RELIEF CIV Flashcards
(17 cards)
Chapter 38
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENTS, ORDERS,
OR OTHER PROCEEDINGS
A petition for relief from judgment is a legal remedy available to
a party to set aside a judgment rendered against him or her by a court
wherein he or she was deprived of a hearing or was prevented from
taking an appeal from such judgment. The petition must be verified
and grounded on fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.
This remedy is allowed only on exceptional cases when there is no
other available and adequate remedy. When a party has other available
remedy, say an appeal or a motion for new trial, and he or she was not
prevented from availing these remedies by fraud, accident, mistake,
or excusable negligence, such party cannot avail of this remedy underRule 38.
When a party filed a motion for new trial and his or her motion
was denied by the court, he or she cannot file a petition for relief from
the judgment. It is only when that party was aggrieved and he or she
was prevented from filing a motion for new trial that he or she may file
a petition for relief from judgment.
There are two instances when this remedy may be availed of:
1. When a judgment or final order has attained finality
or any other proceeding is taken against the petitioner
through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
negligence;
2. When the petitioner is prevented from taking an
appeal from an adverse judgment or final order due to
fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.
In the first instance, the petitioner seeks to set aside the judgment,
final order, or the proceeding. In the second instance, the petitioner
prays that his or her appeal be given due course.
This passage explains the petition for relief from judgment, a legal remedy that allows a party to set aside a judgment when they were deprived of a hearing or prevented from appealing due to specific circumstances.
Key Points:
1. Grounds for Filing a Petition
- The petition must be verified and based on:
- Fraud – Deception that prevented the party from properly defending their case.
- Accident – An unforeseen event that hindered their participation.
- Mistake – A factual or legal error that led to an unjust judgment.
- Excusable Negligence – A failure to act that was not due to recklessness but rather an understandable oversight.
-
Exceptional Nature of the Remedy
- This remedy is only available in rare cases when no other adequate legal remedy exists.
- If the party could have appealed or filed a motion for a new trial but failed to do so without being prevented by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, they cannot use this remedy under Rule 38.
-
Limitations on Filing
- If a party filed a motion for a new trial and it was denied, they cannot then file a petition for relief.
- The petition is only allowed if the party was prevented from filing a motion for a new trial due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.
-
Two Instances When This Remedy Applies
- When a judgment or final order has attained finality, and the petitioner was affected by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.
- When the petitioner was prevented from appealing due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.
- In the first case, the petitioner seeks to set aside the judgment or final order.
- In the second case, the petitioner asks for their appeal to be allowed.
Legal Implications:
- Provides a last resort for parties who were unfairly deprived of their rights.
- Ensures fairness by allowing judgments to be challenged in exceptional cases.
- Prevents misuse by restricting the remedy to cases where no other legal option was available.
Would you like an example of how this applies in real cases? 😊
Thus, for the filing of a petition for relief to be proper, petitioner must satisfy the following requirements:
(1) he or she has no adequate remedy available to him, which is either a motion for new trial or appeal from adverse decisions of the lower court, and he was prevented by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence from filing such motion or taking the appeal;and
(2) he or she must comply with the double period set forth under Section 3, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court.70
A petition for relief from judgment is a legal remedy available to
a party to set aside a judgment rendered against him or her by a court
wherein he or she was deprived?
of a hearing or was prevented from
taking an appeal from such judgment. The petition must be verified
and grounded on fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.
Relief from Judgment, Order, or Proceedings
When a judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding
is thereafter taken against a party in any court through fraud, accident,
mistake, or excusable negligence, he or she may file a petition in
such court and in the same case praying that the judgment, order, or
proceeding be set aside.
This passage explains the legal remedy of filing a petition for relief from judgment, which allows a party to challenge a court decision when they were unfairly affected by certain circumstances.
Key Points:
1. Grounds for Filing the Petition
- A party may request the court to set aside a judgment, final order, or proceeding if it was entered against them due to:
- Fraud – Deception that prevented them from properly defending their case.
- Accident – An unforeseen event that hindered their participation.
- Mistake – A factual or legal error that led to an unjust judgment.
- Excusable Negligence – A failure to act that was not due to recklessness but rather an understandable oversight.
-
Where to File the Petition
- The petition must be filed in the same court that issued the judgment or order.
- It must also be filed within the same case, meaning the party cannot initiate a separate lawsuit to challenge the decision.
-
Purpose of the Petition
- The goal is to reverse or set aside the judgment, order, or proceeding to allow the affected party a fair opportunity to present their case.
Legal Implications:
- Provides a last resort for parties who were unfairly deprived of their rights.
- Ensures fairness by allowing judgments to be challenged in exceptional cases.
- Prevents misuse by restricting the remedy to cases where no other legal option was available.
Would you like an example of how this applies in real cases? 😊
Relief from Denial of Appeal
When a judgment or final order is rendered by any court in a case,
and a party has been prevented from taking an appeal therefrom by
fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, he or she may file a
petition in such court and in the same case praying that the appeal be
given due course.
This passage explains the legal remedy of filing a petition for relief from judgment, which allows a party to request the court to permit an appeal when they were prevented from filing one due to specific circumstances.
Key Points:
1. Grounds for Filing the Petition
- A party may file a petition if they were unable to appeal due to:
- Fraud – Deception that prevented them from properly defending their case.
- Accident – An unforeseen event that hindered their ability to file an appeal.
- Mistake – A factual or legal error that led to an unjust judgment.
- Excusable Negligence – A failure to act that was not due to recklessness but rather an understandable oversight.
-
Where to File the Petition
- The petition must be filed in the same court that issued the judgment or final order.
- It must also be filed within the same case, meaning the party cannot initiate a separate lawsuit to challenge the decision.
-
Purpose of the Petition
- The goal is to allow the appeal to proceed, ensuring that the party has a fair opportunity to challenge the judgment.
Legal Implications:
- Provides a last resort for parties who were unfairly deprived of their right to appeal.
- Ensures fairness by allowing judgments to be challenged in exceptional cases.
- Prevents misuse by restricting the remedy to cases where no other legal option was available.
Would you like an example of how this applies in real cases? 😊
When to File the Petition
The party seeking this relief must comply with two reglementary
periods. The doctrine espoused by the finality of judgments mandates
that such decisions rendered by the court must become final at some
definite date fixed by law. The Rules, however, gives the aggrieved
party a so-called last chance as an exception thereto. This opportunity
must, nevertheless, be timely made within the reglementary periods
provided under Rule 38. Thus, the verified petition to seek relief from a
judgment, final order, or proceeding must be filed:
1. within 60 days from knowledge of the judgment, final order,
or proceeding; and
2. within 6 months from the entry of the judgment, final order,
or proceeding.
Both of these reglementary periods must be complied with. They
must be taken as absolutely fixed, inextendible, and uninterrupted.
They cannot be subjected to any condition or contingency. As explained
in Madarang vs. Sps. Morales,2 the 60-day period must be counted after
the petitioner learns of the judgment or final order. The period counted
from the finality of judgment or final order is the six-month period
and not the 60-day time frame. In case the petition seeks to set aside a
proceeding, the six-month period shall be counted from the date when
such proceeding was taken.
The Supreme Court likewise clarified in San Juan, Jr. vs. Judge
Cruz3 that the 60-day period should not be reckoned from petitioner’s
receipt of the denial of his second motion for reconsideration but from
notice of the trial court’s denial of his first motion for reconsideration.
This passage explains the strict time limits for filing a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Philippine Rules of Court.
Key Points:
1. Finality of Judgments
- Court decisions must become final at a definite date set by law.
- However, Rule 38 provides an exception, allowing an aggrieved party a last chance to seek relief.
-
Reglementary Periods for Filing
- The petition must be filed within 60 days from the date the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or proceeding.
- It must also be filed within 6 months from the entry of the judgment, final order, or proceeding.
- Both deadlines must be strictly followed—they are fixed, inextendible, and uninterrupted.
-
Clarifications from Case Law
- In Madarang vs. Sps. Morales, the 60-day period starts from the petitioner’s knowledge of the judgment or final order.
- The 6-month period is counted from the finality of the judgment or order, not from the 60-day timeframe.
- In San Juan, Jr. vs. Judge Cruz, the Supreme Court ruled that the 60-day period should be counted from the denial of the first motion for reconsideration, not the second.
Legal Implications:
- Ensures finality in court decisions while allowing limited exceptions.
- Prevents indefinite delays in legal proceedings.
- Requires strict compliance with deadlines to avoid dismissal of the petition.
Would you like an example of how this applies in real cases? 😊
Where Should the Petition Be Filed
In both instances, the petition is filed in the same court and in
the same case. Take note that under the new Rules, the petition is not
supposed to be filed in another or higher court. Unlike in the old rules
prior to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition to set aside the
judgment of the Municipal Trial Court is filed before the Regional Trial
Court.
This passage explains the proper court for filing a petition for relief from judgment under the new Rules of Civil Procedure.
Key Points:
1. Petition Must Be Filed in the Same Court and Case
- A petition for relief from judgment must be filed in the same court that issued the judgment or final order.
- It must also be filed within the same case, meaning the party cannot bring the petition before a different or higher court.
-
Change from the Old Rules
- Before the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a petition to set aside the judgment of a Municipal Trial Court (MTC) was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
- Under the new Rules, this practice is no longer allowed—the petition must be filed directly in the same court that rendered the judgment.
Legal Implications:
- Ensures consistency by keeping the petition within the original court.
- Prevents unnecessary delays caused by transferring petitions to higher courts.
- Clarifies procedural rules to avoid confusion in filing petitions.
Would you like an example of how this applies in real cases? 😊
Fraud as a Ground
Only extrinsic, not intrinsic, fraud may be used as ground in the
petition. It does not concern with the judgment itself but the manner by
which that judgment was obtained.
This passage explains the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic fraud in the context of filing a petition for relief from judgment.
Key Points:
1. Extrinsic Fraud as a Valid Ground
- A petition for relief from judgment can only be based on extrinsic fraud, meaning fraud that prevented a party from fully participating in the case.
- Examples include:
- A party being deceived into not appearing in court.
- A party being denied the opportunity to present their case.
- Fraudulent actions that kept evidence from being introduced.
-
Intrinsic Fraud Is Not a Valid Ground
-
Intrinsic fraud refers to fraud within the trial itself, such as:
- False testimony.
- Forged documents.
- Misrepresentation of facts.
- Since intrinsic fraud relates to issues that could have been challenged during the trial, it cannot be used as a basis for setting aside a judgment.
-
Intrinsic fraud refers to fraud within the trial itself, such as:
-
Focus on the Manner of Obtaining Judgment
- The petition does not challenge the judgment itself but rather the way it was obtained—specifically, whether fraud prevented a fair trial.
Legal Implications:
- Protects due process by allowing relief when fraud prevents fair participation.
- Ensures finality of judgments by preventing challenges based on trial-related fraud.
- Limits abuse of petitions for relief by restricting valid grounds to extrinsic fraud.
Would you like an example of how this applies in real cases? 😊
Can a person not a party to the case avail of this remedy?
No. Only the parties to the case can file the petition.
This passage clarifies that only parties directly involved in a case can file a petition for relief from judgment—meaning third parties who were not part of the original lawsuit cannot avail of this remedy.
Key Points:
1. Limited to Case Participants
- The petition for relief is only available to those who were officially part of the case when the judgment was rendered.
- Non-parties (such as unrelated individuals or entities) cannot file this petition.
-
Reason for Restriction
- Since the petition seeks to set aside a judgment, it is meant to protect the rights of those directly affected by the court’s decision.
- Allowing non-parties to challenge a judgment would disrupt legal finality and create unnecessary complications.
Legal Implications:
- Ensures fairness by limiting the remedy to those directly involved.
- Protects judicial efficiency by preventing unrelated parties from interfering.
- Maintains finality in court decisions.
Would you like an example of how this applies in real cases? 😊
What is required of the petition?
The petition must be verified and accompanied by an affidavit
of merit showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence
relied upon and the facts constituting the good and substantial cause
of action or defense.
This passage explains the requirements for filing a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Philippine Rules of Court.
Key Points:
1. Verification of the Petition
- The petition must be verified, meaning the petitioner must swear under oath that the statements in the petition are true and correct based on their personal knowledge.
-
Affidavit of Merit Requirement
- The petition must be accompanied by an affidavit of merit, which serves as formal proof supporting the request for relief.
- The affidavit must clearly state:
- The fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence that prevented the petitioner from properly defending their case.
- The facts that establish a good and substantial cause of action or defense, meaning the petitioner has a valid legal argument that could change the outcome of the case.
Legal Implications:
- Ensures credibility by requiring sworn statements.
- Prevents frivolous petitions by demanding proof of valid grounds.
- Protects due process by allowing relief in cases of injustice.
Would you like an example of how this applies in real cases? 😊
Answer to the Petition
The answer to the petition must be filed within 15 days from
receipt of the order requiring the adverse party to answer.
What should the petitioner do if prior to the filing of the petition, a
writ of execution was already issued by the court?
If a writ of execution was already issued by the court, the
petitioner may include in his or her petition a prayer for the issuance of
a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to enjoin
the implementation of that writ of execution. The court in which the
petition is filed may grant such preliminary injunction as may be necessary for the preservation of the rights of the parties.
Such grant, however, is subject to the filing by the petitioner of
a bond in favor of the adverse party conditioned that if the petition is
dismissed or the petitioner fails on the trial of the case upon its merits,
he or she will pay the adverse party all damages and costs that may be
awarded to him or her by reason of the issuance of such injunction or
the other proceedings following the petition.
The injunction that may be issued shall not operate to discharge
or extinguish any lien which the adverse party may have acquired
upon the property of the petitioner.
This passage explains the legal process of requesting a temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of a writ of execution.
Key Points:
1. Requesting a TRO or Preliminary Injunction
- If a writ of execution has already been issued by the court, the petitioner (the party seeking relief) may ask the court to issue a TRO or preliminary injunction to halt the execution.
- The court may grant the injunction if necessary to preserve the rights of the parties.
-
Requirement to File a Bond
- If the court grants the injunction, the petitioner must file a bond in favor of the adverse party (the opposing party).
- The bond ensures that if the petition is dismissed or the petitioner loses the case, they will compensate the adverse party for any damages or costs caused by the injunction.
-
Limitations of the Injunction
- The injunction does not cancel or remove any lien that the adverse party may have acquired on the petitioner’s property.
- This means that even if the execution is temporarily stopped, any existing legal claims on the property remain valid.
Legal Implications:
- Protects petitioners from immediate enforcement of a writ while their case is being reviewed.
- Ensures fairness by requiring a bond to compensate the adverse party if the injunction is later overturned.
- Preserves property rights by maintaining any liens despite the injunction.
Would you like an example of how this applies in real cases? 😊
Action by the Court
After the filing of the answer or the expiration of the period for
the filing thereof, the court shall hear the petition. If after such hearing,
the court finds that the allegations in the petition are not true, the same
shall be dismissed.
On the other hand, if the court finds said allegations to be true,
the court shall set aside the judgment or final order or other proceeding
complained of upon such terms as may be just.
This passage explains the court’s process for deciding a petition for relief from judgment after the answer has been filed or the deadline for filing has passed.
Key Points:
1. Hearing the Petition
- Once the answer is filed or the deadline for filing expires, the court will conduct a hearing to review the petition.
- The hearing allows both parties to present arguments and evidence regarding the petition.
-
Dismissal of the Petition
- If the court determines that the allegations in the petition are not true, the petition will be dismissed, meaning the original judgment or final order remains valid and enforceable.
-
Setting Aside the Judgment
- If the court finds that the allegations in the petition are true, it may set aside the judgment, final order, or proceeding that was challenged.
- The court will do so under terms that are fair and just, ensuring that the rights of all parties are properly considered.
Legal Implications:
- Ensures fairness by allowing a review of the petition before making a final decision.
- Protects judicial integrity by dismissing petitions that lack merit.
- Provides relief in cases where the petition is valid and justified.
Would you like an example of how this applies in real cases? 😊
Effect of Grant
If the petition is granted, the case shall stand as if such judgment,
final order, or other proceeding had never been rendered, issued, or
taken. The court shall then proceed to hear and determine the case as
if a timely motion for a new trial or reconsideration had been granted
by it.
This passage explains the legal effect of granting a petition for relief from judgment—essentially resetting the case as if the original judgment or order never existed.
Key Points:
1. Restoration of the Case
- If the petition is granted, the case is treated as if the judgment, final order, or proceeding had never happened.
- This means the parties return to the pre-judgment stage, allowing the case to be reconsidered.
-
Proceeding as if a Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration Was Granted
- The court will hear and determine the case anew, just as it would if a motion for new trial or reconsideration had been approved.
- This ensures that the petitioner gets a fair opportunity to present their case.
Legal Implications:
- Allows correction of unjust judgments caused by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.
- Restores due process by giving the affected party a chance to be heard.
- Ensures fairness by treating the case as if the original judgment never existed.
Would you like an example of how this applies in real cases? 😊
In Case of Denial of an Appeal
Where the denial of an appeal is set aside, the lower court shall be
required to give due course to the appeal and to elevate the record of
the appealed case as if a timely and proper appeal had been made.
This passage explains the legal effect of setting aside the denial of an appeal—essentially restoring the appeal process as if it had been properly filed.
Key Points:
1. Setting Aside the Denial of Appeal
- If a court overturns the denial of an appeal, the lower court must proceed as if the appeal had been timely and properly filed.
- This ensures that the appellant (the party seeking the appeal) is given a fair chance to challenge the original decision.
-
Lower Court’s Obligation
- The lower court must give due course to the appeal, meaning it must process the appeal as required by law.
- It must elevate the record of the appealed case to the higher court, allowing the appellate court to review the case fully.
Legal Implications:
- Restores the appellant’s right to appeal, ensuring fairness in legal proceedings.
- Prevents wrongful denial of appeals due to procedural errors or unjust rulings.
- Allows higher courts to review cases properly, maintaining judicial integrity.
Would you like an example of how this applies in real cases? 😊
Is this remedy available in cases before the Supreme Court?
No. A petition for relief from judgment is not an available remedy
before the Supreme Court since it is not one of those cases enumerated
as cognizable by the Supreme Court under Rule 56.
This passage explains that a petition for relief from judgment cannot be filed before the Supreme Court because it is not among the cases that the Supreme Court is authorized to review under Rule 56 of the Philippine Rules of Court.
Key Points:
1. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court can only review cases that fall within its jurisdiction, as specified under Rule 56.
- A petition for relief from judgment is not included in the list of cases that the Supreme Court can directly entertain.
-
Proper Venue for Filing
- A petition for relief from judgment must be filed in the same court that issued the judgment or final order.
- It cannot be elevated to the Supreme Court as a remedy.
Legal Implications:
- Ensures proper case handling by requiring petitions to be filed in the correct court.
- Prevents unnecessary delays by keeping petitions within the original court’s jurisdiction.
- Maintains judicial efficiency by limiting the Supreme Court’s review to cases within its authority.
Would you like an example of how this applies in real cases? 😊
Summary Procedure and Small Claims Cases
This remedy is likewise not available in summary procedure and
small claims cases since the same is considered a prohibited pleading
under the Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts. The
petition cannot even be filed before the Regional Trial Court because
the Rules provide that the petition must be filed in the same court.
This passage explains the limitations on filing a petition for relief from judgment in certain types of cases.
Key Points:
1. Not Available in Summary Procedure and Small Claims Cases
- The petition for relief from judgment cannot be used in cases governed by summary procedure or small claims cases.
- This is because it is classified as a prohibited pleading under the Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts.
-
Must Be Filed in the Same Court
- The petition cannot be filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
- Instead, the Rules require that it be filed in the same court that issued the judgment or final order.
Legal Implications:
- Ensures efficiency by preventing unnecessary delays in expedited cases.
- Maintains consistency by requiring petitions to be handled within the original court.
- Protects judicial integrity by limiting the use of petitions in cases where faster resolution is prioritized.
Would you like an example of how this applies in real cases? 😊
