Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Remedies After A Judgment Becomes Final and Executory: Francheska Joanne Q. Cruz-Am
Remedies After A Judgment Becomes Final and Executory: Francheska Joanne Q. Cruz-Am
1. Directing the JBC to give him at least five (5) working days
written notice of any hearing of the JBC to which he would be
summoned; and the said notice to contain the sworn
specifications of the charges against him by his oppositors, the
sworn statements of supporting witnesses, if any, and copies of
documents in support of the charges; and notice and sworn
statements shall be made part of the public record of the JBC;
2. Allowing him to cross-examine his oppositors and supporting
witnesses, if any, and the cross-examination to be conducted in
public, under the same conditions that attend the public
interviews held for all applicants;
Jardeleza v. Chief Justice Sereno
• Jardeleza filed a letter-petition (letter-petition) praying that the Court, in
the exercise of its constitutional power of supervision over the JBC, issue
an order:
Issue:
Whether or not the Court can assume
jurisdiction and give due course to the
subject petition for certiorari?
Jardeleza v. Chief Justice Sereno
• Yes. A petition for certiorari is a proper remedy to
question the act of any branch or instrumentality of
the government on the ground of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
by any branch or instrumentality of the government,
even if the latter does not exercise judicial, quasi-
judicial or ministerial functions.
• Rationale: The concept of Judicial Review in the
1987 Constitution allows it to take cognizance of
the petition; The expanded concept of Judicial
Review
Macapagal-Arroyo v. People
• Consolidated petitions for certiorari
separately brought to assail and annul the
resolutions of the Sandiganbayan
– Ground: The Sandiganbayan committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction when it denied petitioners’:
demurrer to evidence and
motions for reconsideration
Macapagal-Arroyo v. People
The Ombudsman charged in the Sandiganbayan with PLUNDER
as defined by, and penalized under Section 2 of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 7080, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 the following:
1. GMA
2. Former PCSO Secretary Benigno Aguas
3. Former PCSO General Manager and Vice Chairman
Rosario C. Uriarte,
4. Former PCSO Chairman of the Board of Directors
Sergio O. Valencia,
5. Former members of the PCSO Board of Directors, and
6. Two former officials of the Commission on Audit
(COA).
Macapagal-Arroyo v. People
The information reads as follows:
Procedural Issue:
Whether or not the special civil action
for certiorari is proper to assail the denial of
the demurrers to evidence?
Macapagal-Arroyo v. People
• Certiorari is proper since the Sandiganbayan gravely abused
its discretion in denying GMA’s demurrer to evidence.
• General rule:
– The special civil action for certiorari is generally not proper
to assail such an interlocutory order issued by the trial
court because of the availability of another remedy in the
ordinary course of law.
– Moreover, Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court
expressly provides, “the order denying the motion for
leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the
demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or
by certiorari before judgment.”
Macapagal-Arroyo v. People
• Certiorari is proper since the Sandiganbayan gravely abused
its discretion in denying GMA’s demurrer to evidence.
• Exception:
– “In the exercise of our superintending control over other
courts, we are to be guided by all the circumstances of
each particular case ‘as the ends of justice may require.’
So it is that the writ will be granted where necessary to
prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial justice”
(citing Ong v. People [G.R. No. 140904, October 9, 2000]).
Macapagal-Arroyo v. People
• The exercise of this power to correct grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government cannot be thwarted by rules of
procedure to the contrary or for the sake of the
convenience of one side. This is because the Court
has the bounden constitutional duty to strike down
grave abuse of discretion whenever and wherever it
is committed.
Macabingkil v. PHHC
• February 21, 1964: Macabingkil filed an action
for specific performance with writ of
preliminary injunction against PHHC
– Main purpose: To compel PHHC to execute a Deed
of Conditional Contract to Sell Lot No. 27, Block E-
148, East Avenue Subdivision, Quezon City
– to enjoin PHHC and those claiming under it from
ejecting petitioner therefrom, from demolishing
her house and from removing the improvements
on the premises.
Macabingkil v. PHHC
• March 25, 1964: Spouses Llanes filed a Motion
for Intervention; Lot was sold to them by PHHC
• Final judgment in Civil Case No. Q-5866:
– declaring said PHHC Resolution No. 550 as void and
of no effect and enjoining the PHHC to respect the
Conditional Contract to Sell it executed on March 27,
1961 in favor of Irene de Leon involving Lot No. 27,
and
– to eject any and all squatters thereon; and
– that this decision, on appeal by the PHHC, was
affirmed; except as to the amount of attorney's fees.
Macabingkil v. PHHC
• April 28, 1964: PHHC filed its answer with
counterclaim
– Macabingkil has bean illegally squatting on said Lot
– PHHC Board Resolution No. 550 has been declared
null and void; This was affirmed by CA
• Macabingkil filed reply
• Spouses intervenors filed an intervention denying
the substantial allegations and adopting the
affirmative defenses raised by PHHC
Macabingkil v. PHHC
• Preliminary hearing on the affirmative defenses
was conducted Resolution based on the
pleadings
• Trial Court: Issued an Order stating that there is a
failure to state a cause of action
– Upheld the right of the intervenor
– the contract which the intervenor has with the PHHC
was precisely given full force and effect by the Court
of Appeals and to this Court cannot ignore the same
and instead reaward the same lot to plaintiff;
Cannot ignore a valid judgment
Macabingkil v. PHHC
• CA: Affirmed en toto
• Decision received on March 8, 1968 Filed
an MR more than 15 days after; Denied
• Second MR also denied
• Filed a Petition for Certiorari
Macabingkil v. PHHC
Issue:
Whether or not the Appellate Court gravely
abused its discretion in affirming the trial court's
Order of dismissal of petitioner's action "for
failure of complaint to state a cause of action”?
Macabingkil v. PHHC
• The rule is well-settled that once a court
renders a final judgment, all the issues
between or among the parties before it are
deemed resolved and its judicial functions as
regards only matter related to the controversy
litigated comes to an end, and the same
cannot be relitigated on its merits in the
lower court as well as in the appellate courts.
Macabingkil v. PHHC
Under existing rules, there are three (3) ways by which a final and executory judgment
may be set aside:
1. By petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Revised Rules of Court,
when judgment has been taken against the party through fraud, accident, mistake
or excusable negligence, in which case the petition must be filed within sixty (60)
days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, but not more than six (6)
months after such judgment was entered.
2. By direct action to annul and enjoin the enforcement of the judgment. This
remedy presupposes that the challenged judgment is not void upon its face, but
is entirely regular in form, and the alleged defect is one which is not apparent
upon its face or from the recitals contained in the judgment.
3. Either a direct action, as certiorari, or by a collateral
attack against the challenged judgment is void upon its
face, or that the nullity of the judgment is apparent by
virtue of its own recitals.
Macabingkil v. PHHC
• Since the afore-mentioned decision in Civil Case
No. Q-5866 is NOT void upon it face, it may only
be annulled by direct action on the ground of
fraud.
– Only extrinsic or collateral fraud
• "where it is one the effect of which prevents a party
from having a trial, or real contest, or from presenting
all of his case to the court, or where it operates upon
matters pertaining, not to the judgment itself, but to
the manner in which it was procured so that there is
not a fair submission of the controversy."
Macabingkil v. PHHC
• Although petitioner appeared to have a direct
interest in the subject matter of the litigation,
said party did not seek a reconsideration of said
order, much less did she question on appeal the
validity of said order.
• On the basis of the foregoing, it is evident that
even if we were to consider the present appeal as
a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Revised Rules of Court, still the said petition
could not be granted.
Macabingkil v. PHHC
• WHEREFORE, the present appeal should be, as
it is hereby, DISMISSED, with costs against
plaintiff-appellant Concepcion Macabingkil