65 and not Rule  While there may have been other remedies available to assail the
38. decision, Pasco were well within their rights to institute a special civil
action under Rule 65.
Facts: o *Note* the Court is saying that both Rule 38 and Rule 65 can be
 This case originated when the heirs of de Guzman, represented by both done. The petitioner has every right to file a petition under
Cresencia de Guzman-Principe filed a complaint for a sum of money and Rule 65.
damages against Lauro Pasco. The case was filed in MTC of Bulacan.