Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Rule 21
People vs Montejo
A petition for certiorari
Facts:-It was alleged by the City Fiscal of Zamboanga, as counsel for the People of the Philippines, that on
September 23, 1963, Criminal Case No. 3225 was filed in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City against
a certain Felix Wee Sit for double homicide and serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence, the trial of the
case having commenced on November 7, 1963, and thereafter continued subsequently. After which, it was stated
that a certain Ernesto Uaje y Salvador, "a permanent resident of Montalban, Rizal," then a patrolman in the
Montalban Police Department, "is a material and important witness in the case" his affidavit having served as the
basis for filing the information as he "happened to be an eye-witness during the traffic incident wherein a Private
Jeep bearing Plate No. J-6172 driven recklessly by the accused Felix Wee Sit on August 15, 1963, turned turtle
in the public highway in Zamboanga City causing the death of two (2) prominent young girls and serious physical
injuries to four (4) equally prominent young girls, who are all students of a local religiousinstitution."
- It was then alleged that at the time the case against the accused was called for trial in the Court of First
Instance of Zamboanga City, then presided by respondent Judge, the witness had returned to Montalban, Rizal;
that pursuant to a formal request of the City Fiscal, respondent Judge issued a subpoena to patrolman Uaje
addressed at his known address at Montalban, Rizal, for him to appear at the trial of the case set for continuation
on February 1, 1965; that such subpoena was served on Uaje the return showing that he had received it on
January 19, 1965, at Montalban, Rizal; that when the case was called for continuation on February 1, 1965, he
did not appear "and forthwith the undersigned City Fiscal formally moved for an order of arrest" or in the
alternative "to cite him for contempt for willful failure to appear at the trial of the case as a material witness. . . ."
Such a motion was formally presented on February 3, 1965 and denied on the same day by the respondent
Judge in the Order sought to be annulled in this petition. Then came a motion for reconsideration which was
likewise denied for not being "well-founded". In addition to the plea to declare void such order refusing to have
the witness either arrested or cited for contempt, there was the further prayer that respondent Judge be required
to grant the aforesaid motion
-Respondent Judge and the other respondent, the accused in Criminal Case No. 3225, were required to answer.
In their answer filed on March 4, 1965, there was a denial of the allegation that Uaje was "a material, much less
an important, witness," such denial being based on the very affidavit executed by him which as noted in the
answer admitted "that the said witness did not see how the accident had occurred and was, therefore, not an
eye-witness. . . . "There was an admission that respondent Judge was "poised to order the immediate
continuation of the trial of the case upon the insistence of the accused who relies upon his constitutional right to a
speedy trial but denied that the prosecution is entitled to compulsory process" for under the Rules of Court it is
the defendant, not the prosecution, that is conferred such a right, alleging further that the issuance of compulsory
process is, under the Constitution, a right granted to the accused "only and exclusively", no corresponding
provision being made for the prosecution. As a First and Special Affirmative Defense, they relied on the aforesaid
Section 9 of Rule 23 contending that if a witness was not bound by a subpoena since his residence was
admittedly not less than 50 kilometers from the place of trial, the failure to obey the same or to comply with it
could not in any manner whatsoever constitute contempt of court. Respondent Judge therefore did not commit
any error; nor did he abuse his discretion in refusing to issue an order of arrest or to cite said witness for
contempt.
Issue: Did respondent Judge, in denying a motion for the arrest of a material witness, in a criminal case, or in the
alternative, to cite him for contempt, relying on Section 9 of Rule 23 of the Rules of Court to the effect that a
witness is not bound to attend as such before any court, judge or other officer out of the province in which he
resides unless the distance be less than 50 kilometers from his place of residence to the place of trial by the
usual course, act with grave abuse of discretion?
Held: Yes!
- It is loathe to clip what undoubtedly is the inherent power of the Court to compel the attendance of persons to
testify in a case pending therein. Section 9 of Rule 23 is thus interpreted to apply solely to civil cases. A
recognition of such power in a court of first instance conducting the trial of an accused may be gleaned from
principle that justifies it when satisfied "by proof or oath, that there is reason to believe that a material witness for
the prosecution will not appear and testify when required," to order that he "give bail in sum as [it] may deem
proper for such appearance. Upon refusal to give bail, the court must commit him to prison until he complies or is
legally discharged."
-Under the circumstances, in view of the serious handicap to which the prosecution would thus be subjected in
proving its case, the order of respondent judge denying the motion for an order of arrest or a citation for contempt
in the alternative, based on a clear misapprehension of the Rules of Court, could be viewed as amounting to
grave abuse of discretion. It would follow then that respondent Judge should decide said motion without taking
into consideration Section 9 of Rule 23.
Genorga vs Quintain
Facts:- It was the issuance of a warrant of arrest against complainant Dr. Gil Geñorga the former municipal
health officer of Claveria, Masbate, thereafter assigned to Tayasan Negros Oriental, for his failure to appear as
government medico- legal witness in a pending murder case before respondent Judge Pedro C. Quitain of the
Court of First Instance of Masbate, that started the train of events leading to this administrative complaint for
grave abuse of authority and conduct unbecoming a judge. The excuse offered for such non-appearance was the
fact that he had previously sent a telegram to respondent Judge seeking information as to whether he would be
reimbursed for the traveling expenses to be incurred and that he had received no reply. As a result thereof, he
"terribly suffered from the humiliation of having been arrested and confined in the headquarters of the Philippine
Constabulary as if [he] were a criminal, from May 9, 1975 to May 14, 1975 when, upon [his] repeated pleas that
[he] was not going to escape, the Provincial Commander o f Negros Oriental, allowed [him] to proceed to
Masbate alone at [his] own expense." That he did, and he was able to testify.
-Respondent Judge then dictated in open court the order for his release. Thereafter, in the chambers of the latter,
when he sought to explain why he f to appear, he complained that he was ignored and treated with discourtesy.
That was the basis for his charge of conduct unbecoming a district judge. Respondent Judge was required to
comment on such complaint
- He submitted an eight-page explanation, the relevant portion of which follows: "Clearly, this charge stemmed
from the order of arrest issued by the undersigned against the complainant for his failure to appear in Court on
March 5, 1975, in spite of a subpoena duly served upon him as a government witness in the case hereinabove
mentioned. True, the complainant addressed a telegram to the undersigned, in exact words, to wit: " [Advice
undersigned agrave (sic) party Masbate Masbate province shoulder traveling expenses per them appear
government witness Azanares case March 5 ... Dr. Geñorga]." True, the undersigned did not make any reply
because it was the honest conviction of the undersigned that he is not duty bound to make any inquiry for the
complainant, much less advice the complainant in any manner, not to mention the fact that the telegram carried
the tone of an order. It lacked the element of courtesy since the telegram did not sound as a request. It is also
true that the complainant did not appear in Court on March 5, 1975 that he might testify as tie last witness for the
prosecution. Hence, on March 5, 1975, the undersigned, on motion of the Fiscal, ordered the complainant
arrested ... . There is no doubt that the complainant received the subpoena issued by the undersigned requiring
him to appear on March 5, 1975 so he could not testify for the government. This is borne out by the records of the
case
- The matter was then referred to the Acting Assistant Judicial Consultant Lorenzo Relova of the Court of Appeals
for study, report and recommendation. After setting forth the above facts and in the light of People v. Montejo, he
recommended that the charges be dismissed. He explainedwhy: "It is submitted, therefore, that Respondent
cannot be administratively held liable. To hold otherwise would be allowing a [disregard] of the coercive power of
the courts to compel attendance in court of cited witnesses. (Section 5 (e) of Rule 135 of the Rules of Court). This
is not to mention the very satisfactory explanation of the Respondent on all the charges imputed against him.
Furthermore, Complainant was furnished a copy of the comment/explanation of Respondent as early as July 15,
1975 ... , but up to now, no reply was ever received by the Court from Complainant. It would seem that
Complainant is satisfied of the explanation of respondent Judge.
Issue: Is respondent judge administratively liable?
Held:No!
-This Court accepts such recommendation. The aforecited case of People v. Montejo is in point. (Quinote lang
yung ruling ng People vs Montejo, so see case above hahaha)
-What was done by Judge Quitain was, therefore, within his discretion. There was no grave abuse of authority.
Nor can the accusation of conduct unbecoming a judge be taken seriously. In Bartolome v. De Borja, it was held:
"As far as the behavior of a trial judge is concerned, however, it is not realistic to assume, considering the nature
and the burden laid on his shoulders, that he will at all times personify equanimity." Even if his conduct in
chambers did not live up fully then to the demands of politeness and courtesy, disciplinary action does not lie.
Moreover, as shown in the memorandum of Acting Judicial Consultant, the fact that he did not even bother to
refute the allegation of respondent Judge that he behaved as gentleman should during their talk in chambers may
justifiably lead to the inference that complainant, on calmer reflection with his resentment diminishing with the
passage of time may have decided not to press this particular accusation anymore.
Rule 22
Neypes vs Ca
Facts:- Petitioners Domingo Neypes, Luz Faustino, Rogelio Faustino, Lolito Victoriano, Jacob Obania and
Domingo Cabacungan filed an action for annulment of judgment and titles of land and/or reconveyance and/or
reversion with preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, of Roxas, Oriental Mindoro,
against the Bureau of Forest Development, Bureau of Lands, Land Bank of the Philippines and the heirs of
Bernardo del Mundo, namely, Fe, Corazon, Josefa, Salvador and Carmen.
- In an order dated February 12, 1998, the trial court dismissed petitioners complaint on the ground that the
action had already prescribed. Petitioners allegedly received a copy of the
order of dismissal on March 3, 1998 and, on the 15thday thereafter or on March 18, 1998, filed a motion for
reconsideration. On July 1, 1998, the trial court issued another order dismissing the motion for reconsideration
which petitioners received on July 22, 1998. Five days later, on July 27, 1998, petitioners filed a notice of appeal
and paid the appeal fees on August 3, 1998.
-On August 4, 1998, the court a quo denied the notice of appeal, holding that it was filed eight days late. This was
received by petitioners on July 31, 1998. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but this too was denied in
an order dated September 3, 1998.
-Via a petition for certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, petitioners
assailed the dismissal of the notice of appeal before the Court of Appeals.
-In the appellate court, petitioners claimed that they had seasonably filed their notice of appeal. They argued that
the 15-day reglementary period to appeal started to run only on July 22, 1998 since this was the day they
received the final order of the trial court denying their motion for reconsideration. When they filed their notice of
appeal on July 27, 1998, only five days had elapsed and they were well within the reglementary period for
appeal.
-On September 16, 1999, the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the petition. It ruled that the 15-day period to
appeal should have been reckoned from March 3, 1998 or the day they received the February 12, 1998 order
dismissing their complaint
- Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforementioned decision. This was denied by the Court of
Appeals on January 6, 2000. In this present petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules.
Issue: Did petitioners file their notice of appeal on time?
Held:Yes!
- First and foremost, the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory
privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Thus, one who
seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failure to do so often leads
to the loss of the right to appeal. The period to appeal is fixed by both statute and procedural rules.
- Based on the foregoing, an appeal should be taken within 15 days from the notice of judgment or final order
appealed from. A final judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing more for the court
to do with respect to it. It is an adjudication on the merits which, considering the evidence presented at the trial,
declares categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties are; or it may be an order or judgment that
dismisses an action.
-As already mentioned, petitioners argue that the order of July 1, 1998 denying their motion forreconsideration
should be construed as the final order, not the February 12, 1998 order which dismissed their complaint. Since
they received their copy of the denial of their motion for reconsideration only on July 22, 1998, the 15-day
reglementary period to appeal had not yet lapsed when they filed their notice of appeal on July 27, 1998.
-What therefore should be deemed as the final order, receipt of which triggers the start of the 15-day
reglementary period to appeal the February 12, 1998 order dismissing the complaint or the July 1, 1998 order
dismissing the MR?
- In the recent case of Quelnan v. VHF Philippines, Inc., the trial court declared petitioner Quelnan non-suited and
accordingly dismissed his complaint. Upon receipt of the order of dismissal, he filed an omnibus motion to set it
aside. When the omnibus motion was filed, 12 days of the 15-day period to appeal the order had lapsed. He later
on received another order, this time dismissing his omnibus motion. He then filed his notice of appeal. But this
was likewise dismissed ― for having been filed out of time.The court a quo ruled that petitioner should have
appealed within 15 days after the dismissal of his complaint since this was the final order that was appealable
under the Rules. We reversed the trial court and declared that it was the denial of the motion for reconsideration
of an order of dismissal of a complaint which constituted the final order as it was what ended the issues raised
there. This pronouncement was reiterated in the more recent case of Apuyan v. Haldeman et al. where we again
considered the order denying petitioner Apuyans motion for reconsideration as the final order which finally
disposed of the issues involved in the case.
-Based on the aforementioned cases, we sustain petitioners view that the order dated July 1, 1998 denying their
motion for reconsideration was the final order contemplated in the Rules.
- We now come to the next question: if July 1, 1998 was the start of the 15-day reglementaryperiod to appeal, did
petitioners in fact file their notice of appeal on time?
- Under Rule 41, Section 3, petitioners had 15 days from notice of judgment or final order to
appeal the decision of the trial court. On the 15 th day of the original appeal period (March 18, 1998), petitioners
did not file a notice of appeal but instead opted to file a motion for reconsideration. According to the trial court, the
MR only interrupted the running of the 15-day appeal period. It ruled that petitioners, having filed their MR on the
last day of the 15-day reglementary period to appeal, had only one (1) day left to file the notice of appeal upon
receipt of the notice of denial of their MR. Petitioners, however, argue that they were entitled under the Rules to a
fresh period of 15 days from receipt of the final order or the order dismissing their motion for reconsideration
- To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their
cases, the Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal in
the Regional Trial Court, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for
reconsideration.
- Henceforth, this fresh period rule shall also apply to Rule 40 governing appeals from the Municipal Trial Courts
to the Regional Trial Courts; Rule 42 on petitions for review from the Regional Trial Courts to the Court of
Appeals; Rule 43 on appeals from quasi-judicial
agencies to the Court of Appeals and Rule 45 governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court. The new
rule aims to regiment or make the appeal period uniform, to be counted from receipt of the order denying the
motion for new trial, motion for reconsideration (whether full or partial) or any final order or resolution
- We thus hold that petitioners seasonably filed their notice of appeal within the fresh period of 15 days, counted
from July 22, 1998 (the date of receipt of notice denying their motion for reconsideration).
- To recapitulate, a party litigant may either file his notice of appeal within 15 days from receipt of the Regional
Trial Courts decision or file it within 15 days from receipt of the order
(the final order) denying his motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration. Obviously, the new 15-day period
may be availed of only if either motion is filed; otherwise, the decision becomes final and executory after the
lapse of the original appeal period provided in Rule 41, Section 3.
-Petitioners here filed their notice of appeal on July 27, 1998 or five days from receipt of the order denying their
motion for reconsideration on July 22, 1998. Hence, the notice of appeal was well within the fresh appeal period
of 15 days, as already discussed
Rule 23
Koh vs IAC
Facts:- respondent Bank(First Interstate Bank of California) filed a Complaint against petitioner to recover the
sum of US-$7,434.90 or its equivalent in Philippine Currency which, due to a computer error, it had overpaid to
her on October 8, 1981.
- In her Answer dated August 17, 1983, petitioner admitted the allegations in the Complaint and alleged that
immediately after receipt of a formal demand letter to return the overpayment, she offered to pay respondent
Bank through its lawyer in installments of $100.00 a month but the offer was unreasonably rejected
- On August 19, 1983, Mr. E.R. Belen, Officer-in-Charge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 141, sent
the following "NOTICE OF CASE STATUS" to the parties through their respective lawyers.
G R E E T I N G S:
Please take notice that cases where issues have been joined will be scheduled for pre-trial conference only after
Rules 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29-where applicable, necessary and or feasible have been resorted to by the
parties.
If a party believes that those modes of discovery are not applicable, necessary or feasible with respect to him, he
shall file a manifestation to that effect.
The pre-trial conference, shall be scheduled as soon as the respective manifestations of having resorted to, or of
dispensing with, those modes of discovery have been filed by the parties. The party, who has dispensed with
those modes of discovery shall be deemed to have waived resort thereto, and, unless for good cause shown,
motion to resort thereto, after termination of the pre-trial, shall not be grantee. The costs entailed the waiving
party in presenting evidence during trial that could have been obtained through any of those modes of discovery
which were waived, shall not be assessed against the adverse party nor awarded as part of the litigation
expenses.
If, after 30 days from receipt of this notice, no such manifestation has been filed, the case shall be archived or
dismissed as the case may be
-No manifestation was filed by the parties' lawyers. On November 29, 1983, the presiding Judge (not respondent
Judge), issued the following order:
For non-compliance with the Order (Notice of Case Status) dated August 19, 1983, more particularly the last
paragraph thereof, this case is hereby dismissed.
- respondent Bank, through a new counsel, refiled its complaint which was assigned to Branch 143 of the
Regional Trial Court of Makati presided over by respondent Judge. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on the ground of res adjudicata, as well as a supplement thereto, which was opposed by respondent
Bank. On August 27, 1984, respondent Judge denied the motion to dismiss and on November 27, 1984, he
denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration
- petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Intermediate Appellate Court praying that the orders denying the
motion to dismiss and the motion for reconsideration be set aside as null and void and that the complaint be
ordered dismissed. the appellate court, finding no merit to the petition resolved not to give it due course. It said:
We concur with the above reasoning of respondent Judge. We should add to that our observation that the order
of dismissal of Judge Elbiñas in Civil Case No. 4272 (Annex F) was null and void for lack of legal basis. The
'notice of case status' (Annex D) was not an order' of the court. I t was, as its title indicated, only a 'notice,' not an
order. Since the order of dismissal was null and void, it did not have the force of a judgment. It did not constitute
a bar to the refiling of the bank's complaint.
Issue: Did the CA err in denying petitioner’s petition?
Held:No!
-True it is that respondent Bank's counsel should have taken the precaution of complying with the instructions
contained in the "NOTICE OF CASE STATUS" if only to avoid the consequent delay resulting from non-
compliance; that respondent Bank's counsel was negligent in not seeking a reconsideration or clarification of the
order of dismissal or appealing therefrom. But, fortunately for respondent Bank, the omissions of its counsel are
not fatal to its cause in view of the defective procedure which culminated in the dismissal of the first complaint.
-The rules on discovery (Rules 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the Revised Rules of Court) are intended to enable a
party to obtain knowledge of material facts within the knowledge of the adverse party or of third parties through
depositions to obtain knowledge of material facts or admissions from the adverse party through written
interrogatories; to obtain admissions from the adverse party regarding the genuineness of relevant documents or
relevant matters of fact through requests for admission; to inspect relevant documents or objects and lands or
other property in the possession or control of the adverse party; and to determine the physical or mental condition
of a party when such is in controversy. This mutual discovery enables a party to discover the evidence of the
adverse party and thus facilitates an amicable settlement or expedites the trial of the case. All the parties are
required to lay their cards on the table so that justice can be rendered on the merits of the case.
-Trial judges should, therefore, encourage the proper utilization of the rules on discovery. However, recourse to
discovery procedures is not mandatory. If the parties do not choose to resort to such procedures, the pre-trial
conference should be set pursuant to the mandatory provisions of Section 1 of Rule 20
-As the appellate court correctly held, the "notice of case status" was not an order of the court. It was signed by
Mr. E.R. Belen, officer-in-charge. Even the warning in the notice (that if no such manifestation has been filed after
30 days from receipt the case shall be archived or dismissed as the case may be) was ambiguous. The failure of
the parties to heed the warning did not constitute disobedience of a lawful order of the court. Consequently, the
order of dismissal could not have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits. Neither could respondent Bank be
considered to have failed to prosecute its action for an unreasonable length of time, inasmuch as petitioner's
Answer was dated August 17, 1983 and the order of dismissal was dated November 29, 1983.
Caguiat vs Torres
Facts:- Petitioners are plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 8050 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch VIII,
presided over by respondent Judge, while respondent Francisco Caguiat is the defendant therein
-after defendant had filed his answer with counterclaim, and the plaintiffs, their reply to defendant's answer the
herein petitioners served on respondent Caguiat a notice to take his deposition. On August 26, 1964 respondent
Caguiat filed with the lower court an urgent motion to prevent the taking of the deposition or to restrict its scope
which urgent motion the petitioners opposed. On the 29th of the same month the respondent Judge issued an
order to hold in abeyance the resolution of his co-respondent's urgent motion until after the pre-trial. The parties
however failed to arrive at an amicable settlement.
-On October 3, 1964 herein petitioners again served on respondent Caguiat a second notice for the taking of his
deposition upon oral examination to prevent which, the latter filed an urgent motion on the 14th of the same
month. Petitioners opposed respondent Caguiat's urgent motion. Resolving the urgent motion and the opposition
thereto, the respondent Judge, on the 17th, granted his co- respondent's urgent motion and ordered the
petitioners to refrain from taking the contemplated deposition. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied.
- The petitioners' avowed purpose in securing the deposition of respondent Caguiat is to get the latter to lay his
cards on the table and/or to simplify or abbreviate the proceedings. Respondent Caguiat, on the other hand,
affirms that he has already revealed practically his entire defense, even to the extent of naming his witnesses,
during the pre-trial, so that the necessity of a deposition has been obviated. In fact, according to respondent
Caguiat, he had expressed willingness to enter into a stipulation of facts, but apparently the petitioners did not
want to
Issue:Is there still a need for deposition of respondent?
Held:No!
- appellants contend that the disclosure by appellee of practically all his evidence at the pre-trial and the danger
of heightening the animosities between the parties during the proposed taking of the deposition of appellee are
not enough to warrant the trial court's order preventing completely the taking of said deposition. Such contention
is untenable.
-There can be no question that the trial court has jurisdiction to direct, in its discretion, that a deposition shall not
be taken, if there are valid reasons for so ruling. (Cojuangco v. Caluag, L-7952, July 30, 1955, unreported) That
the right of a party to take depositions as means of discovery is not exactly absolute is implicit in the provisions of
the
-Rules of Court cited by appellants themselves, sections 16 and 18 of Rule 24, which are precisely designed to
protect parties and their witnesses, whenever in the opinion of the trial court, the move to take their depositions
under the guise of discovery is actually intended to only annoy, embarrass or oppress them. In such instances,
these provisions expressly authorize the court to either prevent the taking of a deposition or stop one that is
already being taken.
-In the case at bar, aside from having practically disclosed all his evidence at the pre-trial, appellee expressed
willingness to enter into a stipulation of facts, which offer, appellants rejected. Moreover, according to Court of
Appeals, the parties herein filed a joint motion for hearing on the merits even before the orders in question were
issued. Under these circumstances, it is inevitable to conclude that there was indeed no further need for the
deposition desired by appellants. It could have served no useful purpose, for there was nothing anymore to
discover. Appellants have not shown any real concrete reason for such deposition.