Lecture on Rules 30-37

Rule 30 - Trial
1. We start with Rule 30 – Trial. I’m sure that most of you have, by now, acquired at least a
working knowledge of the provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. There is therefore no
need for me to dwell on provisions that were left untouched by the 2019 Amendments. For
purposes of this lecture therefore, I intend to focus only on new provisions introduced by the
2019 Amendments, as well as provisions that were substantially and significantly amended. In
addition, I will also discuss some old provisions, which I believe are not yet well understood. Let
me start with Rule 30 on Trial.
2. Sec. 1 is a new provision. It fixes the schedule and periods, for the parties to present their
respective evidence. When should the plaintiff start presenting his evidence? Within what period
should he complete the presentation of his evidence? – The plaintiff shall start presenting his
evidence within 30 days from the termination of the pre-trial conference.
3. Within what period should the plaintiff complete the presentation of his evidence? – The
plaintiff is given a period of 3 months or 90 calendar days within which to finish the presentation
of his evidence. By the way, every time I mention a period of days, it should be understood as
calendar days.
4. What happens if the Court, upon failure of the parties to reach a settlement during mediation
proceedings, decide to hold what is known as judicial dispute resolution or JDR? – Sec. 1 of Rule
30 provides that the time spent for conducting the JDR shall be included in the 90-day period
allotted to the plaintiff for the presentation of his evidence.
5. What about the defendant, when should he start presenting his evidence? - Sec. 1 of Rule 30
provides that the defendant must start presenting his evidence not later than 30 days from the
time he is given notice of the ruling of the Court on the plaintiff’s formal offer of evidence.
6. Now, for how long may the defendant present his evidence? – The defendant is given the same
period of 90 days or 3 months within which to complete the presentation of his evidence.
7. You are of course aware that a defendant may set up in his answer or responsive pleading a
counterclaim against the plaintiff or a cross-claim against his co-defendant or he may also file
with leave of court a third-party complaint against a person who is not a party in the main action.
The question now is, when should the defendant present evidence on his counterclaim, cross-
claim or third-party complaint? – To answer this question, we have to read par. b, Sec. 5 of Rule
30. It provides that after the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the
defendant shall then adduce evidence in support of his or her defense, counterclaim, cross-claim
and third-party complaint.
8. We know that the defendant has a period of 3 months or 90 days to complete the presentation
of his evidence. Would this 3-month or 90-day period include the time that the defendant would
spend in adducing evidence to prove his counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint? –
The answer is No, the Court shall give the defendant additional time to prove his counterclaim,
cross-claim or third-party complaint. But in no case may the additional period exceed 90 days.
9. Now, there are instances when after the defendant has rested his case, the Court upon the
plaintiff’s motion may allow him to present rebuttal evidence, if the plaintiff is allowed to present
his rebuttal evidence, the Court will most likely allow the defendant to present sur-rebuttal
evidence. The question is, what period should the Court give both parties to complete their
presentation of their respective rebuttal evidence? – Under Sec. 1 of Rule 30, the Court shall give
both parties a total period of not more than 30 days.
10. What evidence may the plaintiff or the defendant present by way of rebuttal or sur-rebuttal
evidence? – The plaintiff’s rebuttal evidence may only refute whatever evidence was presented
by the defendant during his turn to present evidence, the plaintiff cannot present new evidence
in support of his cause of action. On the other hand, the defendant sur-rebuttal evidence is
limited only to refuting whatever rebuttal evidence was presented by the plaintiff. The defendant
is not allowed to present new evidence in support of his defense.
11. Within what period should the Court terminate the trial of a Civil action? – Under Sec. 1 of
Rule 30, the court has a period of 6 months or 180 days within which to complete the trial of a
case. However, if there are third, fourth, etc. -party claims, counterclaims or cross-claims, the
Court is given a period of 10 months or 300 days within which to complete the trial.
12. The most common motion filed in the trial of a case is a motion for postponement, and the
most common reason given for postponement is that a parties’ counsel has a severe case of LBM.
I wonder why lawyers are prone to LBM while they seldom suffer heart disease.
13. Sec. 2 of Rule 30 provides that the party who was granted postponements shall be required
to finish presentation of his evidence within the same period allotted to him by the Rules.
14. Under Sec. 6 of Rule 30, the formal offer of evidence, the comment or objection thereto, as
well as the court’s ruling on the formal offer of evidence shall all be done orally.

Rule 31 – Consolidation or Severance

1. Under Rule 31, when may several actions pending before a court be consolidated for joint
hearing or trial? – Sec. 1 provides that when several actions pending before a court involved
common questions of law or fact, the Court upon motion or motu proprio may order the
consolidation of the cases for joint hearing or trial.
2. Before we proceed, let me explain first what the phrase “several cases pending before the
Court” means. In Pasay City for instance, there is only one Metropolitan Trial Court with several
branches. In Quezon City, there is only one Regional Trial Court but with several branches. When
we say therefore, that there are “several cases pending before the Court”, it does not necessarily
mean that these several cases are pending in one branch of the Court. The phrase “several cases
pending before the Court” could also mean that there are several cases pending in different
branches of the same Court.
3. Factoring these, we can now restate the Rule as follows, when several actions involving
common questions of law or fact are pending before different branches of the same court, the
cases may be consolidated in a branch of a Court where one of the cases is pending for joint
hearing or trial.
4. The practice is that the cases having common questions of law or fact are consolidated in the
branch of the Court where case having the lowest docket number is pending. What is the reason
for this practice? – The reason is simple, the case having the lowest docket number is necessarily
the case that was filed first. It is logical, that the cases having common questions of law or fact,
but filed on different dates shall be consolidated with the case that was filed first.
5. In the case of Republic of the Phil. v. Heirs of Enrique Oribello, the SC discussed the two kinds
of consolidation of cases. The first kind, which is referred to as actual consolidation, happens
when several cases are combined as one with each of the cases losing its separate identity. Under
this kind of consolidation, the joint cases are merged into a single action where a single judgment
is rendered. In the second kind of consolidation, called consolidation for trial, several cases are
ordered to be tried together but with each of the cases retaining its separate character and
identity. In this kind of consolidation, the court will render a separate judgment for each of the
cases that were consolidated.
6. Let us now discuss severance. Severance is of course the opposite of consolidation. The general
rule is that, all the issues and claims pleaded in a case should be tried jointly and must be resolved
in one judgment. When may the Court therefore, by way of an exception order that a distinct
claim or issue asserted in a case be tried separately from the main action? – In Metrobank v.
Sandoval, the SC explained that the trial court may only order a separate trial of a claim or issue
if the parties seeking a severance clearly shows that the separate trial would prevent prejudice,
promote justice, further the convenience and allow fair trial for all the parties of the case.

Rule 32 – Trial by Commissioner

1. The provisions under Rule 32 are mostly self-explanatory. They explain themselves. I’m
therefore leaving them to you to read, to understand, and to remember until you take the bar
exams hopefully in 2021.

Rule 33 – Demurrer to Evidence

1. I can say with confidence, that many of you if not all of you are unfamiliar with the meaning of
the word “demurrer”, aside from its obscure meaning, it is also difficult to pronounce. The word
“demurrer” is a noun which means an objection, a protest or a challenge. The verb form of
demurrer is “to demur”, which means to object, to take exception to, or to descent from. When
a defendant therefore files a demurrer to evidence, he is simply telling the court that even
assuming that the facts established by the evidence of the plaintiff are true, they are not
sufficient to justify the grant of the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff in his complaint.
2. As you all know, a demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss. It is however a different kind
of motion to dismiss from the one provided for under Par. (a), Sec. 12 of Rule 15 of the Amended
Rules.
3. The first point of distinction is that a motion to dismiss is filed within the period for filing but
before filing the answer. On the other hand, a demurrer to evidence is filed after the plaintiff has
completed the presentation of his evidence.
4. The second point of distinction is that a motion to dismiss under Rule 15 is filed on four
grounds: First, that the court has no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the case; second, that
there is another action pending between the same parties and for the same cause; third, the
action is barred by a prior judgment; and fourth, that the action has prescribed.
5. What is the ground for a demurrer to evidence? – Rule 33 is vague on this point. It provides
that after the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendants may move
for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law, the plaintiff has shown no right to
relief. What exactly is meant by the phrase “upon the facts and the law, the plaintiff has shown
no right to relief”? What facts? What law?
6. Let us start with what we know, we know that the demurrer to evidence is filed by the
defendant after the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence. Based on this, we
can surmise that there must be something wrong or deficient in the totality of the plaintiff’s
evidence as to embolden the defendant was not presented a scintilla of evidence to tell the court
that the plaintiff despite completing this evidence is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for by him
in the complaint.
7. Taking all this into consideration, we now ask the question, by what amount of evidence should
the plaintiff have established the material facts in his complaint so that after resting his case, he
could assert that upon the facts he has established, he is by law entitled to the reliefs he prayed
for in his complaint.
8. The Rules require that the plaintiff should allege in his complaint all the material facts essential
to his cause of action. His failure to allege even one material fact would provide the defendant a
ground for the dismissal of the complaint. To be entitled to the reliefs prayed for in his complaint
therefore, the plaintiff by the time he completes the presentation of his evidence must have
established at least by prima facie evidence all the material facts alleged in his complaint. As you
might recall from your class in evidence, that is of course if you were not a habitual absentee,
prima facie evidence is the amount or quantum of evidence which is sufficient to establish a fact
or a set of facts in the absence of contrary evidence. If after resting his case, the plaintiff was able
to prove the material facts alleged in his complaint by at least prima facie evidence, the
defendant who has yet to present contrary evidence would have no ground to file a demurrer to
evidence.
9. Thanks to your patience, we have now identified the real ground for a demurrer to evidence.
It is the failure of the plaintiff after completing the presentation of his evidence to prove by at
least prima facie evidence all the material facts alleged in his complaint that would justify the
defendant was not presented even an iota of contrary evidence to move for the dismissal of case.
10. Let us now discuss the rules governing demurrer to evidence. Sec. 1, Rule 33 provides that
when the demurrer to evidence is denied, the defendant retains his right to present evidence.
When demurrer to evidence is granted but on appeal, the order of dismissal is reversed, the
defendant loses his right to present evidence.
11. In the case of RadioWealth Finance Co. v. del Rosario, the SC ruled that when an appellate
court reverses the order of the trial court, granting the defendant’s demurrer to evidence, the
appellate court should not remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings but should
rather render judgment on the basis of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff in the trial court.
The SC explained that since the defendant can no longer present evidence, remanding the case
to the trial court would just be a waste of time.
12. What is the remedy of a defendant whose demurrer to evidence was denied? – To know the
proper remedy, we should first determine the nature of an order denying the demurrer to
evidence. Is it a final order? Does it resolve all the issues in the case and terminate the
proceedings thereof leaving nothing for the court to do? Or is it an interlocutory order, one that
resolves one or some but not all the issues in the case and therefore does not terminate the
proceedings thereof?
13. Based on what we said about finals orders and interlocutory orders, the order of the court
denying the defendant’s demurrer to evidence is definitely an interlocutory order. Sec. 2 of Rule
33, a new provision, expressly provide that the order of the court denying the demurrer to
evidence shall not be the subject of an appeal or a petition for certiorari, prohibition or
mandamus.
14. Of course, the order denying a demurrer to evidence being an interlocutory order is not
appealable. We don’t have to belabor that point, but why can’t the order denying a demurrer to
evidence be the subject of a petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus? – We know that as
a rule interlocutory orders are reviewable by certiorari, prohibition or mandamus. Now, the
reason is obvious, a defendant whose demurrer to evidence was denied has a plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. He can go to trial and present his evidence.
15. What is the remedy of the plaintiff whose case was dismissed because the defendant’s
demurrer to evidence was granted? – An order granting a demurrer to evidence, being obviously
a final order, the remedy of the plaintiff is to appeal the order.
16. In the case of Republic of the Phil. v. Jimenez, Justice Leonen opined that since an order
granting a demurrer to evidence is a final order that partakes of the nature of a judgment of the
merits, it must also comply with the constitutional requirement that the facts and the law on
which it is based must be clearly and distinctly set forth therein.
17. What is the significance of the new provision under Sec. 2 of Rule 33 which says that, a
demurrer to evidence shall be subject to the provisions of Rule 15? – Under Sec. 5 of Rule 15, a demurrer
to evidence is listed as one of the litigious motions. Under the provisions of Rule 15, when a litigious
motion such as a demurrer to evidence is filed, the adverse party has a period of 5 days from notice within
which to file his opposition thereto. Within 15 days from the Court’s receipt of the opposition or upon the
expiration of the period to file the opposition, the Court shall resolve the motion.
18. Under the 1997 Rules, all litigious motions must be set for hearing otherwise they will be treated as
pro forma motions and would not be given due course. Worse it would not suspend the running of the
period for filing certain pleadings or motions. For instance, under the 1997 Rules, a motion to dismiss was
a litigious motion. The filing of a motion to dismiss that was not set for hearing would not have suspended
the running of the period for filing the answer. In the same manner, the filing of a motion for new trial,
also a litigious motion under the old rules, if not set for hearing would not have suspended the running of
the period for filing the appeal. All of these have changed under the 2019 Amendments.
19. Litigious motions are no longer required to be set for hearing. Since the party filing a litigious motion
is no longer required to set the motion for hearing, it is now the burden of the adverse party to determine
whether the motions served on him is litigious or not. If it is, he should file his opposition within 5 days
from his receipt of the motion, otherwise the court will resolve the motion without his opposition. Under
Sec. 6 of Rule 15 however, the Court, in the exercise of its discretion may call a hearing on the litigious
motion in which case, it should give notice to all the parties specifying the time and the date of the hearing.
20. Let us now make a distinction between demurrer to evidence in civil cases and demurrer to evidence
in criminal cases. In civil cases, leave of court is not required for the filing of a demurrer to evidence. When
the demurrer to evidence is denied, the defendant always retains his right to present evidence regardless
of leave of court. In criminal cases however, if the accuse files a demurrer to evidence without leave of
court and it is denied, the accused loses his right to present evidence. In civil cases, when the defendant’s
demurrer to evidence is granted, the plaintiff may appeal the order of the court granting the demurrer to
evidence. In criminal cases when the accused’s demurrer to evidence is granted, the prosecution cannot
appeal the order of the court granting the demurrer to evidence.
21. In the case of Republic of the Phil. v. Jimenez, the SC still speaking thru Justice Leonen, explains the
rationale behind this rule in criminal cases: When the court dismisses the criminal case against the accused
upon his demurrer to evidence, the dismissal is equivalent to an acquittal of the accused, any further
prosecution of the accused such as appealing the order of dismissal would violate the constitutional
proscription on double jeopardy. The only remedy left to the prosecution is to assail the order granting
the demurrer by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on the ground of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
22. Another distinction is that in civil cases, a court cannot motu proprio dismiss the case on demurrer to
evidence even if it is clear to the Court that the plaintiff failed to prove even by prima facie evidence the
material allegations in his complaint. The Court has to wait for the defendant to file the demurrer to
evidence before it can dismiss the case. The rule is difference in criminal cases, if after the prosecution
has rested its case, the court is convinced that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt, it becomes duty of the court to motu proprio dismiss the case. The accused
need not file a demurrer to evidence for the case against him to be dismissed.
23. Civil procedure and criminal procedure share a common rule, that an order denying a demurrer to
evidence is not appealable neither is it reviewable by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. In civil
procedure, this rule is found under Sec. 2, Rule 33 and in criminal procedure, it found in Sec. 23, Rule 119.
The reason why an order denying a demurrer to evidence is not appealable is obvious, it is an interlocutory
order and as a rule, interlocutory orders are not appealable.
24. Why is an order denying a demurrer to evidence not reviewable by certiorari under Rule 65? – We
have answered this question already, but for the benefit of those who are sleeping, if the demurrer to
evidence of the defendant or accused is denied, he has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, which is to go to trial and present his evidence. This is of course in accordance
with Rule 65, if the aggrieved party has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law, he is precluded from filing a petition for certiorari.
25. The SC, which we know has the constitutional mandate to promulgate all procedural rules including
the Rules of Court, sometimes if not many times ignores or disregards its own rules.
26. In the case of Macapagal-Arroyo v. People of the Phil., which was promulgated on April 28, 2017, the
SC disregarded its own rule that an order denying a demurrer to evidence is not reviewable by certiorari.
The SC gave due course and later on granted the petition for certiorari field by former president
Macapagal-Arroyo, where she sought the annulment of the order of the Sandiganbayan denying her
demurrer to evidence. To be able to circumvent its own rules however, the SC has to do some acrobatics,
it had to invoke its expanded power under Sec. 1, Art. 8 of the 1987 Constitution. This Constitutional
provision expressly grants the Courts the broad power to determine whether any branch or
instrumentality of the government including the Sandiganbayan has committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Explaining its departure from a rule of its own making, the SC
said, it is their solemn constitutional duty to strike down grave abuse of discretion whenever and
wherever it is committed. Despite the interlocutory character and effect of the denial of a demurrer to
evidence therefore, an accused could avail himself of the remedy of certiorari when the denial of the
demurrer to evidence is tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
27. Let me state the doctrine laid out in Macapagal-Arroyo v. People of the Phil., an accused could avail
himself of the remedy of certiorari when the denial of his demurrer to evidence is tainted with grave abuse
of discretion.

Rule 34 – Judgment on the Pleadings

1. Sec. 1 of Rule 34 provides that when the defendant answer fails to tender an issue, or
otherwise admits the material allegations of the complaint, the plaintiff may move that the
judgment be rendered based solely on the allegations of the complaint. To understand this rule
on judgment on the pleadings, we should first ask ourselves the question: How exactly does an
answer fail to tender an issue? Before we can answer this question, however, let us first inquire
how a defendant’s answer to the complaint tender factual issues? Stated more simply, how does
an answer produce or give rise to factual issues?
2. Again, let us start with the things that we know already. We know that every ordinary civil
action must be based on a cause of action, to satisfy this requirement therefore, the plaintiff
must allege in his complaint all the facts constituting his cause of action. As we know, this include:
first, the plaintiff’s legal right; second, the corresponding duty of the defendant to respect the
plaintiff’s legal right; and third, the defendant’s act or omission which violated the plaintiff’s legal
right. All the facts allege in the complaint that are essential to the plaintiff’s cause of action or
sometimes referred to as material allegations, and other times they call it material facts or
material allegations of facts. If the defendant in his answer properly denies all the material facts
alleged in the complaint, then factual issues will arise or will be produce in the case, necessitating
the holding of a full blown trial. Where the parties are given the chance to present evidence in
support of their opposing factual allegations. This state of affairs will of course preclude the filing
of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, because the answer successfully tendered or
produced factual issues that will require an honest to goodness trial. It is therefore the failure of
the defendant to properly deny the material facts alleged in the complaint and the resulting
failure of the answer to produce or tender factual issues that will give the plaintiff a ground to
file a motion for judgment on the pleadings. By filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings,
the plaintiff in effect ask the court to forego with the trial of the case and render judgment based
solely on the material allegations in the complaint.
3. Now you may ask, what will justify the court in rendering judgment based only on the bare
facts alleged in the complaint, considering that the plaintiff has not presented even an iota of
evidence to prove them? – We know that when the defendant fails to properly deny the material
facts alleged in the complaint, he will be deemed, whether he likes it or not, to have admitted
them. We know the rule that when facts are admitted or are deemed admitted, they need not
be proved. These facts are deemed established without the party asserting them having to
present evidence to prove them. When a court therefore renders judgment on the pleadings, it
is actually rendering a judgment based on facts that are deemed established and which need not
be proved.
4. In the case of Adolfo v. Adolfo, which was promulgated on March 18, 2015, the SC ruled that
although the answer failed to properly deny the material allegations in the complaint, thereby
failing to tender any issue, but since the defendant alleged matters in his answer by way of
affirmative defenses and these matters necessarily produced factual issues because they were
deemed controverted by the plaintiff, then it was improper for the trial court to have granted
the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The SC however opined that in another case,
that if the affirmative defenses asserted in the answer did not produce any factual issues that
would require a trial, then it would be proper for the trial court to render judgment on the
pleadings.
5. In some cases, even if the defendant’s answer fails to tender an issue or otherwise admits the
material allegations of the complaint, the court is prohibited from rendering judgment on the
pleadings. These are actions for declaration of nullity of marriage, actions for annulment of
marriage, and actions for legal separation. What is common among these cases is that they all
involve spouses whose marriage are on the rocks. In most cases, both spouses want their
marriage declared null and void or nullified or they just want to be socially distanced from each
other as far as possible. The tendency therefore is for the spouses to collude, which practice is
prohibited by law. One form of collusion in these cases is for one spouse to file the petition and
for the other spouse to intentionally file an answer which fails to tender an issue, thereby
allowing a judgment on the pleadings. To frustrate this kind of collusion in these cases therefore,
Sec. 1 of Rule 34 prohibits the court from rendering judgment on the pleadings.
6. Sec. 2 of Rule 34 provides that a motion for judgment on the pleadings shall be subject to the
provisions of Rule 15 of the Amended Rules, since Sec. 5 of Rule 15 includes a motion for a
judgment on the pleadings in its list of litigious motions, it will therefore be governed by the
provisions of Rule 15 pertaining to litigious motions. We don’t have to discuss this provision now
because we’ve already discussed them in detail in connection with our discussion on demurrer
to evidence.
7. Under the 1997 Rules, the Court cannot motu proprio render judgment on the pleadings.
Under the 2019 Amendments however, the Court may now on its own initiative render judgment
on the pleadings if it is convinced that the answer fails to tender an issue or otherwise meets the
material allegations in the complaint.
8. The 2019 Amendments also introduced the new provision, that any order of the court whether
granting or denying the motion for a judgment on the pleadings is not appealable and shall not
be subject to certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus.
Rule 35 – Summary Judgments
1. We already know that a motion for judgment on the pleadings may be filed by the plaintiff.
Now, which party may file a motion for summary judgments? – Sec. 1 of Rule 35 provides that a
party seeking to recover a claim, counterclaim, or crossclaim or to obtain a declaratory relief may
file a motion for summary judgments. Based on this provision, we now know that the plaintiff,
the counter-claimant, the cross-claimant and the petitioner in an action for declaratory relief may
file a motion for summary judgments.
2. Who else may file a motion for summary judgments? – Sec. 2 of Rule 35 provides that a party
against whom a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is asserted or a declaratory relief is sought
may also file a motion for summary judgments. We are therefore informed by this provision that
the defendant in a main action or the defendant in the counterclaim or the defendant in a cross-
claim or the respondent in an action for declaratory relief may also file a motion for summary
judgments.
3. When may the plaintiff or other claiming parties file a motion for summary judgment? – The
plaintiff may file a motion for summary judgments at any time after he is served a copy of the
answer. What about the defendant, when may he file a motion for summary judgment? – Sec. 2
of rule 35 says that defendant may file a motion for summary judgment at any time. What does
“at any time” mean? – It appears open ended. Of course it could only mean after the court has
acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. But since the Rules allowed the defendant
to file a motion for summary judgment at any time, may he file it before he files his answer? – If
he can, if that is the intention of the Rules, then there would be a problem on two counts: first,
there is nothing in the old or in the amended Rules that says the filing by the defendant of a
motion for summary judgment will suspend the running of the period of filing his answer, and so
a defendant who files a motion for summary judgment before he files his answer will always run
the risk of being declared in default; second, before the defendant files his answer, factual issues,
whether genuine or sham, would not exist leaving the defendant no ground for a motion for
summary judgment. But let us leave these question and answer.
4. Let’s Segway to the more important aspect of a motion for summary judgment. On what
ground may the plaintiff or the defendant file a motion for summary judgment? – Sec.3 of Rule
35 provides us, although not too clearly, the ground for a motion for summary judgment: a
motion for summary judgment may be filed if, except for the amount of damages, there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact. Again, we are faced with a puzzle, when is there no genuine
issue as to any material fact? How does it happen that there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact?
5. To answer this question, we will against start with what we already know, we know that the
material fact is a fact alleged in the complaint that is essential to the plaintiff’s cause of action.
We also know that a factual issue arises only when the plaintiff asserts a fact in his complaint that
the defendant properly denies it in his answer. Knowing these, we can now conclude that there
is no genuine issue as to material facts when the defendants denial of the material facts are false
and contrive, thereby producing not genuine factual issues but spurious, sham and fictitious
ones. This is how the situation is created where although there are no genuine factual issues,
there exists sham, spurious and fictitious ones. This explains why when a party files a motion for
summary judgment, he is require to adduce evidence by citing and attaching to his motion,
affidavits and depositions of his witnesses, as well as admissions by the adverse party.
6. In the case of Phil. Bank of Communications v. Go, the SC explains that the summary judgment
is proper when there are no genuine issues of fact which call for the presentation of evidence in
a full blown trial. Instead, what exists are sham and spurious issues, thus, when the affidavits,
depositions and admissions cited and attached to the motion for summary judgment shows that
such factual issues are not genuine, then summary judgment must be rendered as a matter of
law.
7. In Adolfo v. Adolfo, the SC shines a light on the distinction between a motion for judgment on
the pleadings and a motion for summary judgment. In a motion for judgment on the pleadings,
there is no factual issue at all because of the failure of the defendant’s answer to raise or produce
any factual issue. On the other hand, in the case a motion for summary judgment, there appears
to be factual issues, only that they are not genuine but sham, spurious. Since there is no factual
issues at all in a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the moving party is not required to attach
to his motion affidavits, depositions and admissions. On the other hand, since factual issues
appear to exist in a motion for summary judgment, the moving party is required to adduce
evidence by way of affidavits, depositions, and admissions.
8. Please indulge me with a personal opinion. Frankly, I cannot think of a situation where the
defendant may properly file for a motion for summary judgment, if there is no genuine issue as
to any material fact, whose fault would that be? Could it be the plaintiff’s fault? – Of course not,
clearly it could only be the fault of the defendant. It was the defendant who made the false
denials giving rise to the spurious and sham factual issues thereby precluding the existence of
genuine issues. Therefore, allowing the defendant to file a motion for summary judgment and to
ask the court to render a judgment in his favor, is to reward him for his fault.
9. As a last word for summary judgments, since it is included in the list of litigious motions, under
Sec. 5 of Rule 15, a motion for summary judgment is therefore governed by the provisions in the
Rule pertaining to litigious motions.

Rule 36 – Judgments, Final Orders and Entry thereof

1. Let us start by defining judgment. What is a judgment? – A judgment is the final determination
by the Court of the respective rights and obligations of the parties in the action or proceeding.
To be valid, a judgment must satisfy certain requisites:
(a) the court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case and must have
acquired jurisdiction over the parties;
(b) it must be in writing;
(c) the judgment must be personally and directly prepared by the judge;
(d) the judgment must clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is
based; and
(e) it must be signed by the judge
2. The requirements that the judgment must state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on
which it is based is a constitutional requirement. Sec. 14, Art. 8 of the 1987 Constitution expressly
provides that no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
3. The SC had the occasion to interpret this constitutional provision, in the case of Miguel v. JCT
Group Inc., the Court ruled that a decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and
the law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was reached and especially
prejudicial to the losing party who is unable to pinpoint the possible errors of the Court for review
of a higher tribunal. The SC said, such decision is a patent nullity and should be struck down and
set aside as void.
4. Also, under Sec. 14, Art. 8 of the 1987 Constitution, an order of the Court denying a motion for
reconsideration of a judgment is deemed a judgment in itself and must therefore state clearly
and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. In another case, the SC ruled that an
order granting a demurrer to evidence partakes the nature of a judgment and must therefore
state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. In another case, the SC
declared that an order of a Court granting or denying a motion to dismiss being akin to a
judgment must likewise state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
5. Let us now discuss an important aspect of judgment which is rendition. Let us say the judge
has already personally and directly prepared the judgment in writing, he has clearly and distinctly
stated in the judgment the facts and the law on which it is based. And the judge has already
affixed his signature on the judgment. The question is, how will the judge render the judgment?
– Sec. 1 of Rule 36 tells us exactly how a judgment is rendered. A judgment is rendered when the
judge, after complying with all the requirements for a valid judgment, files the written copy of
the judgment with the clerk of court. It is the filing of the judge of the copy of the judgment with
the clerk of court which constitutes rendition of judgment.
6. What is the significance of the rendition of judgment? What happens upon rendition of
judgment? – A the exact moment the judge hands over a copy of the judgment, signed by him to
his clerk of court, the judgment becomes final, although not yet executory.
7. What does it mean that the judgment has become final? – it means that from that moment on
the judgment can no longer be changed, altered or modified even by the judge who rendered
the judgment itself. Before filing the judgment with the clerk of court, the judge can do whatever
he wants with the judgment, he can make the winning party lose, or he can make the losing party
win. If he wants, he can even throw the judgment to the waste basket. But once he files the
judgment with the clerk of court, who is the official custodian of all court records, the judgment
becomes officially part of the record of the case and it becomes final, although not yet executory.
8. After the judgment has been rendered, the Court will send usually by registered mail copies of
the judgment to all the parties of the case. Receipt by a party of the copy of the judgment is
referred to as notice of judgment. You cannot underestimate the significance of notice of
judgment, the notice of judgment for a party is the exact moment when his period to appeal the
judgment begins to run. If the proper mode of appeal is by notice of appeal, then the party has
15 days from notice of the judgment within which to appeal the judgment. If the proper mode of
appeal is by record on appeal, then he has a period of 30 days from notice of judgment within
which to appeal the same.
9. We have now discussed rendition of judgment and notice of judgment. Let us no discuss entry
of judgment. There are two ways by which, entry of judgment may be understood. We can
understand it as the exact time when the judgment becomes not only final, remember it became
final upon the rendition, but also executory or we can understand entry of judgment as the time
when the clerk of court enters the dispositive portion of the judgment in a book of entries of
judgment after the judgment has become final and executory. But since the clerk of court may
only enter the judgment in the book of entries of judgment after the judgment has become final
and executory, there is always a time lag, it could be weeks, it could even be months between
the time the judgment becomes final and executory and the time when the clerk of court actually
enters the judgment in the book of entries of judgment.
10. Before the effectivity of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, this was a constant source of
confusion. Sec. 2 of Rule 36 however, makes it now crystal clear that the date of finality of the
judgment or final order shall be deemed to be the date of its entry. What does this mean? – it
means that when we say “date of entry of judgment”, we are not referring to the date when the
clerk of court actually enter the judgment in the book of entries of judgment but to the day when
the judgment became final and executory.
11. I almost forgot to ask a very important question. When does a judgment become final and
executory? – a judgment becomes final and executory when the periods to appeal for all the
parties have expired and no appeal or a motion for new trial or reconsideration has been filed.
Why did I say “periods” to appeal? – The answer is simple, since the parties may receive the
judgment on different dates, they would naturally have different periods to appeal.
12. When may a court render what is referred to as several judgment? – When there are several
defendants in a case, the court deems is proper to render a judgment against one or some but
not all the defendants, leaving the case to proceed against the other defendants, the judgment
rendered by the court is called several judgment.
13. Another kind of judgment is called separate judgment. When may a court render a separate
judgment? – When several claims or reliefs are joined in one complaint, the court after resolving
all the issues pertaining to one or some but not all the claims or reliefs, may render judgments
on those claims or reliefs that have been resolved leaving the case to proceed with regards to
the remaining claims or reliefs. The judgment rendered by the court is called separate judgment.

Rule 37 – New Trial or Reconsideration

1. Let’s discuss the different remedies available to a party from the time he receives a copy of
the adverse judgment but before the judgment becomes final and executory. These remedies are
referred to as post-judgment remedies. The losing party has three (3) post-judgment remedies:
(a) He may file a motion for new trial;
(b) He may file a motion for reconsideration; and
(c) He may appeal the adverse judgment.
2. Of course, there is a fourth remedy and a very effective one. The losing party may fire his
counsel and replace him with someone who graduated from Arellano Law School, the best law
school in Donada St. (Jokerist si Sir)
3. Let us start with motion for new trial. When may the aggrieved party file a motion for new
trial? – He may file it at any time after he received a copy of the judgment but before the
judgment becomes final and executory. That is before the period to appeal expires.
4. When a party files for a motion for new trial, what relief or reliefs he is asking from the Court?
What does he want the court to do with regards to the adverse judgment? – When an aggrieved
party files a motion for new trial, he wants the court to do two things for him:
(a) He wants the court to set aside the adverse judgment, in other words render the
judgment nugatory;
(b) The aggrieved party wants the court to grant him a new trial or another chance to
present his evidence.
5. Let us now go another aspect of a motion for new trial. On what grounds may the aggrieved
party file a motion for new trial? – Under Sec. 1 of Rule 37, there are two grounds for a motion
for new trial. I will paraphrase the provision of the Rule to make it easier for us to understand
and to remember these provisions. What you understand, you easily remember. The grounds
are:
(a) the substantial rights of the aggrieved party during the trial of the case might have
been impaired due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence.
6. To understand this ground, we should know exactly what are the substantial rights of a party
during the trial of a case? We know that the main purpose of a trial is to give the parties the
opportunity to present evidence in support of the allegations in his pleading. Knowing this, we
can conclude that the most important right of a party during the trial of a case is to be able to
present his evidence either in support of his cause of action or of his defense. When a party
therefore is prevented from presenting his evidence during the trial of the case, due to fraud,
accident, mistake or excusable negligence, resulting in a judgment against him, then he has a
valid ground for filing a motion for a new trial. This is what is meant by the phrase, “the aggrieved
party substantial rights during the trial might have been impaired”. This is the reason why, when
a party files a motion for new trial, he ask the court to set aside the judgment and grant him a
new trial so that he can present the evidence which he was prevented from presenting during
the trial of the case, due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence. But the court will
not just accept this ground on its face value, the party moving for a new trial on this ground must
show to the court that despite his exercise of ordinary diligence, the fraud, accident, mistake or
excusable negligence still happened.
7. In the case of Padilla-Rumbaua v. Rumbaua, the SC ruled that the blunders and mistakes
committed by the party’s counsel during the trial of the case due to his ignorance and
inexperience or incompetence do not qualify as a ground for new trial. If such were to be
admitted as valid grounds, according to the SC, there would never be an end to litigation so long
as a new counsel could be employed to alleged and show that the prior counsel had not been
sufficiently diligent, experienced or learned.
 (b) An aggrieved party may also file a motion for new trial on the ground of newly
discovered evidence.
8. Newly discovered evidence refers to evidence that the aggrieved party discovered only after
the trial of the case. Since the aggrieved party discovered the evidence only after the trial of the
case, obviously he could have not produced and presented it during the trial. But before the court
will accept newly discovered evidence as a ground for a motion for new trial, the moving party
must show to the court the concurrence of three (3) requisites.
9. In the case of Mendoza v. Ozamis, the Sc laid down these three (3) requisites:
(a) the evidence must have been discovered after trial;
(b) the evidence could not have been discovered and produced during the trial even with
the exercise of reasonable diligence; and
(c) the evidence is not merely corroborative or cumulative but it must be of such weight
that if admitted, it would probably change the judgment from one that is adverse
to the aggrieve party to one that is favorable to him.
10. Let us now go to the second post-judgment remedy which is motion for reconsideration.
When may the aggrieved party file for a motion for reconsideration? – He may file it at any time
after notice of judgment but before the judgment becomes final and executory.
11. On what ground may the aggrieved party file a motion for reconsideration? – Under Par. 2,
Sec. 1 of Rule 37, a motion for reconsideration may be filed on any of three (3) grounds:
(a) that the damages awarded are excessive;
(b) that the evidence is insufficient to justify the judgment; and
(c) that the judgment is contrary to law.
12. Take note that the three (3) ground for filing a motion for reconsideration are also grounds
for an appeal of the judgment. A party having these grounds therefore may choose between filing
a motion for reconsideration or appealing the judgment.
13. When a party files a motion for reconsideration, he is no complaining that he was prevented
from presenting his evidence during the trial, in fact, by filing a motion for reconsideration the
movant is admitting that he was able to present all his evidence during the trial. His complaint is
that the court in deciding the case misappreciated his evidence or that the court excluded his
evidence which under the rules on Evidence should have been admitted or that the court
admitted adverse party’s evidence which under the rules on Evidence should have been excluded
or that the court applied the wrong law to the case or while the correct law was applied to the
case, the court misinterpreted it. These are what are referred to as errors of fact and errors of
law.
14. As you can see, while the remedy of motion for reconsideration is interchangeable with the
remedy of appeal, it is not so with the remedy of motion for new trial. A motion for new trial and
a motion for reconsideration have different grounds and different reliefs prayed for. Both
remedies are however covered by the Omnibus Motion Rule.
15. As you may remember, the Omnibus Motion Rule provides that a motion that attacks a
pleading, order, judgment or proceeding shall include the objections then available and those
objections that are not included are deemed waived. This the reason why the filing of a second
motion for new trial or reconsideration is prohibited. When a party files a motion for new trial or
reconsideration, he should include all available grounds because he is not allowed to file a second
motion for new trial or reconsideration. Under Rule 15, both a motion for new trial and
reconsideration are listed as litigious motions and…