Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In dealing with evidence improperly admitted in trial, we examine its damaging quality and
its impact to the substantive rights of the litigant. If the impact is slight and insignificant we
disregard the error as it will not overcome the weight of the properly admitted evidence
against the prejudiced party. In the case at bar, the reference by the trial judge to reports
about the troublesome character of appellant is a harmless error. (People v. Teehankee, Jr.,
G.R. Nos. 111206-08, [October 6, 1995], 319 PHIL 128-216)
If there is an error committed by the RTC in ascribing to the petitioner the respondent's
testimony as adverse witness during cross-examination by his own counsel, it constitutes a
harmless error which would not, in any way, change the result of the case. (Gaw v. Chua, G.R.
No. 160855, [April 16, 2008], 574 PHIL 640-657)
As expressly provided in the Constitution, this Court has original jurisdiction "over petitions
for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, andhabeas corpus." However, this
Court has emphasized in People v. Cuaresma that the power to issue writs
of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus does not exclusively pertain to this Court. Rather,
it is shared with the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts. Nevertheless, "this
concurrence of jurisdiction" does not give parties unfettered discretion as to the choice of
forum. The doctrine on hierarchy of courts is determinative of the appropriate venue where
ATENEO REMEDIAL LAW BAR TIPS 2017
petitions for extraordinary writs should be filed. Parties cannot randomly select the court or
forum to which their actions will be directed.
Consequently, this Court will not entertain direct resort to it when relief can be obtained in
the lower Courts. This holds especially true when questions of fact are raised. Unlike this
Court, trial courts and the Court of Appeals are better equipped to resolve questions of fact.
They are in the best position to deal with causes in the first instance.
The duality also relates to the dual function of all adjudication in the common law system.
The first pertains to the doctrine of res judicata, which decides the case and settles the
controversy; the second is the doctrine of stare decisis, which pertains to the precedential
value of the case which assists in deciding future similar cases by the application of the rule
or principle derived from the earlier case.
ATENEO REMEDIAL LAW BAR TIPS 2017
The only way by which the Court of Appeals fulfills the dual function as an appellate court is
to render correct and lucid decisions.
in turn must not be later than ten (10) days after filing of
the motion
NEPYES RULE (FRESH PERIOD OF 15 DAYS RULE) NOT APPLICABLE TO RULES 42, 43,
and 45
The rationale of the "fresh period rule" is:
To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair
opportunity to appeal their cases, the Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period
of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal in the Regional Trial Court, counted
from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for
reconsideration.
Henceforth, this "fresh period rule" shall also apply to Rule 40 governing appeals from
the Municipal Trial Courts to the Regional Trial Courts; Rule 42 on petitions for
review from the Regional Trial Courts to the Court of Appeals; Rule 43 on appeals
from quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals and Rule 45 governing appeals
bycertiorari to the Supreme Court. The new rule aims to regiment or make the appeal
period uniform, to be counted from receipt of the order denying the motion for new
trial, motion for reconsideration (whether full or partial) or any final order or
resolution.
Neypes elucidates that the "fresh period rule" applies to appeals under Rule 40 (appeals
from the Municipal Trial Courts to the RTC) and Rule 41 appeals from the RTCs to the CA or
this Court); Rule 42 (appeals from the RTCs to the CA); Rule 43 (appeals from quasi-judicial
agencies to the CA); and Rule 45 (appeals by certiorari to this Court). 7 A scrutiny of the said
rules, however, reveals that the "fresh period rule" enunciated in Neypes need NOT apply to
Rules 42, 43 and 45 as there is no interruption in the 15-day reglementary period to appeal.
It is explicit in Rules 42, 43 and 45 that the appellant or petitioner is accorded a fresh period
of 15 days from the notice of the decision, award, judgment, final order or resolution or of
the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed. (Rodriguez y Olayres
v. People, G.R. No. 192799 (Resolution), [October 24, 2012], 698 PHIL 165-170)