Q1: The RTC rendered judgment against ST, a copy of which was received by his

counsel on February 28, 2000. On March 10, 2000, ST, through counsel, filed a
motion for reconsideration of the decision with notice to the Clerk of Court
submitting the motion for the consideration of the court. On March 15, 2000,
realizing that the Motion lacked a notice of hearing, ST’s counsel filed a
supplemental pleading. Was the Motion for Reconsideration filed within the
reglementary period? Explain. (2000 Bar)

Yes. The Motion for Reconsideration was filed within the reglementary period.
Under the Rules of Court, a Motion for Reconsideration may be filed within the
period for filing an appeal which period is within 15 days from the receipt of the
notice of the judgment appealed from.
Here, the Motion for Reconsideration was deemed filed only on March 15, 2000
upon the submission of the supplemental pleading which cures the defect of lack
of notice of hearing.
Hence, the MR is filed within the 15-day period reckoned from the receipt of
notice of judgment on February 28, 2000, assuming that February has only 28
days.
Q2: XXX received a copy of the RTC decision on June 9, 1999; YYY received it on
the next day, June 10, 1999. XXX filed a Notice of Appeal on June 15, 1999. The
parties entered into a compromise on June 16, 1999. On June 13, 1999, YYY,
who did not appeal, filed with the RTC a motion for approval of the Compromise
Agreement. XXX changed his mind and opposed the motion on the ground that
the RTC has no more jurisdiction. Rule on the motion assuming that the records
have not yet been forwarded to the CA. (1999 Bar)

The RTC should grant the motion for the approval of the Compromise
Agreement.
Under the doctrine of Residual Jurisdiction, the trial court may retain the power
to approve a compromise even if it loses jurisdiction over an action provided it is
made prior to the transmittal of the original record or record on appeal to the
appellate court.
Here, the records of the case were not yet transmitted to the CA.
Hence, the RTC may still approve the Compromise Agreement.
Q3: Tom Wallis filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a petition for
Declaration of Nullity of his QUAMTO (1997-2018) 35 marriage with Debi Wallis
on the ground of psychological incapacity of the latter. Before filing the petition,
Tom Wallis had told Debi Wallis that he wanted the annulment of their marriage
because he was already fed up with her irrational and eccentric behaviour.
However, in the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, the correct
residential address of Debi Wallis was deliberately not alleged and instead, the
resident address of their married son was stated. Summons was served by
substituted service at the address stated in the petition. For failure to file an
answer, Debi Wallis was declared in default and Tom Wallis presented evidence
exparte. The RTC rendered judgment declaring the marriage null and void on the
ground of psychological incapacity of Debi Wallis. Three (3) years after the RTC
judgment was rendered, Debi Wallis got hold of a copy thereof and wanted to
have the RTC judgment reversed and set aside. If you are the lawyer of Debi
Wallis, what judicial remedy or remedies will you take? Discuss and specify the
ground or grounds for said remedy or remedies. (2014 Bar)

If I were the lawyer of Debi Wallis, the judicial remedy that I will take is to file a
Petition for the Annulment of the Judgment of the RTC on the ground of extrinsic
fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
Under the Rules, judgments of the RTC may be set aside by filing a Petition for
Annulment of Judgment before the CA on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack
of jurisdiction.
Here, there is extrinsic fraud when Debi’s correct residential address was
deliberately not alleged by Tom in the petition, hence, she was prevented to
present her case/defenses in court. The court also lacks jurisdiction over the
person of Debi because summons was not properly served upon her, but on her
son’s address.
Q4: The trial court rendered judgment ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff
moral and exemplary damages. The judgment was served on the plaintiff on
October 1, 2001 and on the defendant on October 5, 2001. On October 8, 2001,
the defendant filed a notice of appeal from the judgment, but the following day,
October 9, 2001, the plaintiff moved for the execution of the judgment pending
appeal. The trial court granted the motion upon the posting by the plaintiff of a
bond to indemnify the defendant for damages it may suffer as a result of the
execution. The court gave as a special reason for its order the imminent
insolvency of the defendant. Is the order of execution pending appeal correct?
Why? (2002 Bar)

No. The order of execution pending appeal is not correct.

Jurisprudence provides that a judgment awarding moral and exemplary damages
cannot be the subject of execution pending appeal, for unlike actual damages,
these types of damages remain uncertain/indefinite until the determination of
the main case on appeal.
Here, plaintiff moved for the execution pending appeal of the judgment for moral
and exemplary damages which cannot be granted because the same remain
uncertain until the determination of the defendant’s appeal.
Q5: What is the Harmless Error Rule in relation to appeals?
The Harmless Error Rule in relation to appeals refers to the rule that the defects
or errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence or anything done or omitted
by any party or the court may not be a ground for granting a new trial or relief
from judgment, unless, the refusal to take an action upon the same is
inconsistent with substantial justice.