JUDGMENTS

Judgments and Final Orders

A final judgment or final order is one that finally disposes of a case. It leaves
nothing more to be done by the court in respect thereto. Once rendered, the task of the
court is ended as far as deciding the controversy or determining the rights and liabilities
of the litigants is concerned.

For comparison, an interlocutory order does not finally dispose of the case. It does
not end the court’s task of adjudicating the contentions of the parties. It does not attain
finality. A judgment or final order determining the merits of the case shall be in writing
personally and directly prepared by the judge, stating clearly and distinctly the facts and
the law on which it is based, signed by him or her, and filed with the clerk of the court.
Judgments must be rendered by an incumbent judge. Any judgment rendered by a court
without jurisdiction is null and void and produces no effect. When a presiding judge retires,
he or she can no longer decide on the case. This is for the reason that with his or her
severance from office, he or she is already divested of the authority to do so. No longer
being clothed with that authority, he or she has no more jurisdiction over the case and
any judgment he or she may render shall be void.

Interpretation of judgments

When there is conflict between the dispositive portion (fallo) and the body of the
decision, the fallo prevails. However, where the inevitable conclusion from the body of the
decision is so clear as to show that there was a mistake in the dispositive portion thereof,
the conclusion contained in the body shall govern.

Judgment for or against several parties

Judgment may be given for or against one or more of several plaintiffs and for or
against one or more of several defendants. When justice so demands, the court may
require the parties on each side to file adversary pleadings as between themselves and
determine their ultimate rights and obligations.

Several judgments

In an action against several defendants, the court may render judgment against
one or more of them when a several judgment is proper thereby leaving the action to
proceed against the others.

Separate judgments

When more than one (1) claim for relief is presented in an action, the court, at any
stage, may render a separate judgment disposing of such claim upon a determination of
the issues material to a particular claim and all counterclaims arising out of the transaction
or occurrence which is the subject matter of the claim. The judgment shall terminate the
action with respect to the claim so disposed of and the action shall proceed as to the
remaining claims.

Stay of execution of a separate judgment

In case a separate judgment is rendered, the court may order to stay its
enforcement until the rendition of a subsequent judgment or judgments. It may also
prescribe such conditions as may be necessary to secure the benefit thereof to the party
in whose favor the judgment is rendered.

Judgment against entity without juridical personality

When judgment is rendered against two (2) or more persons sued as an entity
without juridical personality, the judgment shall set out their individual or proper names, if
known.

Entry of judgment and final order

If no appeal or motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed within the time
provided in the Rules, the judgment or final order shall forthwith be entered by the clerk
in the book of entries of judgments. The date of finality of the judgment or final order shall
be deemed to be the date of its entry. The record shall contain the dispositive part of the
judgment or final order and shall be signed by the clerk with a certificate that such
judgment or final order has become final and executory.

Doctrine of Judicial Stability or Non-interference

A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be opened, modified or

vacated by any court of concurrent jurisdiction.

The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference dictates that the assumption by

a court over the issue operates as an “insurmountable barrier” to the subsequent
assumption by another court. Courts of concurrent jurisdiction and exercising equal
authority should not, cannot, and are not permitted to interfere with their respective cases,
much less with their orders or judgments. A contrary rule would obviously lead to
confusion and seriously hamper the administration of justice. It is axiomatic that the court
first acquiring jurisdiction excludes the other courts.

Doctrine of Immutability of Judgment

A wrong judgment is not a void judgment as long as the court which rendered it
has jurisdiction to try the case. A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable
and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect. This has been settled
even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and
whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land.
The doctrine of immutability and unalterability of a final judgment intends to avoid delay
in the administration of justice and to put an end to judicial controversies. Without this
doctrine, there will be no end to litigation and cases may drag on indefinitely. Such
doctrine, however, does not come without risk since there is a possibility that judgments
may contain errors. To avoid injustice, the aggrieved party is provided certain remedies
by the Rules depending on the character of the judgment.

Where a judgment has been rendered but before it becomes final and executory,
the aggrieved party may move for the reconsideration of such judgment, if allowed, within
the period prescribed by the Rules. Such party may also seek an appeal from such
judgment. However, where the judgment has become final and executory, the remedies
available to the aggrieved party would be different. One of these remedies is to file a
verified petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 on ground of fraud, accident,
mistake or excusable negligence within sixty (60) days from knowledge of such judgment
but not more than six (6) months after it was entered. Another available remedy is to file
a verified petition for annulment of the judgment under Rule 47 on ground of extrinsic
fraud within four (4) years from its discovery or on ground of lack of jurisdiction before it
is barred by laches.

Lastly, the aggrieved party may resort to the filing of a verified petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 on ground that the court has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction
or has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of
jurisdiction within sixty (60) days from notice of such judgment or of the order denying the
motion for reconsideration or new trial.

Judgment Based on Compromise agreement

A compromise is a contract whereby the parties avoid a litigation or put an end to

one which is already commenced by making reciprocal concessions. It is an agreement
between two or more persons, who adjust their difficulties by mutual consent in the
manner which they agree on, and which everyone of them prefers to the hope of gaining,
balanced by the danger of losing, for the purpose of preventing or putting an end to a
lawsuit. A compromise must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs and public
policy; and must have been freely and intelligently executed by and between the parties.

There are two (2) kinds of compromise, namely: (1) a judicial compromise; and (2)
an extrajudicial compromise. A judicial compromise is one entered into by the parties to
terminate an action which has already been commenced. A compromise, on the other
hand, is considered as extrajudicial if its objective is to avoid a litigation. If validly entered
into, both judicial and extrajudicial compromises have the authority and effect of res
judicata between the parties thereto.

A judicial compromise agreement requires the approval of the court. Once judicially
approved, a judgment shall be rendered based on the provisions contained therein. A
judgment based on compromise agreement is a judgment on the merits. It has the effect
of res judicata and is immediately final and executory. It is, therefore, not appealable.
 Unlike an extrajudicial compromise, a compromise that has received judicial
imprimatur becomes more than a mere contract. Since a judicial compromise is regarded
as a determination of the controversy between the parties and has the force and effect of
a final judgment, it is both a contract and a judgment on the merits. It may neither be
disturbed nor set aside except in cases where there is forgery or when either of the parties'
consent has been vitiated. However, this does not mean that it cannot be set aside. As
stated above, judgment based on compromise agreement may be set aside because of
falsity or vices of consent. It also bears to stress that to be valid, it must not be contrary
to law, morals, good customs and public policy.

“Kasunduan” in barangay conciliation proceeding

The amicable settlement and arbitration award made before the barangay lupon
during conciliation proceeding is referred to as “Kasunduan.” It has the force and effect
of a final judgment of a court upon the expiration of ten (10) days from the date of its
execution. Thereafter, it may be executed by the lupon within a period of six (6) months.
After the period six (6) months, the award or settlement may be enforced by filing an
action before the court for its execution.

However, it cannot be executed when the settlement or award has been repudiated
or a petition to nullify the award has been filed before the proper city or municipal court
within the ten-day period.

Judgment nunc pro tunc

Nunc pro tunc judgments have been defined and characterized by the Supreme
Court as one that does not the render a new judgment and ascertain and determine new
rights. It is one which place in proper form on the record the judgment that had been
previously rendered to make it speak the truth so as to make it show what the judicial
action really was. It is not to correct judicial errors in place of the one it erroneously
rendered. Neither it is to supply non-action by the court, no matter how erroneous the
judgment may have been.

A judgment nunc pro tunc does not cause prejudice to any party. It is rendered
simply to put on record an act which the court performed but was omitted through
inadvertence or mistake. It is not intended to render a new judgment nor supply the court’s
inaction. As discussed above, it is used to make the record speak the truth but not to
make it speak what it did not speak but ought to have spoken. Thus, where the
modification introduced by the subsequent judgment supplies finding of facts and law not
included in the original judgment, the same is not nunc pro tunc.

Memorandum decision
 A memorandum decision is one rendered by an appellate court and incorporates
by reference the findings of facts and conclusions of law contained in the decision or order
under review.

Judgment by default

Refers to the judgment rendered by a court after the defending party was declared
in default for failure to file the responsive pleading within the prescribed period. Take note
that where the summons was served upon the defendant through publication and such
party failed to appear, the judgment or final order rendered by the court shall also be
served upon him or her through publication at the expense of the prevailing party.

Obiter dictum

An obiter dictum has been defined as an opinion expressed by a court upon some
questions of law which is not necessary to the decision of the case before it. It is a remark
made, or opinion expressed, by a judge, in his or her decision upon an incidental or
collateral cause. An obiter dictum is not binding as a precedent. It does not have the status
of a binding precedent since it is susceptible to varying interpretations and cannot be cited
as a doctrinal declaration of the Supreme Court.

Judgment on the pleadings

When an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material

allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings, the court may direct judgment on such
pleadings. This remedy may be availed of by filing a motion asking the court to direct
judgment based on the pleadings.

For this to materialize, it must be shown that the complaint and the answer agree
on the facts of the case. Simply said, the answer tenders no issue at all. Since there are
no disputed facts, then there is no need for trial. The court simply determines the
applicable laws to arrive at the decision.

A judgment on the pleadings is based on the pleadings alone. As elaborated by

the Supreme Court, judgment on the pleadings is proper where there is no ostensible
issue at all because of the failure of the defending party’s answer to raise an issue. An
answer would fail to tender an issue if it does not deny the material allegations in the
complaint or admits said material allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings by
confessing the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with them at all. If the answer
does in fact specifically deny the material averments of the complaint and/or asserts
affirmative defenses, a judgment on the pleadings would naturally be improper.

Thus, where the answer failed to comply with requirements of the rules on specific
denial such as specifically denying under oath the genuineness and due execution of a
memorandum of agreement upon which the claim is based upon, it would admit the
material allegations in the complaint. Such omission to deal with the proper denial thereof
as required by the rules would result in the admission of such fact and, hence, the answer
will fail to tender an issue giving way for the court to direct judgment based on the
pleadings.

However, in actions for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage or for legal

separation, the material facts alleged in the complaint shall always be proved. Hence, the
court cannot be allowed to simply direct judgment on the pleadings.

Normally, it is the plaintiff or the claiming party who files the motion for the court to
render judgment based on the pleadings. The motion is filed at anytime after answer. It
is not correct to say that such motion may be filed only during pre-trial or that the motion
earlier filed may only be resolved by the court at the pre-trial. Rule 18 merely
contemplates that in the event where no such motion is filed, the court may suggest during
the pre-trial that a motion be filed for such purpose.

Although a motion is filed for the court to direct judgment based on the pleadings,
the court is not prevented from rendering the same motu proprio. The amendments to the
rules now allows the court to render such judgment on motion or motu proprio if it is
apparent that the answer fails to render an issue, or otherwise admits the material
allegations of the adverse party’s pleadings. Where a motion is filed, it shall be subject to
the provisions of Rule 15 on motions. In deciding the case, the court shall base its
judgment by applying the law on the facts as shown by the pleadings alone.

An action by the court on a motion for judgment on the pleadings shall not be
subject of an appeal or petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus. It is the judgment
rendered by the court which is appealable.

Summary Judgment

Generally, the parties to a case have the right to a plenary trial to ensure that they
are given a right to fully present their evidence in their respective claims or defenses. An
exception to this is where a party seeks summary judgment and dispense with trial.

A party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim or cross-claim or to obtain

a declaratory relief, may move for a summary judgment in his or her favor upon all or any
part thereof. The motion may be filed at any time after the pleading in answer to such
claim, counterclaim or cross-claim has been served. The motion shall also be
accompanied by supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions.

Summary judgment is a procedural device for the prompt disposition of actions in

which the pleadings raise only a legal issue, and not a genuine issue as to any material
fact except for the amount of damages. This remedy is available when there is no genuine
issue but merely consequential issues, such as dates or the amount of damages. It is
resorted to in order to avoid long drawn out litigations and useless delays.
 As compared from a judgment on the pleading, a summary judgment is a judgment
on the facts as summarily proven by affidavits, depositions or admissions. The issues
which apparently exist, however, are sham, fictitious, or not genuine as shown by the
affidavits, depositions or admissions. Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the
answer filed fails to tender any issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations in the
complaint. On the other hand, summary judgment is resorted to when the answer filed
tender issues such as specific denials and affirmative defenses but the issues raised are
sham, fictitious, or otherwise not genuine.

Thus, for summary judgment to be proper, the rule requires the following
requisites:

1. There must be no genuine issue as to any material fact except for the amount
of damages;
2. The party filing the motion for summary judgment must be entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law.

A genuine issue is an issue of fact which requires the presentation of evidence as

distinguished from an issue which is a sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim. When the
facts as pleaded appear uncontested or undisputed, then there is no real or genuine
issue. Any doubt as to the existence of such an issue is resolved against the party moving
for summary judgment.

When the affidavits, depositions and admissions on file show that there are no
genuine issues of fact to be tried, the Rules allow a party to pierce the allegations in the
pleadings and to obtain immediate relief by way of summary judgment. In short, since the
facts are not in dispute, the court is allowed to decide the case summarily by applying the
law to the material facts.

According to the Supreme Court, an issue of material fact exists if the answer or
responsive pleading filed specifically denies the material allegations of fact set forth in the
complaint or pleading. If the issue of fact requires the presentation of evidence, it is a
genuine issue of fact. However, if the issue could be resolved judiciously by plain resort to
the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and other papers on file, the issue of fact raised is
sham, and the trial court may resolve the action through summary judgment.

To forestall summary judgment, it is essential for the non-moving party to confirm

the existence of genuine issues, as to which he or she has substantial, plausible and fairly
arguable defense. Issues of fact calling for the presentation of evidence upon which
reasonable findings of fact could return a verdict for the non-moving party will be
insufficient to preclude entry thereof. Thus, the issue of non-receipt of the letter of demand
is a sham or pretended issue and not a genuine and substantial issue. Bare denial,
unsubstantiated by facts, are not sufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact to defeat a
motion for summary judgment.
 When summary judgment is proper, the court decides the case by simply applying
the laws to the material facts. The judgment rendered in this case is based on the
pleadings, affidavits, depositions and admissions.

Who may file the motion for summary judgment?

Either of the claiming or the defending party may avail of this remedy.

The claimant may file the motion after the answer to his or her claim is filed. The
motion must be accompanied by supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions.

The defending party may move for summary judgment at any time. His or her
motion must likewise be accompanied by supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions.

The filing of the motion for summary judgment may be done even prior to pre-trial.
Rule 35 merely requires that the same be filed by the plaintiff at any time after the pleading
in answer to the claim has been filed or by the defendant at any time after the filing of
such complaint. It would be a misconception to interpret the provisions under Rule 18 that
a motion for summary judgment may only be filed after pre-trial. It will also be erroneous
to make it appear that the court can only resolve an earlier motion for summary judgment
at the pre-trial.

As clarified by the Supreme Court, the rule only spells out that unless the motion
for such judgment has earlier been filed, the pre-trial may be the occasion in which the
court considers the propriety of rendering judgment on the pleadings or summary
judgment. If no such motion was earlier filed, the pre-trial judge may then indicate to the
proper party to initiate the rendition of such judgment by filing the necessary motion.

It bears to note that unlike in judgments on the pleadings, the rule requires that a
motion for summary judgment be filed. The court cannot motu proprio render summary
judgment. Such motion shall cite the supporting affidavits, depositions or admissions and
the specific law relied upon.

The adverse party may counter the motion for summary judgment by filing a
comment and serve opposing affidavits, depositions or admissions within a non-
extendible period of five (5) calendar days from receipt of the motion.

If the court finds that the pleadings, supporting affidavits, depositions and
admissions on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts except as
to the amount of damages and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law, it shall render such judgment. The court, however, may order the conduct of a
hearing on said motion before ruling thereon.

Any action of the court on a motion for summary judgment shall not be subject of
an appeal, or petition for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus.