RULE 36

JUDGMENTS, FINAL ORDERS AND ENTRY THEREOF

Section 1. Rendition of judgments and final orders. 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, and filed with the clerk of the court. (1a)

It is the filing of the decision, judgment or final order with the clerk of court, not the
signing thereof that constitutes rendition or promulgation.
Decision and judgment are synonymous.

Judgment defined
Laws last work in a judicial controversy.
DEFINITION: The final consideration and determination of a court of competent
jurisdiction upon the matters submitted to it, in nan action or proceeding.
: Conclusion of the law upon the matters contained in the record, or the
application of the law to the pleadings and to the facts, as found by the court or admitted
by the parties, or deemed to exist upon their default in the course of judicial
proceedings.

Constitutional requirement applicable to decisions

Art VIII Sec 14 of 1987 Constitution requires every court to express in its decision,
clearly and distinctly the facts and the law, which it is based. The requirement of
specificity of rulings under the constitution and the RoC is stringently applied only to
judgments and final orders. A liberal interpretation of this requirement may be given to
interlocutory orders such as an order denying a motion to dismiss.
Requirement refers to decisions and final orders on the merits, not to those resolving
incidental matters. The award of temporary custody as the term implies, is provincial
and subject to change as circumstances may warrant. There is thus no need for a
lengthy discussion of the alleged finality of the TCs order granting the parent temporary
custody of the child. For that matter, even the award of child custody after a judgment
un the marriage annulment is not permanent, it may be reexamined and adjusted if and
when parent who was given custody becomes unfit.

Constitutional requirement applicable to resolutions disposing of petitions

Resolutions disposing of petitions fall under Art VIII Sec 14 of 1987 Constitution which
states that No decision for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the
court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal bases therefor.
When the Court, after deliberation on the petition and any subsequent pleadings,
manifestations, comments or motion decides to deny due course to the petition and
states that the questions raised are factual or no reversible error in the respondent
courts decision is shown or for some other legal bases situated in the resolution, there
is sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement.
Judgment or final order must be personally and directly prepared by the judge
It is axiomatic that decision-making, among other duties, is the primordial and most
important duty of a member of the bench. This is a function exclusively granted to him
by no less than the Constitution. He must use his own perceptiveness in understanding
and analyzing the evidence presented before him and his own discernment when
determining the proper action, resolution or decision. Thus, delegating to a counsel of
one of the parties the preparation of a decision and parroting it verbatim reflect blatant
judicial sloth.

Memorandum decisions.
a memorandum decision. To be valid, cannot incorporate the findings of fact and the
conclusion of law of the lower court only be remote reference which is to day that the
challenged decisions is not easily and immediately available to the person reading the
memorandum decision. For the incorporation by reference to be allowed, it must provide
for direct access to the facts and the law being adopted which must be contained in a
statement attached to the said decision. In other words, the memorandum decision
authorized under Sec 40 of Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 should actually
embody the finings of fact and conclusions of law of the lower court in an annex
attached to and made an indispensable part of the decision.
it is expected that this requirement will allay suspicion that no study was made of the
decision of the lower court and that its decision was merely affirmed without a proper
examination of the facts and law on which it is based. The proximity at least of the
annexed statement should suggest that such an examination has been undertaken. It is,
of course, also understood that the decision being adopted should, to begin with,
comply with Art. VIII Sec 14 of the Constitution as no amount of incorporation or
adoption will rectify its violation.
The Court finds it necessary to emphasize that the memorandum decisions should
be sparingly used lest it become an addictive excuse for judicial sloth. It is an additional
condition for its validity that this kinds of decision may be resorted only in cases where
the facts are in the main accepted by both the parties or easily determinable by the
judge and there are no doctrinal complications involved that will require an extended
discussion of the laws involved. The memorandum decision may be employed in simple
litigations only such as, ordinary collection cases, where the appeal is obviously
groundless and deserves no more that the time needed to dismiss it.
Henceforth, all memorandum decisions shall comply with the requirements herein set
forth both as to the form prescribed and the occasions when they may be rendered. Any
deviation will summon the strict enforcement of Art. VIII Sec 14 of the Constitution and
strike down the flawed judgment as a lawless disobedience.
Court has struck down as void, decisions of lower courts and even the CA whose
careless disregard of the constitutional behest exposed their sometimes cavalier
attitude not only to their magisterial responsibilities but likewise to their avowed fealty to
the Constitution.
Thus, Court nullified or deemed to have failed to comply with sec 14 , Art VIII of the
Constitution, a decision, resolution, or order which:
Contained no analysis of the evidence of the parties nor reference to any legal
basis in reaching its conclusions;
 Contained noting more than a summary of the testimonies of the witnesses of
both parties
Convicted the accused of libel but failed to cite any legal authority or principle to
support conclusions that the letter in question was libelous
Consisted merely of one paragraph with mostly sweeping generalizations and
failed to support its conclusion of parricide
Consisted of 5 pgs, 3 pgs of which where quotations from labor arbiters decision
including the dispositive portion and barely a page (2 short prghs or 2 sentences
each) of its own discussion or reasoning; was merely based on the findings of
another court sans transcript of stenographic notes
Failed to explain the factual and legal bases for the award of moral damages.
Although a memorandum decision is permitted under certain conditions, it cannot
merely refer to the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the lower court. The court
must make a full finding of fact and conclusion of law of its own.

Constitutional judgments
1. The order of November 13, 1985, was conditioned upon a contingency namely
the outcome of the Berkenkotter case that was then pending appeal in this court.
It did not dispose definitely of the issue as to who should be awarded the
amount of P36, 793.99whether the plaintiff-appellee or the defendant-
appellant. The order provided tat the sum should be awarded to the appellee if
Berkenkotter should win the case, or to the appellant should Berkenkotter lose
the case in this Court. And this is not a final disposition of the case. We have
once held that orders or judgments of this kind, subject to the performance of a
condition precedent, are not final until the condition is performed. Before the
condition is performed or the contingency has happened, the judgment is not
effective and is not capable of execution. In truth, such judgment contains no
disposition at all and is a mere anticipated statement of what the court shall do in
the future when a particular event should happen.
For this reason, as a general rule, judgment of such kind, conditioned upon a
contingency, are held to be null and void. A judgment must be definitive. By this
is meant that the decision itself must purport to decide finally the rights of the
parties upon the issue submitted, by specifically denying or granting the remedy
sought by the action And when a definitive judgment cannot thus be rendered
because it depends upon a contingency, the proper procedure is to render no
judgment at all and defer the same until the contingency has passed.
2. A judgment which does not decide finally the rights of the parties upon the issue
submitted, by specifically denying or granting the remedy sought by the action,
thus leaving matters to be settled for its completion in a subsequent proceeding,
or which does not make a finding of all the facts presented by the pleadings and
supported by the proofs, is a conditional judgment and any appeal therefrom is
premature.

Incomplete judgments
1. The TCs decision defining rightly the right of both parties under Art 361 and 453
of the CC, fails to determine the value of the buildings and of the lot where they
 are erected as well as the periods of time within which the option may be
exercised and payment should be made, there particulars having been left for
determination apparently after the judgment has become final. This procedure is
erroneous, for after the judgment has become final, no additions can be made
thereto and nothing can be done therewith except its execution. And execution
cannot be had, the sheriff being ignorant as to how, for how much and within
what time may the option be exercised, and certainly no authority is vested in him
to settle these matters, which involve exercise of judicial discretion. Thus the
appealed judgment has never become final, it having left matters to be settled for
its completion in a subsequent proceeding, matters which remained unsettled up
to the time the petition is filed in the instant case.
2. The court made a pronouncement that the mortgage was in full force and effect.
The judgment, however, did not adjudicate the foreclosure of the mortgage nor
did it fix the amount due on the mortgage. There was therefore virtually no
decision that could be executed.
3. A judgment should state the precise amount for which it is rendered and not
leave it to be ascertained by calculation; that a judgment for a sum to be
thereafter ascertained by a ministerial offer (in this case 70% of the harvest) is
erroneous, except where the reference is merely to calculate and state an
amount already definitely fixed by the data given in the judgment.

Reservation in judgments is a mere surplusage

1. With reference to the action of the trial judge in reserving to the plaintiff the future
right to require the defendant to account for the rents and profits of the property
during the time the same has been in his charge. As to this we note that the
petitory part of the complaint contains no prayer either for an award of damages,
or rents and profits, was never legitimately in issue in this action; and it was
undoubtedly an act of supererogation on the part of his Honor to reserve to the
plaintiff the right to require an accounting for rents and profits in another action.
Whether such an accounting can be had is a question that must be determined
by the proper tribunal when occasion arises, and no pronouncement therein is
here necessary except to say that, so fat, as concerns the appealed judgment,
the reservation therein contained is mere surplusage.
2. A reservation or a statement in a courts order or decision that this is without
prejudice to the right of a party to institute another action or litigation again the
same question, is a mere surplusage. The courts cannot change the legal effects
of its decision by such reservation, unless they are expressly granted by law the
power to do so, as in the cases provided for in Rule 30 (now Rule 17) of the RoC
and others.
Whenever the law gives a party the right to bring an action, he may do so without the
necessity of any judicial reservation. If, on the contrary, the law gives him no such right,
the court cannot give it to him by attempting to reserve it.

Section 2. Entry of judgments and final orders. If no appeal or motion for new
trial or reconsideration is filed within the time provided in these 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, within a certificate
that such judgment or final order has become final and executory. (2a, 10, R51)

Before a judgment becomes final and executor, the judgment may be amended.
Upon finality of the judgment, the court loses its jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter
the same. Except for correction of clerical errors or the making of nunc pro tunc (now
for then meaning court ruling applies retroactively) entries which causes no prejudice
to any party, or where the judgment is void, the judgment can neither be amended nor
altered after it has become final and executor. This is the principle of immutability of final
judgment.
If not appeal or motion for new trial o for reconsideration has been filed on time, the
judgment or final order rendered by the court becomes final and executory, and should
immediately be entered by the clerk of court. To ensure this action, the prevailing party
should file a motion for the entry 9and execution, if proper) of the judgment. The date of
entry is the starting point of the six-month period for filing a petition of relief (Rule 38
Sec 3), as well as the 5yr period of filing a motion for execution and the 10yr period of
prescription of judgments (Rule 39 Sec 6)

Dispositive part of judgment distinguished from opinion of the court

The judgment or fallo is found in the dispositive part of the decision. It should be
distinguished from an opinion of the court, which cannot prevail over the final order or
decision. The only potion of the decision, which will become the subject of execution, is
what is ordained and decreed in such dispositive part. The reasons or conclusions of
the court may only serve as guide or enlightenment to determine the ratio decidendi.

Section 3. Judgment for or against one or more of 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. (3)

Such adversary pleadings may be cross-claims.

Section 4. Several judgments. In an action against several defendants, the

court may, when a several judgment is proper, render judgment against one or
more of them, leaving the action to proceed against the others. (4)

When several judgments proper

Several judgment is proper when the liability of each party is clearly separable and
distinct form that of his co-parties, such that the claims against each of them could have
been the subject of separate suits, and judgment for or against one of them will not
necessarily affect the other.
If the defendants have separate or severable interest, a final order or judgment may
be entered as to them leaving the action to proceed against the others, according to
Sec 4 Rule 36 of the RoC. But if the defendants have common interest, an order or
judgment of dismissal as to some of them is not final and, therefore, not appealable, for
it is well-known rule that the whole controversy or all the issues involved in a case as to
all defendants must be disposed of or settled before any final judgment may be entered.
EX: Debtors solidarily liable have common interest; while debtors jointly or
mancomunadamente liable have separate or severable interest. In an action against to
or more solidary debtors, no final order or judgment (appealable) may properly be
rendered as to some of the joint debtors and leaving the case to proceed against the
others, for the simple reason that the action should have to be finally decided as to all
defendants since a final order or judgment in favor or against one of the solidary debtors
will necessarily affect the others. But in an action against two or more defendants jointly
or mancomunadamente liable, a final order or judgment may be properly rendered as
to some defendants, leaving the case to proceed against the others, because they have
severable interest.
EX: Sister Ma. Angelina Fernando, RVM vs Santamaria: Pet. filed a complaint
against the 3 respondents alleging three causes of action. The 3 rd cause of action for
payment of the amounts of P200k and P120k is directed only against Res. Borres to the
exclusion of Res Uy and Chua. The issues of whether or not Borres should reimburse
the amount of P120k allegedly received from Pet. for payment of real estate taxes of the
lot and the P200k purportedly deducted by Borres from Pet.s 3 rd loan, are distinct from
and independent of the question of whether Pet signed the deed of Absolute Sale
through the misrepresentation of respondents.
Otherwise stated, even if the TC court debunked Pets claim that respondents
(including Borres) connived in defrauding her to convey the property, the action against
Borres for sum of money will still subsist because it is based on issues which have
nothing to do with the issue of fraud, i.e., whether Borres received the amount of P120k
and whether she has the obligation to pay the real estate taxes of the mortgaged lot.
As to the amount of P200k the question is the validity of the deduction of said
amount from the 3rd loan obtained by the Pet. The cause of action for the collection of
sum of money against Borres can thus proceed independently of the dismissal of the
action to hold her solidarily liable with Chua and Uy for the alleged fraudulent
conveyance of the lot; issue against Borres is one for misappropriation of the amounts
sought to be recovered.
: Where a common cause of action exists against the defendants, as in actions
against solidary debtors, a several judgment is not proper. In this case, private
respondents-spouses are sued together under a common cause of action and are
sought to he held liable as solidary debtors of the loan contracted by the wife. This is
clear import of the allegation in the complaint that the proceeds o the loan benefited the
conjugal partnership. Thus between the two judgments rendered by the TC, (first,
ordering the Res-wife to pay the loan due to the Pet. And the second, also finding the
res-husband liable to pay the loan due to petitioner), there could only be one judgment
that finally disposes of the case on the merits.

Section 5. Separate judgments. When more than one claim for relief is
presented in an action, the court, at any stage, 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, may render a separate
judgment disposing of such 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. In case a separate judgment is rendered the court by order may
stay its enforcement until the rendition of a subsequent judgment or judgments
and may prescribe such conditions as may be necessary to secure the benefit
thereof to the party in whose favor the judgment is rendered. (5a)

Former rule: used the word enter instead of render.

This rule correctly states that the court may render separate judgments at various
stages and in case a separate judgment is so rendered, the court may stay its
enforcement until the rendition of a subsequent judgment.
No appeal may be taken from the separate judgment unless the court allows it.
Rules provide for permissive joinder of the causes of action (Rule 2 Sec 5) joinder of
parties (Rule 3 Sec 6), separate trials (Rule 31 Sec 2) and consequently, separate
judgments on each claim under thus section. However, in proper cases, the court may
stay execution of said separate judgments until judgments are entered on the all the
claims or causes of action so that the judgments may be compensated.

Appeal of several and separate judgments

An appeal of separate or several judgment requires the filing of a notice of appeal
and a record of appeal.
Rationale: to enable the appellate court to decide the appeal without the original
record which should remain with the court a quo pending disposal of the case with
respect to he other defendants.

Amended and supplemental judgments

Amended and Clarified Judgment:
Lower court makes a thorough study of the original judgment and renders the
amended and clarified judgment only after considering all the factual and legal
issues.
Entirely new decision which supersedes the original decision
Supplemental Judgment:
Does not take place or extinguish the existence of the original.
Serves to bolster or adds something to the primary decision.
Exists side by side with the original and does not replace that which it
supplements
Associated Anglo American Tobacco Corp vs CA: RTCs order increased the
monetary amounts awarded to respondents in its Sept 15, 2000 Decision, specifically,
the amount of overage and the award of moral and exemplary damages and attys fees.
The Order, however, did not modify the decisions ruling realizing the mortgage
executed by the respondents in favor of the petitioner.
Court ruled that matter of the release of the mortgage property is material and
intertwined with the issues of the amount of overage and damages. It would be difficult
to separate these matters because a determination of the correct amount of overage
would require the examination and computation of the entire account of deliveries and
payments. Necessarily, upon reexamination of the subject account instead of an
overage is present, and dependent on the result of the reexamination of the entire
account if the determination of the correctness of either the foreclosure or release of the
mortgaged property. It follows that the ruling in the amount of damages and attys fees,
if any, may also be affected by a reexamination of the entire account.
As the disposition of some interrelated issues in the original Decision were
materially amended by the Order, these two issuances must be taken in conjunction
with each other, Together, these two issuances form one integrated amended decision.
The Feb 1 2001 Order cannot be considered as supplemental Decision because it
cannot exist side by side with the original pertinent portion on overage, damages and
attys fees. The former replaced and superseded the latter. Hence, an appeal from Feb
7 2001 RTC Order must be deemed to be an appeal from the whole integrated
amended Decision.

Section 6. Judgment against entity without juridical personality. When

judgment is rendered against two or more persons sued as an entity without
juridical personality, the judgment shall set out their individual or proper names,
if known. (6a)

Judgment upon Agreement or Compromise constitutes res judicata

Compromise agreement between parties to a case on which the decision of the
court was based has upon parties the effect and authority of res judicata and the
judgment rendered thereon has the authority of res judicata from the moment it was
rendered. Upon the court approval of a compromise agreement, it transcends its identity
as mere contract binding inly upon the parties thereto, as it becomes a judgment that is
subject to execution in accordance with Rule 39 of the RoC.
Even if the compromise between the parties had not been submitted to the court, it
still would have had the same authority as res judicata. However, such extrajudicial
compromise may not be enforced by execution.
If one of the parties fails or refuses to abide by the extrajudicial compromise, the
other party may either enforce the compromise by action or regard it as rescinded ad
insist upon his original demand.

Judgment immediately executor and not appealable. Remedies.

REASON: When both parties enter into an agreement to end the pending litigation
and request that a decision be rendered approving said agreement, it is only natural to
presume that such action constitutes an implicit, as undeniable as an express, waiver of
the right to appeal against said decision. Thus, a decision on a compromise agreement
is final and executory, and is conclusive between parties.
However, if the compromise is attended by fraud, mistake or duress, a motion to set
aside the compromise may be made, and in the event of denial, an appeal may be
taken therefrom. Under sec 1 or Rule 41 of the RoC, however, certiorari may be taken
from the order denying the said motion.

Other remedies.
The petitioner could file:
 1. A petition for relief under Rule 38 of the RoC; or
2. A new action to annul the compromise agreement under Rule 47 of the RoC
within the period established by law.

Attorney cannot compromise without special authority.

Attorneys have the authority to bind their clients in any case by any agreement in
relation thereto made in writing and in taking appeals, ad in all matters of ordinary
judicial procedure. But they cannot without special authority, compromise their clients
litigation or receive anything in discharge of a clients claim by the full amount in cash.
Moreover, Art 1878 of the CC provides that a SPoA is necessary to compromise, to
submit questions to arbitration

Judgment based on compromise by attorney without authority, null and void.

A judgment based on compromise entered into by an attorney without the proper
authority from his client is null and void ab initio. It is not binding upon and cannot be
executed against the client.
Rodriguez vs CFI of Rizal.
Conduct of counsel in entering into compromise agreement or stipulation of facts,
which practically confesses judgment, without consent and conformity of his clients, is
not in keeping with the sworn duty of a lawyer to protect the interests of his clients. It is
a grossly reprehensible act, which amounts to fraud.

However, unauthorized compromise is impliedly ratified by clients failure to

repudiate promptly action of attorney.
When it appears that the client, on becoming aware of the compromise and the
judgment thereon, fails to repudiate promptly the action of his attorney, he will not
afterwards be heard to contest its validity.
Thus, compromise, while unauthorized, was held binding on the plaintiff by his
acquiescence for over 3 years.

Judgment by compromise binding on the person who voluntarily bound himself

though not a formal party.
judgment may be directed against one who, although not a formal party in the case
has assumed or participated in the defense. By coming forward with the original litigants
in moving for a judgment on a compromise, and furthermore, by assuming such interest
in the final adjudication of the case as would place them in unequivocal liability together
with the Rebollados, to the plaintiff therein, the Tolentinos effectively submitted
themselves to the jurisdiction of the city court. They were and are thus subject to its
judgment.

Judgment by Confession
Definition
Rendered against a party upon his petition or consent. Usually happens when
the defendant appears in court and confesses the right of the plaintiff to judgment
or files a pleading expressly agreeing to the plaintiffs demand.
Kinds
the practice od entering judgments by confession is so old that the date of its
origin is unknown. Early common law recognized 2 kinds of judgment by
confession:
1. Judgment by cognovits actionem
Defendant, after service instead of entering a plea, acknowledged and
confessed that the plaintiffs cause of action was just and rightful.
2. Judgment by confession relicta verificatione
after pleading and before trial, defendant confessed the plaintiffs cause
of action and withdrew or abandoned his plea or other allegations, where
upon judgment was entered against him without proceeding to trial.

Judgment by confession stands upon the same footing as judgment upon

agreement or compromise
If a compromise may not be effected by the counsel without special authority
neither may a judgment upon confession be entered against a client by mere
agreement of counsel except with the knowledge and at the instance of such
client.

Distinction between judgment upon compromise and judgment by

confession

Judgment upon compromise Judgment by confession

Provisions and terms of which are
settled and agreed upon by the
parties to the action, and which is
entered in the record by the consent
and sanction of the court.
Court does not have the power to
supply terms, provision or essential
details not previously agreed to by
the parties
Not a plea but an affirmative and
voluntary act of the defendant himself.
Court exercises a certain amount of
supervision over the entry of judgment,
as well as equitable jurisdiction over
their subsequent status.

Provision for confession of judgment in promissory note is invalid.

The provision in a promissory note whereby in a case the same is not paid at
maturity, the maker authorizes any atty to appear and confess judgment thereon
for the principal amount, with interest, cost, and attys fees, and waives all errors,
rights to inquisition and appeal, and all property exemptions, was held to be
invalid.
It was further ruled that warrants of atty to confess judgment are not authorized
nor contemplated by our law, and that provisions in notes authorizing attys to
appear and confess judgments against makers should not be recognized in this
jurisdiction by implication and should only be considered as valid when given
express legislative sanction.
Actions where confession of judgment is not allowed
Declaration of absolute nullity of marriage
Annulment of voidable marriage
Actions for legal separation