Republic of the Philippines

Bulacan State University

City of Malolos, Bulacan

COLLEGE OF LAW

RULE 37
Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration

Submitted by:

KLEIN FERDIE G. OQUENDO

Juris Doctor 2C
 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Directed against a judgment or a final order. It is not the motion for
reconsideration of an interlocutory order which normally precedes a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65.

Prohibited under the Rules on Summary Procedure and Rule of

Procedure in Small Claims Cases.

When to file

Within the period for appeal (Sec. 1, Rule 37). No motion for extension
of time to file a motion for reconsideration shall be allowed (Sec. 2, Rule 40;
Sec. 3, Rule 41).

The period for appeal is within 15 days after notice to the appellant of
the judgment or final order appealed from (Sec. 2, Rule 40; Sec. 3, Rule 41;
Sec. 2, Rule 45).

Effect of filing

A motion for reconsideration interrupts the period to appeal (Sec. 2,

Rule 40; Sec. 3, Rule 41).

Grounds

1. The damages awarded are excessive;

2. The evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final order; or
3. The decision or final order is contrary to law (Sec. 1, Rule 37).

It is not sufficient to mention the ground relied upon. It is necessary to

point out the findings or conclusions of the judgment or final order which
are not supported by the evidence or which are contrary to law. Non-
compliance would reduce the motion to a mere pro forma motion. A pro forma
motion does not toll the reglementary period of appeal. (Sec. 2, Rule 37).

Pro forma motion

A pro forma motion is one which does not satisfy the requirements of the rules
and one which will be treated as a motion intended to delay the proceedings
(Marikina Development Corporation v. Flojo, 251 SCRA 87, 93).

Resolution of the motion

The motion shall be resolved within 30 days from the time it is

submitted for resolution (Sec. 4, Rule 37).
2
The “fresh period” rule

If the motion is denied, the movant has a “fresh period” of 15 days

from receipt or notice of the order denying or dismissing the motion for
reconsideration within which to file a notice of appeal (Neypes v. Court of
Appeals, 469 SCRA 633).

Neypes v. Court of Appeals

1. Rule 40 (appeals from the MTC to the RTC)

2. Rule 41 (appeals from the RTC)
3. Rule 42 (petitions for review from the RTC to the CA)
4. Rule 43 (appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the CA)
5. Rule 45 (appeals by certiorari to the SC)

Order of denial

The “fresh period” rule does not refer to the period within which to
appeal from the order denying the motion for reconsideration but to the
period within which to appeal from the judgment itself because an order
denying a motion for reconsideration is not appealable (Sec. 9 of Rule 37).

Remedy when motion is denied

The remedy from an order denying a motion for reconsideration is not

to appeal from the order of denial. The order is not appealable. The remedy
is to appeal from the judgment or final order itself subject of the motion for
reconsideration (Sec. 9, Rule 37).

Effect if the motion is granted

If the court grants the motion, it may amend the assailed judgment or
final order accordingly (Sec. 3, Rule 37).

The amended judgment is in the nature of a new judgment which

supersedes the original judgment. It is not a mere supplemental decision
which does not supplant the original but only serves to add something to it
(Esquivel v. Alegre, 172 SCRA 315).

Partial reconsideration

If the court finds that a motion affects the issues of the case as to only
a part, or less than all of the matters in controversy, or only one, or less than
all, of the parties to it, the order may grant a reconsideration as to such issues
if severable without interfering with the judgment or final order upon the
rest (Sec. 7, Rule 37).
3
The “single motion” rule

A party shall not be allowed to file a second motion for reconsideration

of a judgment or a final order. (Sec. 5, Rule 37).

The prohibition on a second motion applies only when the motion is

directed against a judgment or a final order. The rule does not apply to a
motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order.

Motion for New Trial

A new trial is a remedy that seeks to “temper the severity of a

judgment or prevent a failure of justice. The grant of a new trial is addressed
to the sound discretion of the court which cannot be interfered with unless
a clear abuse thereof is shown (Ybiernas v. Tanco-Gabaldon, GR No. 178925, 1
June 2011).

A motion for new trial is not allowed in cases governed by the Revised
Rules on Summary Procedure and Rules of Procedure on Small Claims.

Grounds

1. Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence (FAME) which

ordinary prudence could not have guarded against and by reason of
which such aggrieved party has probably been impaired in his rights;
or

2. Newly discovered evidence, which he could not, with reasonable

diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial, and which if
presented would probably alter the result (Sec. 1, Rule 37).

A motion based on FAME shall be supported by affidavits of merit.

A motion based on newly-discovered evidence shall be supported by (a)

affidavits of the witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be given,
or (b) by duly authenticated documents which are proposed to be
introduced in evidence (Sec. 2, Rule 37).

Non-compliance would render the motion pro forma.

Affidavit of Merit

The moving party must show that he has a meritorious defense. The
facts constituting the movant’s defense must be shown in the affidavit which
4
should accompany the motion for a new trial. An affidavit of merit should
state facts, and not mere opinion or conclusions of law (Uy v. First Metro
Integrated Steel Corporation, 503 SCRA 704).

Mere allegations that one has a “meritorious defense” and a “good

cause” are mere conclusions which do not provide the court with any basis
for determining the nature and merit of the case.

Newly-discovered evidence

1. The evidence was discovered after trial;

2. Such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the
trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence;

3. It is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching;

and

4. The evidence is of such weight that it would probably change the

judgment if admitted.

If the alleged newly discovered evidence could have been very well
presented during the trial with the exercise of reasonable diligence, the same
could not be considered newly discovered evidence (Ybiernas v. Tanco-
Gabaldon, GR No. 178925, 1 June 2011).

Gross negligence of counsel

Gross negligence is not one of the grounds for a motion for a new trial.
Courts do not consider as gross negligence the counsel’s resort to dilatory
schemes, such as (1) the filing of at least three motions to extend the filing of
petitioner’s answer; (2) his non-appearance during the scheduled pre-trials;
and (3) the failure to file petitioner’s pre-trial brief, even after the filing of
several motions to extend the date for filing (Uy v. First Metro Integrated Steel
Corporation).

Effect if the motion is granted

The original judgment or final order shall be vacated, and the action
shall stand for trial de novo. The recorded evidence taken upon the former
trial shall be used at the new trial without retaking the same if the evidence
is material and competent (Sec. 6, Rule 37).

5
Partial new trial

If the court finds that a motion affects the issues of the case as to only
a part, or less than all of the matters in controversy, or only one, or less than
all, of the parties to it, the court may grant a new trial as to such issues if
severable without interfering with the judgment or final order upon the rest
(Sec. 7, Rule 37).

When there is an order for a partial new trial, i.e., less than all of the
issues are ordered retried, the court may either enter a judgment or final
order as to the rest, or stay the enforcement of such judgment or final order
until after the new trial (Sec. 8, Rule 37).

Second motion for new trial

While a second motion for reconsideration is not allowed, a second

motion for new trial is authorized. A motion for new trial shall include all
grounds then available. Those not so included are deemed waived.
However, when a ground for a new trial was not existing or available when
the first motion was made, a second motion for new trial may be filed within
the period allowed but excluding the time during which the first motion had
been pending (Sec. 5, Rule 37).