Monday, February 27, 2006

Remedies Against An Adverse Judgement


The Rules of Court provides for the following remedies against an adverse judgment:
.
1. Motion for reconsideration
2. Motion for new trial
3. Appeal
4. Petition for relief from judgment
5. Petition to annul judgment
.
Motion for Reconsideration
.
Grounds:
a) Excessive damages has been awarded
b) Findings of facts or of law not supported by evidence
c) Judgment is contrary to law
.
It differs from Motion for New Trial because the former (MR) needs no trial but may merely be corrected by the court. If the ground is not predicated on the above three grounds, it is pro forma which does not toll the running the reglamentary period of the 15 days (period of appeal) for the finality of the decision. After the lapse thereof, the judgment will become final and executory.
.
In criminal cases, there is no pro forma rule. The motion for reconsideration is based on any ground.
.
If the MR is based on No. 2 (not supported by evidence), the rules require that the MR must make reference to the testimonial or documentary evidence referring to the facts on record. The reference must be particular, not merely a sweeping statement.
.
If the MR is based on No. 3 (contrary to law), the particular law must be stated, making a reference to the portion of the judgment in the transcript that is contrary to law.
.
Motion for New Trial
.
Grounds:
.
a) Fraud, Accident, Mistake, Excusable negligence (FAME) had deprived the movant of his substantial rights during the trial
b) Newly discovered evidence
.
On the first ground, the FAME could not have been avoided during the trial.
.
On the second ground, this requires, if admitted, could probably alter the judgment already rendered. If merely corroborative, not within the purview even if discovered after the rendition of judgment. If it is in the nature of forgotten evidence, not a ground for MNT even if it could alter the judgment already rendered.
.
Whenever you have FAME, affidavit of merit is required on how FAME was incurred but it need not be in a separate paper. May be in the motion but it must be under oath.
.
Appeal
.
It presupposes that the judgment is not yet final and executory. Consider whether the appeal would raise only findings of facts or of law or both. If it only raises question of law, the same may be raised in a petition for review, not an ordinary appeal. But generally, if appeal is the discussion of the facts and of law involved, it is an ordinary appeal where notice of appeal is filed before the court with notice to the adverse party within 15 days from the rendition of judgment. But if it is a multiple appeal, within 30 days from rendition of judgment and record on appeal is filed with MTC/RTC for approval within 30 days. Generally, the decision of the RTC in appealed cases is final and executory but if errors of fact and law are shown, appeal is allowed through petition for review.
.
Petition for Relief from Judgment
.
Ground:
a) FAME (fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence) which deprived the movant to have his day in court or taking his appeal. However, it will only be considered if the petition is filed within 60 days after the movant leans of the judgment or order in question but not more than 6 months after entry of judgment.
.
Entry of judgment is the date when the judgment becomes final and executory because the finality of judgment may not be the same for each party, it depends upon the date the party receives the judgment.
.
Petition for relief from judgment presupposes that the judgment in question is already final and executory but if the right to appeal is lost due to negligence, he will not be allowed to file this petition. If petition for relief is granted, its effect is the same as in MNT: it requires filing an answer and the court conducts a hearing. The petitioner must show in an affidavit of merit that he has a meritorious defense for the defendant or in case of the plaintiff, that he has a meritorious cause of action.
.
Petition to Annul Judgment
.
Ground:
FAME (fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence)It is resorted to when the nullity of judgment does not appear in the face of the judgment. So, evidence to prove nullity of judgment will have to be presented in the trial but if the nullity is seen on the face of the judgment itself, this petition is not proper, the same may be challenged as null and void. Nullity must not appear in the face of the judgment. For the enforcement of the judgment, collateral attack is allowed.

6 comments:

  1. I just would like to ask the difference between if the petition to annul judgment you mentioned is similar to annulment of judgment under rule 48?

    ReplyDelete
  2. does remedies apply when a decision by the court of appeals has already been rendered after entry of judgment ?

    ReplyDelete
  3. no more because your only remedy after entry of final judgement is annulment of judgment based on extrinsic fraud and newly discovered evidence. the court of appeals cannot do that because it is not a trier of facts.

    please also refer to rule 47 sec 1.

    hope i answered your question right, pag hindi eh research pa tayo ng sagot. :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Can a person in possession of an Owner's Duplicate of Title, be a proper party to a Petition for Relief from Judgment for the Reconstitution of Title of a party (Original owner) who acquired it through fraud and deceit by declaring said title at the Registry of Deeds as having been lost, when in fact he already transferred it through sale or assignment?

    ReplyDelete
  5. who committed the fraud? the person in possession or the original owner?

    nevertheless, imho, the proper party should be the registered owner and not the person in possession of the title.

    ReplyDelete
  6. My warm regards to all members. Great to get here! :)

    I'm not sure if this is allows but I am considering [url=http://newmoviereleasesdvd.info/]Watch Movies Online Free[/url], then I am living a link in my signature that has plenty usefull advice about that subject.

    ReplyDelete