RULE  37  (MNT/MR)  

MOTION  FOR  NEW  TRIAL   MOTION  FOR  RECONSIDERATION  
Remedy  that  seeks  to  temper  the  severity  of  judgment  or  prevent  the  failure  of  justice   ONLY  ASKING  FOR  RECONSIDERATION  OF  THE  JUDGMENT  OR  FINAL  ORDER  BASED  ON  THE  SAME  ISSUES,  CONTENTIONS  AND  
Ø   Discretionary  to  court  w chihc  cannot  be  interfered  w ith  UNLESS  clear  abuse  thereof  is  shown   EVIDNCE  
GROUNDS  
WHICH  ORDINARY  PRUDENCE  COULD  NOT  HAVE  GUARDED  AGAINST    +  BY  REASON  OF  W HICH,  AGGRIEVED  PARTY  PROBABLY  HAVE  BEEN  IMPAIRED  IN  HIS  RIGHTS   Ø   Abandonment  of  her  case  by  former  valid  ground  for  Motion  for  
MUT  BE  EXTRINSIC  OR  COLLATERAL  FRAUD:  w here  it  prevents  a  party  from  having  a  trial  or  from  presenting  his  entire  case  to  the  court  or  w here  it  operates  upon  m atters  pertaining  not  to  the   New  Trial  not  an  MR  
judgment  itself  but  to  the  m anner  in  w hich  it  is  procured.    
Ø   Fraudulent  scheme  of  the  prevailing  litigant  prevented  a  party  from  having  his  day  in  court.  
 
Ø   One  that  goes  into  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court   NOTE:   MR   based   on   “evidence   insufficient   to   justify   the   decision   or  
Ø   Any  fraudulent  act  of  the  prevailing  party  committed  outside  of  the  trial  of  the  case  w hich  w as  intended  to  keep  the  unsuccessful  party  away  from  courts   final   order”   must   point   out   specifically   the   findings   or   conclusions   of  
FRAUD    
EXAMPLES   the  judgment  or  final  order  which  are  not  supported  by  the  evidence  
1.   Promise  to  compromise   or   which   are   “contrary   to   law”,   making   specific   reference   to   the  
2.   When  w inning  party  deliberately  caused,  w ith  process  server’s  connivance,  service  of  summons  on  defendant  to  the  w rong  address.  
 
testimonial  or  documentary  evidence  presented  or  to  the  provisions  
Ø   Presentation  at  trial  of  supposed  forged  document  or  false  perjured  testimony  is  INTRINSIC  FRAUD   of  law  alleged  to  be  violated.  
ACCIDENT   Must  be  something  w hich  ordinary  prudence  could  not  have  guarded  against  and  by  reason  of  w hich  the  party  applying  has  probably  been  impaired  in  his  rights   Ø   MR  cannot  be  used  as  vehicle  to  introduce  new  evidence.  
MUST  BE  M ISTAKE  OF  FACT   Ø   Winning  litigants  may  also  more  for  MR  of  a  part  or  parts  of  a  
MISTAKE  
Ø   Failure  to  file  an  answer  because  of  belief  that  RTC  did  not  acquire  jurisdiction  is  m istake  of  law  w hich  cannot  be  a  ground  for  new  trial   decision  or  final  order  
EXCUSIBLE  NEGLIGENCE:  w hether  a  party  has  acted  w ith  ordinary  prudence  w hile  transacting  important  business.  (THERE  M UST  BE  AN  EXERCISE  OF  ORDINARY  PRUDENCE)   1.   DAMAGES    
Ø   New  trial  is  not    w arranted  by  simple  negligence  of  counsel.      
AWAREDED   ARE  
JURISPRUDENCE  TO  REMEMBER:  
1.   Where  counsel  resorts  to  dilatory  schemes  such  as     EXCESSIVE  
a.   Filing  at  least  3  m otion  to  extend  to  file  answer    
b.   Non-­‐‑appearance  during  scheduled  pre-­‐‑trials   2.   EVIDENCE   IS  
c.   Failure  to  file  petitioner’s  pre-­‐‑trial  brief  even  after  several  m otions  to  extend   INSUFFICIENT   TO  
There   is   a   plain   disregard   of   some   duty   imposed   by   law,   a   slight   w ant   of   care   that   the   circumstances   reasonable   impose   and   a   m ere   failure   to   exercise   that   degree   of   care   that   an  
JUSTIFY   THE  
ordinary  prudent  person  w ould  take  under  the  circumstances.    
EXCUSABLE  
2.   Failure  of  counsel  to  attend  pretrial  because  he  w as  sick  did  not  constitute  excusable  negligence  to  w arrant  new  trial  (doesn’t  this  fall  under  accident)   DECISION   OR   FINAL  
NEGLIGENCE   ORDER  
3.   Counsel’s  failure  to  attend  7  scheduled  hearings  for  reception  of  evidence  is  inexcusable  –  hearings  cancelled  w ithout  any  justification.  
4.   Blunders  and  m istakes  in  the  counduct  of  the  proceedings  in  the  trial  court  as  a  result  of  ignorance,  inexperience  or  incompetence  of  counsel  do  not  qualify  as  ground  for  new  trial.  To  do    
so  w ould  put  a  premium  on  the  w illful  and  intentional  commission  of  errors  by  counsel  w ith  a  view  of  securing  new  trials  in  the  event  of  conviction  or  adverse  decision   3.   DECISION   OR   FINAL  
  ORDER   IS  
WHEN  ALLOWED  DUE  TO  NEGLIGENCE  OF  COUNSEL  
CONTRARY  TO  LAW  
If   the   incompetence,   ignorance   or   inexperience   of   counsel   is   so   great   and   the   error   committed   as   a   result   thereof   is   so   serious   that   the   clients,   w ho   otherwise   has   a   good   cause,   is   prejudiced  
and  denied  his  day  in  court,  the  litigation  m ay  be  opened  to  give  the  client  another  chance  to  present  his  case.  
Ø   For  a  claim  of  counsel’s  negligence  to  prosper,  nothing  short  of  abandonment  of  the  client’s  cause  must  be  shown.  (Multi-­‐‑Trans:  in  this  case  only  pleading  filed  is  motion  to  dismiss  +  
misrepresented  to  petitioner  that  he  had  filed  the  proper  m otion  to  set  aside  the  order  of  default)  
REQUISITES  FOR  NEWLY  DISCOVERED  EVIDNCE  
1.   Evidence  discovered  after  trial  
2.   Such  evidence  could  not  have  been  discovered  and  produced  at  the  trial  w ith  reasonable  diligence  
3.   Is  m aterial,  not  m erely  cumulative,  corroborative  or  impeaching  
4.   It  is  of  such  w eight  that  if  admitted,  w ill  probably  change  the  judgment.    
NEWLY    
DISCOVERED   WHAT  M UST  BE  ATTACHED  
EVIDNCE   1.   Affidavits  of  w itnesses  by  w hom  such  evidence  is  expected  to  be  given  
2.   Duly  authenticated  documents  w hich  are  proposed  to  be  introduced  as  evidence  
NOTE:  party  offering  m ust  have  exercised  REASONABLE  DILIGENCE  in  seeking  to  locate  the  evidence  before  or  during  the  trial  but  nonetheless  failed  to  secure  it.    
Ø   Great  caution  required  due  to  danger  of  perjury  and  m anifest  injustice  of  allowing  a  party  to  allege  that  w hich  m ay  be  th  consequence  e  of  his  own  neglect  to  defeat  an  adverse  judgment  
Ø   A  party  w ho  knows  of  existence  of  specific  pieces  of  evidence  cannot  offer  them  as  newly  discovered  evidence  w ithout  any  explanation  for  not  presenting  them  earlier.  
Ø   If  documents  belatedly  submitted  are  public  documents,  they  are  not  considered  as  newly  discovered  since  these  could  be  secured  during  trial.  
WHEN  TO  FILE:  w ithin  period  for  taking  appeal  (AFTER  JUDGMENT  BUT  BEFORE  FINALITY)  
PRO  FORMA  M OTION  FOR  NEW  TRIAL:  shall  not  toll  the  reglementary  period  of  appeal.  
NO  M OTION  FOR  EXTENSION  TO  FILE:  except  w hen  pending  in  the  SC  (discretionary)  
Ø   There  is  grave  abuse  of  discretion  w hen  court  allowed  m otion  for  extension  to  file  m otion  for  reconsideration  just  because  it  w as  
stated  therein  that  petitioner  is  a  permanent  resident  of  Australia  
MAY  BE  A  REMEDY  TO  PARTY  DECARED  IN  DEFAULT:    w hen  judgment  has  been  rendered  w hen  defendant  discovered  default,  but  before  finality,  FILE  NEW  TRIAL   Ø   Not  allowed  even  if  petitioner’s  m otion  grounded  on  m edical  condition  of  counsel  w ho  had  suffered  bran  dead  stroke  
Ø   Proper  only  after  rendition  of  judgment  or  issuance  of  final  order.   Ø   Motion  m ust  reveal  a  bona  fide  effort  to  present  additional  m atters  or  to  reiterate  its  argument  in  a  different  light.  
   
MOTION  FOR  NEW  TRIAL   MOTION  TO  REOPEN  TRIAL   PRO  FORMA  M OTION  FOR  RECONSIDERATION  
AFTER  JUDGMENT  BUT  BEFORE  FINALITY   AFTER  CASE  SUBMITTED  FOR  DECISION  BUT  BEFORE  JUDGMENT   One  that  has  no  purpose  than  to  gain  time  and  to  delay  or  impede  the  proceedings.  
   
Ø   Where  asked  for  only  after  appellate  court  had  rendered  its  decision  on  appeal,  m otion  for  new  trial  held  to  be  m oot  and  academic.     DEEMED  PRO  FORMA  
TIONGCO  v.  DEGUMA:  Received  decicion  Aug  5,  Aug  14  filed  M R  before  resolution,  filed  PR  (September  9)   1.   When  it  is  a  second  M R  
Ø   PR  belatedly  filed.  Still  counted  from  Aug  5.  A  m otion  for  reconsideration  w ill  not  necessarily  preclude  a  m otion  for  new  trial  as  long  as  it  w as  also  filed  on  time.     2.   When   it   did   not   comply   w ith   the   rule   that   the   m otion   m ust   specify   the   findings   and   conclusions   alleged   to   be   contrary   to  
  law  or  not  supported  to  evidence  
FAME   NEWLY  DISCOVERED  EVIDENCE   3.   When  it  failed  to  substantiate  the  alleged  errors  
Affidavit  of  m erit  w hich  m ay  be  rebutted  by  affidavits   3.   Affidavits  of  w itnesses  by  w hom  such  evidnce  is  expected  to  be  given   4.   When  it  m erely  alleged  that  the  decision  in  question  w as  contrary  to  law  
1.   Showing  facts     4.   Duly  authenticated  documents  w hich  are  proposed  to  be  introduced  as   5.   When  the  adverse  party  w as  not  given  notice  thereof  
2.   valid  cause  of  action   evidence.    
  Ø   An  M R  not  pro  forma  just  because  it  reiterated  the  arguments  earlier  passed  upon  and  rejected  by  the  appellate  court.  A  m ovant  
NOTE:  allegations  that  petitioner  has  m eritorious  defense  and  good  cause  are  m ere   may  raise  the  same  arguments  precisely  to  convince  the  court  that  its  ruling  w as  erroneous.  
conclusions  w hich  do  not  provide  the  court  w ith  any  basis  for  determining  the  nature  and   Ø   The  that  a  motion  is  pro  forma  if  it  only  repeats  the  arguments  in  the  previous  pleadings  will  not  apply  if  said  arguments  were  
merit  fo  the  case   not  squarely  passed  upon  and  answered  in  the  decision  sought  to  be  reconsidered.  
  Ø   Not  because  not  pro  forma  m eans  m eritorious  na    
  Ø   Anton  filed  M R  but  did  not  contain  notice  of  hearing.  To  cure,  filed  m otion  to  set  M R  for  hearing  after  the  period  of  filing   M R  has  
lapsed.  Court  said  fatally  defective  M R  cannot  be  cured  by  the  belated  filing  of  a  notice  of  hearing  m ore  so  in  this  case  w here  the  
Motion  to  set  the  M R  w as  filed  after  the  expiration  of  the  period  for  filing  an  appeal.  

  1  

REZIENE  I.  ESTEBAN  &  ANTONIO  KARLO  NOGUERA  |  BLOCK  3A  ATENEO  LAW  SCHOOL  BATCH  2019  
  
GONZALES:  allowed  2nd  MR  because  CA  varied  final  and  executory  judgment  of  the  Labor  Arbiter,  as  modified  on  appeal  and  ultimately  
affirmed  by  the  SC.  (doctrine  that  an  order  of  execution  that  varies  the  tenor  of  final  and  executory  judgment  is  null  and  void)  

CONTENTS  AND  NOTICE  

CONTENTS:   CONTENTS:  
1.   In  w riting   1.   In  w riting  
2.   Grounds  relied  upon   2.   Grounds  relied  upon  
3.   Written  notice  served  on  other  party   3.   Point  out  specific  findings  and  conclusions  not  supported  by  evidence  with  reference  to  testimonial  and  documentary  
4.   Proven  in  m anner  provided  for  proof  of  other  m otions   evidemce  
5.   +ATTACHMENTS  (AFFIDAVIT  OF  M ERIT/AFFIDAVIT  OF  W ITNESSES  OR  DULY  AUTHENTICATED  RECORDS)   4.   Point  out  specific  findings  and  conclusions  contrary  to  law  (and  state  w hat  law)  
NOTICE:  Given  not  later  than  10  days  after  filing  and  in  a  m anner  as  to  ensure  receipt  by  other  party  at  least  3  days  before  the  date  of  the  hearing  unless  the  court  for  good  cause  sets  haring  on  shorter  notice  
Ø   Movant  needs  to  set  the  time  and  place  of  hearing  of  its  m otion  (this  is  contained  in  the  notice)  
Ø   Mandatory  and  non-­‐‑compliance  therewith  is  fatal  and  renders  the  m otion  pro-­‐‑forma  
 
OMNIBUS  M OTION  RULE:  m otion  shall  include  all  grounds  then  available  and  those  not  included  shall  be  deemed  w aived.  
 
RESOLUTION:  W ITHIN  30  DAYS  FROM  TIME  SUBMITTED  FOR  RESOLUTION  
FAILURE  TO  DECIDE  W ITHIN  THE  30  DAY  PERIOD  (VIOLATION  OF  RIGHT  TO  SPEEDY  DISPOSITION  OF  CASES)  
JUDGE  M AY  BE  H EALD  ADMINISTRATIVELY  LIABLE  FOR  UNDUE  DELAY/GROSS  INEFFICIENCY  
SECOND  M OTION:  based  on  ground  neither  existing  nor  available  w hen  the  first  m otion  w as  m ade,  m ay  be  filed  w ithin  the  time  herein  provided,  excluding  the  time  during  w hich  the  first  m otion  had  been   NO  SECOND  M R  OF  JUDGEMNT  OR  FINAL  ORDER  
pending.       NOTE:  If  interlocutory  order  allowed  (but  m ay  be  denied  if  m ere  rehash  of  arguments  already  passed  upon  and  resolved  by  court)  

ACTION  OF  THE  COURT  

GRANT   PARTIAL  NEW  TRIAL   DENY   GRANT   PARTIAL  MR   DENY  
1.   If  grounds  affect  issues  only  as  to  
only  a  part  or  less  than  all,  of  the  
parties   to   it,   court   issues   MR   to  
1.   If  grounds  affect  issues  only  as  to  only  a  part  or  less  than  all,  
1.   original   judgment   or   final   order   vacated   and   action   shall   such  issues  IF  SEVERABLE    
of  the  parties  to  it,  court  issues  new  trial  to  such  issues     If   court   fins   that   the   excessive   damages  
stand  trial  de  novo.   2.   Without   interfering   with   the  
2.   IF  SEVERABLE  w ithout  interfering  w ith  the  judgment  or   have   been   awarded   or   that   the   judgment  
2.   Recorded  evidence  taken  upon  the  former  trial,  in  so  far  as   judgment   or   final   order   upon   Not  appealable,  remedy  being  an  appeal  
final  order  upon  the  rest.     Not  appealable,  remedy  being  an  appeal  from  judgment  or  final  order  
the   same   is   m aterial   and   competent   to   establish   issue,   shall   or  final  order  is  contrary  to  the  evidnce  or   the  rest.     from  judgment  or  final  order  
3.   Court  may  either  enter  a  judgment  or  final  order  as  to  the    
be  used  at  the  new  trial  w ithout  retaking  the  same.  
rest,  or  stay  the  enforcement  of  such  judgment  or  final  order   law,   it   m ay   AMEND   such   judgment   or   3.   Court   may   either   enter   a    
  final  order   judgment   or   final   order   as   to   the  
until  after  the  new  trial.  
  rest,   or   stay   the   enforcement   of  
 
such  judgment  or  final  order  until  
after  the  new  trial.  
 

  2  

REZIENE  I.  ESTEBAN  &  ANTONIO  KARLO  NOGUERA  |  BLOCK  3A  ATENEO  LAW  SCHOOL  BATCH  2019  
  
RULE  37:  NEW  TRIAL  OR  RECONSIDERATION    
  GROUNDS  FOR  NEW  TRIAL  
NEW  TRIAL:  Re-­‐‑hearing  of  case  to  expunge  errors  of  law  and  irregularities  from  the   FAME   FRAUD:  extrinsic  or  collateral:  deprived  
record  or  new  evidence  is  introduced  or  both.   the  party  of  his  day  in  court  
 
 
ACCIDENT:   event   which   took   place  
MOTION  FOR  RECONSIDERATION:  rule  37  pertains  to  MR  of  judgments  and  final   without  one’s  foresight;  unexpected  
orders    
  MISTAKE:   Mistake   of   fact.   (must   be  
QUESTION:   Can   an   MR   or   motion   for   New   Trial   be   filed   against   a   judgment   in   a   mistake   by   the   party   expt.   Mistake   of  
summary  procedure?  NO   counsel  when  amounting  to  fraud)  
 
QUESTION:  Can  an  MR  or  motion  for  New  Trial  be  filed  against  a  judgment  in  small  
EXCUSABLE   NEGLIGENCE:   must   have  
claims?  NO   been   so   gross.   (negligence   of   the   party  
  and  not  of  the  counsel)  
NOTE:   NO   MOTION   FOR   EXTENSION   OF   TIME   TO   FILE   A   MOTION   SHALL   BE    
ALLOWED.  (EXCEPT  WHEN  IN  SC  –  DISCRETIONARY)   EXCPT:  
  1.   Party  is  deprived  of  due  process  
2.   When   applying   the   rules   would  
NEW  TRIAL   RECONSIDERATION   deprive   client   of   property   or  
1.   FAME     1.   DAMAGE   AWARDED   IS   liberty  
2.   NEWLY  DISCOVERED  EVIDENCE   EXCESSIVE   3.   Interest  of  justice  requires  
2.   DECISION   NOT   SUPPORTED   BY    
EVIDENCE   CANNOT   BE   GROUND   FOR   NEW   TRIAL  
3.   DECISION  IS  CONTRARY  TO  LAW   ON  APPEAL  
2ND   motion   ALLOWED   ONLY   IF   SECOND  MOTION  FROM  SAME  PARTY    
GROUND   NEWLY   DISCOVERED   IS   PROHIBITED   (FINAL   ORDERS   AND   NEWLY  DISCOVERED  EVIDENCE   REQUISITES  (BERRY  RULE)  
(meaning  not  existing  during  the  filing  of   JUDGMENTS)   1.   Discovered  after  trial  (temporal)  
the  first  motion)     2.   Could   not   have   been   discovered  
  If   INTERLOCUTORY   ORDER,   MR   is   even   with   reasonable   diligence  
2ND  MOTION  TO  BE  FILED   WITHIN  THE   allowed  kahit  2x  pa.     (predictive)  
PERIOD   TO   APPEAL   EXCLUDING   THE   3.   Material  evidence  
TIME   1ST   IS   PENDING.   (YUNG   NATIRA   4.   Would  probably  alter  the  result  of  
NALANG)   the  action  
ORIGINAL  JUDGMENT  VACATED,  TRIAL   IF   EXCESSIVE   DAMAGE/CONTRARY   TO    
DE  NOVO,  TRIED  ANEW   LAW  –  COURT  MAY  AMEND   GROUND  FOR  NEW  TRIAL  ON  APPEAL  
AVAILABLE   ON   APPEAL   (NEWLY   AVAILABLE   IN   TRIAL   AND   APPELLATE    
DISCOVERED  EVIDENCE  ONLY)   COURTS   NOTE:  need  not  be  newly  created.  Should  
PROHIBITED  MOTIONS  IN  SUMMARY  PROCEDURE  AND  SMALL  CLAIMS   be   “could   not   have   been   secured   even  
CONTENTS   with  reasonable  diligence)  
1.   In  writing    
2.   Notice  to  the  other  parties  
3.   Ground  relied  upon  
FAME:  GROUND  FOR  THE  FOLLOWING  REMEDIES  
AFFIDAVIT  OF  MERIT   1.   Affidavit  of  witnesses   1.   Motion  to  lift  order  of  default  
1.   Nature  of  FAME   2.   Duly  authenticated  documents   2.   Motion  for  new  trial  
2.   Facts   constituting   cause   of   3.   Must   point   out   findings   and  
action  for  motion   conclusions   not   supported   by  
3.   Petition  for  relief  
The   evidence   which   he   intends   to   evidence/contrary  to  law    
present   if   granted   (should   probably     NEYPES  RULE:  FRESH  PERIOD  RULE  (NEYPES  V.  CA)  
change  the  result)  
When  motion  for  new  trial  or  reconsideration  is  denied,  the  party  has  a  
If  granted  on  ground  of  FAME:  material    
evidence  taken  before  shall  be  used  in   fresh   15   days   to   file   an   appeal   from   notice   of   denial   of   motion.   (THIS  
the  new  trial.   ISN’T  APPLICABLE  TO  ADMIN  CASES)    
   
Note:   If   newly   discovered   evidence,   no  
need   naman   for   trial,   admitted   lang   NOTE:  FOR  A  CASE  TO  BE  DISMISSED,  IT  HAS  TO  BE  UPON  MOTION  BY  
yung  new  evidence.     PARTY.    
   
If   order   granting   new   trial   is   set   aside,  
former  judgment  is  reinstated.    
MOTION  DECIDED  IN  30  DAYS  
 
NOTE:  cannot  appeal  order  of  denial  nor  go  straight  to  certiorari.  APPEAL  MO  
YUNG  JUDGMENT  AND  ASSIGN  AS  ERROR  
 
 
 

  3  

REZIENE  I.  ESTEBAN  &  ANTONIO  KARLO  NOGUERA  |  BLOCK  3A  ATENEO  LAW  SCHOOL  BATCH  2019