MENDEZONA vs. OZAMIZ, – G.R. No.

143370, February 6, 2002

Facts:
Petitioner filed a case in RTC for an action of to remove a cloud on their respective titles caused by the inscription thereon
of a notice of lis pendens, which came about as a result of an incident in Special Proceeding of the RTC of Oroquieta City,
a proceeding for guardianship over the person and properties of Carmen Ozamiz, the original owner of the said land. The
respondents objected removal of the cloud in the title as they alleged that the deed of sale of the property of Carme to the
petitioner was simulated as Carmen allegedly was already incapacitated due to her advanced aged. RTC ruled in favor of
the petitioner, hence respondent elevated the said case to the CA to which the appellate court reverse the decision of the
RTC.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the appellate court. Subsequent thereto, the petitioners
filed a motion for a new trial and/or for reception of evidence. They contended, among other things, that the appellate
court totally ignored the testimony of Judge Teodorico Durias regarding the mental condition of Carmen Ozamiz a month
before the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale in question. The said testimony was taken in the Special Proceeding in
the Regional Trial Court of Oroquieta City. However, Judge Durias was not presented as a witness in Civil Case No. CEB-
10766 in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. Petitioners alleged that Judge Durias’s testimony is newly-discovered
evidence which could not have been discovered prior to the trial in the court below by the exercise of due diligence. The
appellate court denied both motions. Hence the elevation of this case to the SC.

Issue:
whether to CA erred in not considering the testimony of Judge Durias as newly discovered evidence as grounds for new
trial.

Held:
No, A motion for new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence is properly granted only where there is
concurrence of the following requisites, namely: (a) the evidence had been discovered after trial; (b) the evidence could
not have been discovered and produced during trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; and (c) the evidence
is material and not merely corroborative, cumulative or impeaching and is of such weight that if admitted, would probably
alter the result. All three (3) requisites must characterize the evidence sought to be introduced at the new trial.

We find that the requirement of reasonable diligence has not been met by the petitioners. It has been held that a lack of
diligence is exhibited where the newly discovered evidence was necessary or proper under the pleadings, and its
existence must have occurred to the party in the course of the preparation of the case, but no effort was made to secure it;
there is a failure to make inquiry of persons who were likely to know the facts in question, especially where information
was not sought from co-parties; there is a failure to seek evidence available through public records; there is a failure to
discover evidence that is within the control of the complaining party; there is a failure to follow leads contained in other
evidence; and, there is a failure to utilize available discovery procedures. Thus, the testimony of Judge Durias cannot be
considered as newly discovered evidence to warrant a new trial

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LI KA KIM alias ED, – G.R. No. 148586, May 25, 2004

Facts:
Appellant accused was arrested in a buy-bust operation and was charged of Violation of the Selling Dangerous Drugs.
Appellant accused was also found to be and illegal alien staying in the Philippines and the car that he was using was
reportedly stolen. The RTC ruled in favor of the prosecution and found the accused guilty and sentenced to suffer the
Death Penalty. Hence the case was elevated to the SC for automatic review.

Initially, appellant, in this appeal, was represented by Atty. Eldorado Lim, who filed a brief for the defense. On 04 October
2002, Fernandez, Pacheco & Dizon Law Offices filed its entry of appearance as being the new counsel for appellant only
to be substituted later by Guzman, Tanedo, & Acain Law Offices. On 10 June 2003, the Court noted and granted the
request of the law firm to be furnished with copies of all motions, orders, resolutions and judgment in connection with the
case. On 01 September 2003, appellant filed a motion to remand the case for new trial. In his motion, appellant would
attempt to overturn his conviction or, at the very least, to be given a chance for a new trial, citing Section 14, Rule 121, of
the Rules on Criminal Procedure, because of newly discovered evidence, i.e., his passport which would establish his true
identity as Huang Xiao Wei, a Chinese National, and as having entered the Philippines as a tourist. Invoking his
constitutional right to an effective counsel, appellant chides his former counsel for having failed to secure and present his
travel documents.
Issue:
Whether the passport of the accused may be considered newly discovered evidence which justifies his motion for a new
trial?

Held:
No, The requisites of newly discovered evidence in order to justify a new trial are that – (a) the evidence is discovered
after trial; (b) such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of
reasonable diligence; and (c) the evidence is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching, and of such
weight that, if admitted, would likely change the judgment.

Not one of the requisites mentioned is attendant. Appellant’s passport could have easily been presented and produced
during the trial. Then, too, the presentation of appellant’s passport, would hardly be material to the outcome of the case.
Appellant was positively identified by the prosecution witnesses as being the perpetrator of the crime. Most importantly,
appellant even identified himself as Li Ka Kim at the trial and not as Huang Xiao Wei, that bolsters the conclusion that
appellant deliberately concealed his true identity in the nefarious enterprise.

Rowena Padilla-Rumbaua Vs. Edward Rumbaua – G.R. No. 166738, August 14, 2009

Facts:
Petitioner filed a complaint against respondent for Nullity of Marriage using the ground of Article 36 of the Family code or
psychologically incapacitated to exercise the essential obligations of marriage. Petitioner submitted her Judicial Affidavits,
Testimonies, and the Psychological Report of s Psychologist as her evidence. The RTC ruled in favor of the complainant
and nullify the said Marriage. However, the office of the Solicitor General appealed the decision of the RTC to the CA
alleging among others was the insufficiency of evidence of the petitioner. CA granted the petition of the OSG and reversed
and set aside the decision of the RTC. In her appeal to the SC, petitioner assigned that the CA erred in reversing the
decision of the RTC, instead of vacating the decision of the courts a quo and remanding the case to the RTC to recall her
expert witness and cure the defects in her testimony, as well as to present additional evidence, would temper justice with
mercy. The petitioner maintains that vacating the lower courts’ decisions and the remand of the case to the RTC for further
reception of evidence are procedurally permissible. She argues that the inadequacy of her evidence during the trial was
the fault of her former counsel, Atty. Richard Tabago, and asserts that remanding the case to the RTC would allow her to
cure the evidentiary insufficiencies. She posits in this regard that while mistakes of counsel bind a party, the rule should be
liberally construed in her favor to serve the ends of justice.

Issue:
Whether the CA erred in not remanding the case back to the RTC instead of dismissing it completely.

Held:
No. A remand of the case to the RTC for further proceedings amounts to the grant of a new trial that is not procedurally
proper at this stage. Section 1 of Rule 37 provides that an aggrieved party may move the trial court to set aside a
judgment or final order already rendered and to grant a new trial within the period for taking an appeal. In addition, a
motion for new trial may be filed only on the grounds of (1) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence that could not
have been guarded against by ordinary prudence, and by reason of which the aggrieved party’s rights have probably been
impaired; or (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, the aggrieved party could not have discovered
and produced at the trial, and that would probably alter the result if presented.
In the present case, the petitioner cites the inadequacy of the evidence presented by her former counsel as basis for a
remand. She did not, however, specify the inadequacy. That the RTC granted the petition for declaration of nullity prima
facie shows that the petitioner’s counsel had not been negligent in handling the case. Granting arguendo that the
petitioner’s counsel had been negligent, the negligence that would justify a new trial must be excusable, i.e. one that
ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against. The negligence that the petitioner apparently adverts to
is that cited in Uy v. First Metro Integrated Steel Corporation where we explained:

Blunders and mistakes in the conduct of the proceedings in the trial court as a result of the ignorance, inexperience or
incompetence of counsel do not qualify as a ground for new trial. If such were to be admitted as valid reasons for re-
opening cases, there would never be an end to litigation so long as a new counsel could be employed to allege and show
that the prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent, experienced or learned. This will put a premium on the willful and
intentional commission of errors by counsel, with a view to securing new trials in the event of conviction, or an adverse
decision, as in the instant case. Thus, we find no justifiable reason to grant the petitioner’s requested remand.
NAPOLEON D. SENIT vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, – G.R. No. 192914, January 11, 2016

Facts:
Petitioner a Bus driver was charged with Reckless Imprudence resulting to multiple injuries when it collided with a pickup
truck containing 5 passengers. Upon being arraigned on June 21, 2001, the petitioner, with the assistance of his counsel,
pleaded not guilty to the Information in this case. Trial ensued. However, after the initial presentation of evidence for the
petitioner, he resigned from his employment and transferred residence. His whereabouts allegedly became unknown, so
he was not presented as a witness by his new counsel.

The RTC rendered its Decision in absentia convicting the petitioner of the crime charged. The petitioner then filed a
motion for new trial via registered mail on the ground that errors of law or irregularities have been committed during trial
that are allegedly prejudicial to his substantial rights. He claimed that he was not able to present evidence during trial
because he was not notified of the schedule. Likewise, he mistakenly believed that the case against him has been
dismissed as private complainant purportedly left the country. The RTC denied the motion, hence appealing the case to
CA. CA affirmed the decision of the RTC in denying the petitioners motion for new trial. Hence this case.

Issue:
Whether the lower courts erred in denying the motion for new trial or to re-open the same in order to allow the petitioner to
present evidence on his behalf.

Held:
No, The Court finds that no errors of law or irregularities, prejudicial to the substantial rights of the petitioner, have been
committed during trial. The petitioner’s claims that he had not testified because he did not know the schedule of the
hearings, and mistakenly believed that the case had already been terminated with the departure of the complainant do not
merit our consideration.
The holding of trial in absentia is authorized under Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution which provides that
after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified
and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. It is established that notices have been served to the counsel of the petitioner and
his failure to inform his counsel of his whereabouts is the reason for his failure to appear on the scheduled date. Thus, the
arguments of the petitioner against the validity of the proceedings and promulgation of judgment in absentia for being in
violation of the constitutional right to due process are doomed to fail.

The negligence of the petitioner in believing that the case was already terminated resulting to his failure to attend the
hearings, is inexcusable.

[Appeals in general (Rules 40, 41, 42, 43, 45)] WILFREDO DE VERA
vs. SPS. EUGENIO SANTIAGO GR No. 179457, June 22, 2015
ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN ANNULLING THE DECISION OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ALAMINOS CITY, PANGASINAN, FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

HELD:

In resolving the issue of whether the CA erred in annulling the RTC Decision for lack of jurisdiction, the Court is
guided by the well-settled rule that "jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law and determined by
the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiffs cause
of action. The nature of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the
allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover
upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The averments in the complaint and the character of the relief sought
are the ones to be consulted. Once vested by the allegations in the complaint, jurisdiction also remains vested
irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein."

Thus, while the CA is correct in ruling that the MTC has no jurisdiction over the case for reconveyance and
recovery of ownership and possession of a land with an assessed value over P20,000.00, the same cannot be said of
its ruling with respect to the RTC.

Under Section 8, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, if the MTC tried a case on the merits despite having no
jurisdiction over the subject matter, its decision may be reviewed on appeal by the RTC. It vests upon the RTC the
exercise of appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions. the CA grossly erred in nullifying the RTC
Decision for lack of jurisdiction, and in declaring as moot and academic the factual issues raised in the respondents'
petition for review when it should have proceeded to review on appeal the factual findings of the RTC. the RTC not only
has exclusive original jurisdiction over petitioners' action for reconveyance of ownership and possession with damages,
but also appellate jurisdiction over the MTC Decision itself.