Lawyerly

GR No. 160684

2015-09-02

CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. HI-GRADE FEEDS CORPORATION

PEREZ, J.

Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts that judges may properly take and act on without proof because these facts are already known to them;[13] it is the duty of the court to assume something as a matter of fact without need of further evidentiary support.[14] Otherwise stated, by the taking of judicial notice, the court dispenses with the traditional form of presentation of evidence, i.e. the rigorous rules of evidence and court proceedings such as cross-examination.[15]

GR No. 192717

2014-03-12

MINDA S. GAERLAN v. REPUBLIC

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Moreover, the CENRO certification attached by petitioner to her petition deserves scant consideration since it was not presented during the proceedings before the trial court or while the case was pending before the appellate court. Petitioner only presented the said certification for the first time before this Court. The genuineness and due execution of the said document had not been duly proven in the manner required by law.[42] Also, generally, additional evidence is allowed when it is newly discovered, or where it has been omitted through inadvertence or mistake, or where the purpose of the evidence is to correct evidence previously offered.[43] In the present case, petitioner did not offer any explanation why the CENRO certification was not presented and submitted during the proceedings before the trial court to justify its belated submission to this Court.

AM No. RTJ-11-2259

2013-10-22

MA. REGINA S. PERALTA v. JUDGE GEORGE E. OMELIO

PER CURIAM

As Section 5, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court clearly provides, the proscription against a second motion for reconsideration is directed against "a judgment or final order."[49] Thus, we held in Philgreen Trading Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals[50]: The rule that a second motion for reconsideration is prohibited by the Rules applies to final judgments and orders, not interlocutory orders. This is clear from the Interim or Transitional Rules Relative to the Implementation of B.P. 129. Section 4 of the Interim Rules provides that "[n]o party shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration of a final order or judgment." A second motion for reconsideration attacking an interlocutory order can be denied on the ground that it is a "rehash" or mere reiteration of grounds and arguments already passed upon and resolved by the court; it, however, cannot be rejected on the ground that a second motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order is forbidden by law.[51]

GR No. 175977

2013-08-19

HADJI PANGSAYAN T. ABDULRAHMAN v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN FOR MINDANAO

SERENO, C.J.

Grave abuse of discretion is "the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; or, the exercise of power in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty, to a virtual refusal to perform the mandated duty, or to act at all in contemplation of the law."[57] It is more than mere imputation of caprice, whimsicality or arbitrariness; and it is not present when the acts are found to be mere errors of judgment or simple abuse of discretion.[58]

GR No. 202243

2013-08-07

ROMULO L. NERI v. SANDIGANBAYAN

VELASCO JR., J.

Consolidation is a procedural device granted to the court as an aid in deciding how cases in its docket are to be tried so that the business of the court may be dispatched expeditiously while providing justice to the parties.[18] Toward this end, consolidation and a single trial of several cases in the court's docket or consolidation of issues within those cases are permitted by the rules.

GR No. 171555

2013-04-17

EVANGELINE RIVERA-CALINGASAN v. WILFREDO RIVERA

BRION, J.

The petitioners' claim of physical possession cannot find support in the March 11, 2003 order[32] of the RTC of Lipa City, Branch 13, in Civil Case No. 99-0773 stating that the petitioners "have been occupying the premises since 1997." We note that the order was a mere interlocutory order on Wilfredo's motion for the issuance of a cease and desist order. An interlocutory order does not end the task of the court in adjudicating the parties' contentions and determining their rights and liabilities against each other. "[I]t is basically provisional in its application."[33] It is the nature of an interlocutory order that it is subject to modification or reversal that the result of further proceedings may warrant. Thus, the RTC's pronouncement on the petitioners' occupation "since 1997" is not res judicata on the issue of actual physical possession.

GR No. 185518

2013-04-17

SPS. FELIX CHINGKOE AND ROSITA CHINGKOE v. SPS. FAUSTINO CHINGKOE AND GLORIA CHINGKOE

SERENO, C.J.

This doctrine was restated in Republic v. Sandiganbayan, viz: "As a matter of convenience to all the parties, a court may properly treat all or any part of the original record of a case filed in its archives as read into the record of a case pending before it, when, with the knowledge of, and absent an objection from, the adverse party, reference is made to it for that purpose, by name and number or in some other manner by which it is sufficiently designated; or when the original record of the former case or any part of it, is actually withdrawn from the archives at the court's direction, at the request or with the consent of the parties, and admitted as a part of the record of the case then pending."[16] (Underscoring supplied)

GR No. 199501

2013-03-06

REPUBLIC v. VS.HEIRS OF ENRIQUE ORIBELLO

CARPIO, J.

Consolidation is a procedural device to aid the court in deciding how cases in its docket are to be tried so that the business of the court may be dispatched expeditiously and with economy while providing justice to the parties.[25] To promote this end, the rule allows the consolidation and a single trial of several cases in the court's docket, or the consolidation of issues within those cases.[26] The Court explained, thus: In the context of legal procedure, the term "consolidation" is used in three different senses:

GR No. 185595

2013-01-09

MA. CARMINIA C. CALDERON v. JOSE ANTONIO F. ROXAS

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The word interlocutory refers to something intervening between the commencement and the end of the suit which decides some point or matter but is not a final decision of the whole controversy.[18] An interlocutory order merely resolves incidental matters and leaves something more to be done to resolve the merits of the case. In contrast, a judgment or order is considered final if the order disposes of the action or proceeding completely, or terminates a particular stage of the same action.[19] Clearly, whether an order or resolution is final or interlocutory is not dependent on compliance or non- compliance by a party to its directive, as what petitioner suggests. It is also important to emphasize the temporary or provisional nature of the assailed orders.

GR No. 173820

2012-04-16

PRODUCERS BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. EXCELSA INDUSTRIES

PERALTA, J.

Consolidation is a procedural device granted to the court as an aid in deciding how cases in its docket are to be tried so that the business of the court may be dispatched expeditiously and with economy while providing justice to the parties.[22] It is governed by Rule 31 of the old Rules of Court[23] which states: Section 1. Consolidation. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.[24]

GR No. 173820

2012-04-16

PRODUCERS BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. EXCELSA INDUSTRIES

PERALTA, J.

As aptly observed by the Court in Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, et al.,[25] Rule 31 is completely silent on the effect/s of consolidation on the cases consolidated; on the parties and the causes of action involved; and on the evidence presented in the consolidated cases.[26] In the same case, the Court declared that the effect of consolidation would greatly depend on the sense in which the consolidation is made. Consolidation of cases may take place in any of the following ways: (1) Where all except one of several actions are stayed until one is tried, in which case the judgment in the one trial is conclusive as to the others. This is not actually consolidation but is referred to as such. (quasi-consolidation) (2) Where several actions are combined into one, lose their separate identity, and become a single action in which a single judgment is rendered. This is illustrated by a situation where several actions are pending between the same parties stating claims which might have been set out originally in one complaint. (actual consolidation) (3) Where several actions are ordered to be tried together but each retains its separate character and requires the entry of a separate judgment. This type of consolidation does not merge the suits into a single action, or cause the parties to one action to be parties to the other. (consolidation for trial)[27]

GR Nos. 153304-05

2012-02-07

PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN

BRION, J.

The court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, may require or allow the prosecution to present additional evidence (at its own initiative or upon a motion) after a demurrer to evidence is filed. This exercise, however, must be for good reasons and in the paramount interest of justice.[73] As mentioned, the court may require the presentation of further evidence if its action on the demurrer to evidence would patently result in the denial of due process; it may also allow the presentation of additional evidence if it is newly discovered, if it was omitted through inadvertence or mistake, or if it is intended to correct the evidence previously offered.[74]

GR No. 189151

2012-01-25

SPS. DAVID BERGONIA v. CA

REYES, J.

In Republic v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division),[15] this Court laid down the following rules to determine whether a court's disposition is already a final order or merely an interlocutory order and the respective remedies that may be availed in each case, thus: Case law has conveniently demarcated the line between a final judgment or order and an interlocutory one on the basis of the disposition made. A judgment or order is considered final if the order disposes of the action or proceeding completely, or terminates a particular stage of the same action; in such case, the remedy available to an aggrieved party is appeal. If the order or resolution, however, merely resolves incidental matters and leaves something more to be done to resolve the merits of the case, the order is interlocutory and the aggrieved party's remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Jurisprudence pointedly holds that:

	GR No. 160684 2015-09-02	CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. HI-GRADE FEEDS CORPORATION PEREZ, J.
Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts that judges may properly take and act on without proof because these facts are already known to them;[13] it is the duty of the court to assume something as a matter of fact without need of further evidentiary support.[14] Otherwise stated, by the taking of judicial notice, the court dispenses with the traditional form of presentation of evidence, i.e. the rigorous rules of evidence and court proceedings such as cross-examination.[15]
	GR No. 192717 2014-03-12	MINDA S. GAERLAN v. REPUBLIC VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Moreover, the CENRO certification attached by petitioner to her petition deserves scant consideration since it was not presented during the proceedings before the trial court or while the case was pending before the appellate court. Petitioner only presented the said certification for the first time before this Court. The genuineness and due execution of the said document had not been duly proven in the manner required by law.[42] Also, generally, additional evidence is allowed when it is newly discovered, or where it has been omitted through inadvertence or mistake, or where the purpose of the evidence is to correct evidence previously offered.[43] In the present case, petitioner did not offer any explanation why the CENRO certification was not presented and submitted during the proceedings before the trial court to justify its belated submission to this Court.
	AM No. RTJ-11-2259 2013-10-22	MA. REGINA S. PERALTA v. JUDGE GEORGE E. OMELIO PER CURIAM
As Section 5, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court clearly provides, the proscription against a second motion for reconsideration is directed against "a judgment or final order."[49] Thus, we held in Philgreen Trading Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals[50]: The rule that a second motion for reconsideration is prohibited by the Rules applies to final judgments and orders, not interlocutory orders. This is clear from the Interim or Transitional Rules Relative to the Implementation of B.P. 129. Section 4 of the Interim Rules provides that "[n]o party shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration of a final order or judgment." A second motion for reconsideration attacking an interlocutory order can be denied on the ground that it is a "rehash" or mere reiteration of grounds and arguments already passed upon and resolved by the court; it, however, cannot be rejected on the ground that a second motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order is forbidden by law.[51]
	GR No. 175977 2013-08-19	HADJI PANGSAYAN T. ABDULRAHMAN v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN FOR MINDANAO SERENO, C.J.
Grave abuse of discretion is "the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, equivalent to lack of jurisdiction; or, the exercise of power in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty, to a virtual refusal to perform the mandated duty, or to act at all in contemplation of the law."[57] It is more than mere imputation of caprice, whimsicality or arbitrariness; and it is not present when the acts are found to be mere errors of judgment or simple abuse of discretion.[58]
	GR No. 202243 2013-08-07	ROMULO L. NERI v. SANDIGANBAYAN VELASCO JR., J.
Consolidation is a procedural device granted to the court as an aid in deciding how cases in its docket are to be tried so that the business of the court may be dispatched expeditiously while providing justice to the parties.[18] Toward this end, consolidation and a single trial of several cases in the court's docket or consolidation of issues within those cases are permitted by the rules.
	GR No. 171555 2013-04-17	EVANGELINE RIVERA-CALINGASAN v. WILFREDO RIVERA BRION, J.
The petitioners' claim of physical possession cannot find support in the March 11, 2003 order[32] of the RTC of Lipa City, Branch 13, in Civil Case No. 99-0773 stating that the petitioners "have been occupying the premises since 1997." We note that the order was a mere interlocutory order on Wilfredo's motion for the issuance of a cease and desist order. An interlocutory order does not end the task of the court in adjudicating the parties' contentions and determining their rights and liabilities against each other. "[I]t is basically provisional in its application."[33] It is the nature of an interlocutory order that it is subject to modification or reversal that the result of further proceedings may warrant. Thus, the RTC's pronouncement on the petitioners' occupation "since 1997" is not res judicata on the issue of actual physical possession.
	GR No. 185518 2013-04-17	SPS. FELIX CHINGKOE AND ROSITA CHINGKOE v. SPS. FAUSTINO CHINGKOE AND GLORIA CHINGKOE SERENO, C.J.
This doctrine was restated in Republic v. Sandiganbayan, viz: "As a matter of convenience to all the parties, a court may properly treat all or any part of the original record of a case filed in its archives as read into the record of a case pending before it, when, with the knowledge of, and absent an objection from, the adverse party, reference is made to it for that purpose, by name and number or in some other manner by which it is sufficiently designated; or when the original record of the former case or any part of it, is actually withdrawn from the archives at the court's direction, at the request or with the consent of the parties, and admitted as a part of the record of the case then pending."[16] (Underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 199501 2013-03-06	REPUBLIC v. VS.HEIRS OF ENRIQUE ORIBELLO CARPIO, J.
Consolidation is a procedural device to aid the court in deciding how cases in its docket are to be tried so that the business of the court may be dispatched expeditiously and with economy while providing justice to the parties.[25] To promote this end, the rule allows the consolidation and a single trial of several cases in the court's docket, or the consolidation of issues within those cases.[26] The Court explained, thus: In the context of legal procedure, the term "consolidation" is used in three different senses:
	GR No. 185595 2013-01-09	MA. CARMINIA C. CALDERON v. JOSE ANTONIO F. ROXAS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The word interlocutory refers to something intervening between the commencement and the end of the suit which decides some point or matter but is not a final decision of the whole controversy.[18] An interlocutory order merely resolves incidental matters and leaves something more to be done to resolve the merits of the case. In contrast, a judgment or order is considered final if the order disposes of the action or proceeding completely, or terminates a particular stage of the same action.[19] Clearly, whether an order or resolution is final or interlocutory is not dependent on compliance or non- compliance by a party to its directive, as what petitioner suggests. It is also important to emphasize the temporary or provisional nature of the assailed orders.
	GR No. 173820 2012-04-16	PRODUCERS BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. EXCELSA INDUSTRIES PERALTA, J.
Consolidation is a procedural device granted to the court as an aid in deciding how cases in its docket are to be tried so that the business of the court may be dispatched expeditiously and with economy while providing justice to the parties.[22] It is governed by Rule 31 of the old Rules of Court[23] which states: Section 1. Consolidation. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.[24]
	GR No. 173820 2012-04-16	PRODUCERS BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. EXCELSA INDUSTRIES PERALTA, J.
As aptly observed by the Court in Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, et al.,[25] Rule 31 is completely silent on the effect/s of consolidation on the cases consolidated; on the parties and the causes of action involved; and on the evidence presented in the consolidated cases.[26] In the same case, the Court declared that the effect of consolidation would greatly depend on the sense in which the consolidation is made. Consolidation of cases may take place in any of the following ways: (1) Where all except one of several actions are stayed until one is tried, in which case the judgment in the one trial is conclusive as to the others. This is not actually consolidation but is referred to as such. (quasi-consolidation) (2) Where several actions are combined into one, lose their separate identity, and become a single action in which a single judgment is rendered. This is illustrated by a situation where several actions are pending between the same parties stating claims which might have been set out originally in one complaint. (actual consolidation) (3) Where several actions are ordered to be tried together but each retains its separate character and requires the entry of a separate judgment. This type of consolidation does not merge the suits into a single action, or cause the parties to one action to be parties to the other. (consolidation for trial)[27]
	GR Nos. 153304-05 2012-02-07	PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN BRION, J.
The court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, may require or allow the prosecution to present additional evidence (at its own initiative or upon a motion) after a demurrer to evidence is filed. This exercise, however, must be for good reasons and in the paramount interest of justice.[73] As mentioned, the court may require the presentation of further evidence if its action on the demurrer to evidence would patently result in the denial of due process; it may also allow the presentation of additional evidence if it is newly discovered, if it was omitted through inadvertence or mistake, or if it is intended to correct the evidence previously offered.[74]
	GR No. 189151 2012-01-25	SPS. DAVID BERGONIA v. CA REYES, J.
In Republic v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division),[15] this Court laid down the following rules to determine whether a court's disposition is already a final order or merely an interlocutory order and the respective remedies that may be availed in each case, thus: Case law has conveniently demarcated the line between a final judgment or order and an interlocutory one on the basis of the disposition made. A judgment or order is considered final if the order disposes of the action or proceeding completely, or terminates a particular stage of the same action; in such case, the remedy available to an aggrieved party is appeal. If the order or resolution, however, merely resolves incidental matters and leaves something more to be done to resolve the merits of the case, the order is interlocutory and the aggrieved party's remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Jurisprudence pointedly holds that:

REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION)