EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION

Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear, try and decide a case. On the other hand, the exercise of jurisdiction is the court's act of actually taking cognizance of a case.

When a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, it can validly render a judgment. The judgment may be wrong, but this does not deprive the court of jurisdiction. The erroneous judgment may be corrected on appeal.

On the other hand, when a court has no jurisdiction, any judgment that it renders will be void. So also, when a court acts with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the judgment is void. In both instances, the proceedings may be annulled through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

In the case of ANSELMO ELLO VS. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ANTIQUE and INOCENCIO VALDEVIN, G.R. No. L-26802, July 23, 1926, the Supreme Court cited De la Cruz vs. Moir (36 Phil., 213), thus:

None of the acts set out in the petition affect the jurisdiction of the court. They are acts performed in the exercise of jurisdiction; and, even though the decision of the court upon each one of the questions presented by the allegations of the petition was wrong in fact and in law, his jurisdiction would remain unaffected. As we have said so many times, it is always necessary to bear in mind the difference between jurisdiction and the exercise of jurisdiction. When a court exercises its jurisdiction an error committed while engaged in that exercise does not deprive it of the jurisdiction which it is exercising when the error is committed. If it did, every error committed by a court would deprive it of jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would be a void judgment. This, of course, is not possible. The administration of justice would not survive such a rule. The decision of the trial court in the case before us holding the certain ballots cast by illiterates which had been prepared for them by the inspectors of election were legal and valid although the illiterates did not, previous to the preparation of their ballots by inspectors, take the oath required by law showing that they could not cast their ballots without assistance, is a decision entirely within the jurisdiction of the court, even if we concede for the sake of argument that the court was wrong in that decision. The same could be said if he had held the precise contrary and had excluded all of the ballots cast by illiterates; and, of course, it necessarily follows that his failure to separate those which the petitioner claims were illegal from those he claims were legal does not alter the situation. The court has power and authority to conduct the case as he believes law and justice require and whatever he does is within his jurisdiction so long as he does not violate the principle of due process of law or transcend the limits of the case before him.

ESTOPPEL AND OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION

It is crucial for a court to have jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case. Otherwise, all proceedings and the decision that will eventually be rendered will be null and void.

Therefore, if a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the case may be dismissed anytime, upon motion by any party, or by the court motu proprio (on its own).

However, if a party invokes the subject matter jurisdiction of a court, and relies upon it for 15 years, he cannot turn around on appeal and insist that the court has no subject matter jurisdiction just because the case was decided against him. This is the ruling in the case of Serafin Tijam, et al vs. Magdaleno Sibonghanoy, et al, GR No. L-21450, April 15, 1968:

As already stated, the action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of Cebu on July 19, 1948, that is, almost fifteen years before the Surety filed its motion to dismiss on January 12, 1963 raising the question of lack of jurisdiction for the first time.

      xxx

A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question in different ways and for different reasons. Thus we speak of estoppel in pais, or estoppel by deed or by record, and of estoppel by laches.

Laches, in a general sense is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.

The doctrine of laches or of "stale demands" is based upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims and, unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere question of time but is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.

xxx 

 

The facts of this case show that from the time the Surety became a quasi-party on July 31, 1948, it could have raised the question of the lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Cebu to take cognizance of the present action by reason of the sum of money involved which, according to the law then in force, was within the original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts. It failed to do so. Instead, at several stages of the proceedings in the court a quo as well as in the Court of Appeals, it invoked the jurisdiction of said courts to obtain affirmative relief and submitted its case for a final adjudication on the merits. It was only after an adverse decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals that it finally woke up to raise the question of jurisdiction. Were we to sanction such conduct on its part, We would in effect be declaring as useless all the proceedings had in the present case since it was commenced on July 19, 1948 and compel the judgment creditors to go up their Calvary once more. The inequity and unfairness of this is not only patent but revolting.

JURISDICTION IN GENERAL

Jurisdiction is the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case. This is the definition of jurisdiction over the subject matter. Although jurisdiction has several aspects, we usually refer to the subject matter when we discuss the concept of jurisdiction.

In Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation vs. Bureau of Customs, GR No. 209830, June 1, 2015, the Supreme Court explained that:

Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case. In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have the authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire, among others, jurisdiction over the subject matter. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine the general class to which the proceedings in question belong; it is conferred by law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by an erroneous belief of the court that it exists. Thus, when a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the only power it has is to dismiss the action.

Another important point about subject matter jurisdiction is that it is conferred by law. It cannot be conferred by agreement of the parties, by the rules, or by failure to object.

By law, we mean laws made by the legislature. We do not mean the Rules of Court and other rules issued by the Supreme Court.

In our country, the subject matter jurisdiction of courts is defined by BP 129 as amended, known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. This law has been amended over the years by RA 7691 (1994) and RA 11576 (2021) which expanded the jurisdiction of the first-level courts. The specific subject matters under the jurisdiction of our courts are discussed in a separate post.

Other than subject matter, aspects of jurisdiction include person, issues, remedies, and property. A separate post will be devoted to this. For now, let us deal with legal concepts related to jurisdiction.

DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL HIERARCHY, GENERAL RULE AND EXCEPTIONS

Courts have a hierarchical order. 

The first level courts are the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.

The second level courts are the Regional Trial Courts.

 Next, we have the Court of Tax Appeals, Sandiganbayan, and the Court of Appeals.

Finally, we have the Supreme Court.

Under the doctrine of judicial hierarchy, when a case falls within the concurrent jurisdiction of courts of different levels, the case must be filed with the court of the lowest level so that the higher level courts will not be unduly burdened.

There are four exceptions to this doctrine:

(1) when dictated by the public welfare and the advancement of public policy; 

(2) when demanded by the broader interest of justice; 

(3) when the challenged orders were patent nullities; or 

(4) when analogous exceptional and compelling circumstances called for and justified the immediate and direct handling of the case.

The Supreme Court explained the general rule and exception were explained in the case of ERNESTO DY VS. HON. GINA M. BIBAT-PALAMOS ET AL, G.R. No. 196200, September 11, 2013, as follows:

Petitioner argues that his situation calls for the direct invocation of this Court’s jurisdiction in the interest of justice. Moreover, as pointed out by the RTC, what is involved is a judgment of the Court which the lower courts cannot modify. Hence, petitioner deemed it proper to bring this case immediately to the attention of this Court. Lastly, petitioner claims that the present case involves a novel issue of law – that is, whether in an action to recover, a defendant in wrongful possession of the subject matter in litigation may be allowed to return the same in a deteriorated condition without any liability.

Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the petition should have been filed with the CA, following the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. It pointed out that petitioner failed to state any special or important reason or any exceptional and compelling circumstance which would warrant a direct recourse to this Court.

Under the principle of hierarchy of courts, direct recourse to this Court is improper because the Supreme Court is a court of last resort and must remain to be so in order for it to satisfactorily perform its constitutional functions, thereby allowing it to devote its time and attention to matters within its exclusive jurisdiction and preventing the overcrowding of its docket. 16 Nonetheless, the invocation of this Court’s original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari has been allowed in certain instances on the ground of special and important reasons clearly stated in the petition, such as,(1) when dictated by the public welfare and the advancement of public policy; (2) when demanded by the broader interest of justice; (3) when the challenged orders were patent nullities; or (4) when analogous exceptional and compelling circumstances called for and justified the immediate and direct handling of the case.

This case falls under one of the exceptions to the principle of hierarchy of courts. Justice demands that this Court take cognizance of this case to put an end to the controversy and resolve the matter which has been dragging on for more than twenty (20) years. Moreover, in light of the fact that what is involved is a final judgment promulgated by this Court, it is but proper for petitioner to call upon its original jurisdiction and seek final clarification.

DEMURRER TO THE EVIDENCE IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES

Demurrer to the evidence.  We can understand this better by reviewing the basic stages of a civil case.

First, the plaintiff will file a complaint. Next, the defendant will file an Answer. Then the court will schedule the case for pre-trial. Trial will follow, during which the plaintiff will present evidence first. 

After he presents all his witnesses and evidence, he will make an oral  formal offer of evidence, then he will rest his case. After this,  the defendant will present evidence, make an oral formal offer of evidence, and rest his case. Then the case will be submitted for decision.

The relevant stage for filing a demurrer is after the plaintiff rests his case. This means that he has already presented evidence. This is before the defendant presents evidence.

WHAT THEN IS A DEMURRER TO THE EVIDENCE?

This is equivalent to a motion to dismiss. However, it is called a demurrer to show that it was filed after the plaintiff has presented evidence. 

WHAT ARE THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN A DEMURRER IN A CIVIL CASE AND A DEMURRER IN A CRIMINAL CASE?

1. When are they filed? They are both filed after the plaintiff/prosecution rests their case.

2. What is the goal? They are filed with the goal of having the case dismissed without the defendant having to present evidence.

3) What is the basis?  Insufficiency of evidence of the plaintiff/prosecution.

WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES?

1. Is leave of court necessary before the defendant/accused files a demurrer to evidence?

When we say leave of court, the defendant or accused must first submit a motion for leave before actually filing the demurrer. In other words, there are two things to be filed: one is the motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence, and the second is the demurrer to evidence itself.

In civil cases, it is not necessary to file a motion for leave to file a demurrer to evidence. The defendant can directly submit the demurrer itself.

In criminal cases, it is up to the accused's counsel if he wants to move for leave to file a demurrer, or if he wants to submit a demurrer immediately without asking for leave of court. The results will not be the same.

a) What is the effect if the court grants the demurrer in a civil case?

The case will be dismissed through an order issued by the court. However, if the plaintiff appeals the order of dismissal, and the appellate court finds that there was sufficient evidence presented by the plaintiff, then the defendant can no longer present evidence.

b) What is the effect if the court denies the demurrer in a civil case?

The denial means that the plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence, and so the defendant now has to present evidence. 

c)  How about in a criminal case?

It depends. 

If the accused's counsel filed the demurrer with leave of court, and the court denies the demurrer, the accused can present evidence to support his defense.

However, if the accused's counsel filed the demurrer without leave of court, and the demurrer is denied, then the accused can no longer present evidence.

2. PERIOD FOR FILING

In civil cases, the defendant may file a demurrer after the plaintiff has completed presentation of evidence, and rests his case under Rule 33. 

A demurrer to evidence is a litigious motion under Rule 15, Section 5. Therefore the opposing party has 5 days from notice to file an opposition, and the court has 15 days to resolve.

In criminal cases  there is a specific procedure under the Revised Guidelines on Continuous Trial.

After the prosecution rests, the court will orally ask the accused if he wants leave of court to file a demurrer or to present evidence.

If the accused orally moves to file a demurrer, the court will resolve it immediately, and orally. 

If the court denies the motion, the accused will present evidence. 

If the court approves the motion, the accused will have 10 days to file the demurrer, and the prosecution will have 10 days to file an opposition.

If the demurrer with leave is denied, the accused will present evidence.

Suppose the motion for leave to file demurrer is denied yet the accused insists on filing the demurrer, the court will cancel all trial dates allocated to the accused. 

This means that the accused will lose the right to present evidence if his demurrer is denied.

CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 45 AND CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65

TRANSCRIPT OF YOUTUBE VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Fq3vhYN8kM

This video deals with the differences between certiorari under Rule 45 and Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

For law students, the remedy of certiorari could be confusing because the term is used for different remedies under our Rules of Court. In this video, I would like to explain the difference between these two remedies. 

POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES (PART 2) - Handout for my YouTube video

NOTE: This is the handout for my video recording on POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES (PART 2) - Atty. Chato Olivas-Quinto



In Part 1 of the video on Post-judgment remedies, we discussed two remedies:

1. Motion for reconsideration, and
2. Motion for new trial.

In this video, which is Part 2 of Post-judgment remedies, we will discuss several remedies.

I also want to clarify that post-judgment remedies are divided into two categories:

1. Remedies that you can file within 15 days from receipt of the decision

• Motion for reconsideration (Rule 37)
• Motion for new trial (Rule 37)
• Appeal by notice of appeal/with record on appeal in certain cases
• From MTC to RTC (Rule 40)
• From RTC to CA (Rule 41, Section 2A; Rule 44)
• Petition for review
• From RTC to CA on decisions rendered by the RTC in its appellate jurisdiction (MTC —> RTC —> CA) (Rule 41, Section 2B; Rule 42)
• From quasi-judicial agencies to the CA (Rule 43)
• Appeal by certiorari or petition for review on certiorari
• From RTC, CA, CTA, Sandiganbayan to SC on pure questions of law (Rule 45)

2. Remedies that you can file after the 15-day period of appeal

• Petition for relief from judgment (Rule 38)
• Action for annulment of judgment, order, or resolution of the RTC, filed as an original action with the CA (Rule 47)
• Action for annulment of judgment, order, or resolution of the MTC,  filed with the RTC (Section 10 of Rule 47)

3. Petition for certiorari under Rule 65

• General rule: This is NOT a post-judgment remedy. It is an original action.
• Exception: With respect to the final judgments, orders, or resolutions of the COMELEC and COA, a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 is a post-judgment remedy.

DISCUSSION NOTES

APPEAL BY NOTICE OF APPEAL/WITH RECORD ON APPEAL IN CERTAIN CASES: FROM MTC TO RTC (RULE 40)

• Final decision, order or resolution of MTC
• File Notice of Appeal with the MTC, and pay the docket fees
• Same caption and title, but add “appellant” and “appellee” as the case may be.
• Example: XYZ, Plaintiff-Appellant vs. ABC, Defendant-Appellee
• File within 15 days from receipt of final decision, order or resolution
• In certain special proceedings, when record on appeal is required, file within 30 days. MTC will have to approve record on appeal.
• Serve on adverse party.
• MTC Clerk of Court will transmit full case records including transcripts of stenographic notes and evidence, to the RTC
• RTC Clerk of Court will notify the parties when they have received the case records
• Within 15 days from notice, appellant should file a memorandum. Otherwise, the court will dismiss the appeal.
• Within 15 days from receipt of the appellant’s memorandum, the appellee may file an appellee’s memorandum.
• Case will be submitted for resolution.
• If the appeal is taken from an order of the MTC dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, without a trial on the merits, the RTC may affirm or reverse the MTC decision.
• If RTC reverses the dismissal, and makes a finding that the MTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter, RTC will remand the case to the MTC for further proceedings.
• If RTC affirms the dismissal, and makes a finding that the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter, the RTC will try the case as if it was originally filed with it.

APPEAL BY NOTICE OF APPEAL/WITH RECORD ON APPEAL IN CERTAIN CASES: FROM RTC TO CA (RULE 44)

• Final decision, order or resolution of RTC
• File Notice of Appeal with the RTC, and pay the docket fees
• Same caption and title, but add “appellant” and “appellee” as the case may be.
• The counsel and guardians ad litem of the parties in the court of origin shall be respectively considered as their counsel and guardians ad litem in the Court of Appeals.
• File the notice of appeal within 15 days from receipt of the decision, final order or resolution.
• When record on appeal is required as in certain special proceedings, the period to appeal is 30 days
• RTC will approve the record on appeal.
• If RTC finds the notice of appeal to have been filed on time and the docket fees paid, it will forward the records to the CA.
• CA will notify the parties when the records have been received from the RTC.
• Appellant shall file appellant’s brief within 45 days from notice from the CA.
• Appellee has 45 days from receipt of the appellant’s brief within which to file an appellee’s brief.
• Appellant may file a reply brief within 20 days from receipt of appellee’s brief.
• Certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus cases - the parties shall file, in lieu of briefs, their respective memoranda within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from receipt of the notice issued by the clerk that all the evidence, oral and documentary, is already attached to the record.
• The failure of the appellant to file his memorandum within the period may be a ground for dismissal of the appeal.
• Questions that may be raised on appeal. - Appellant may include in his assignment of errors any question of law or fact that has been raised in the court below and which is within the issues framed by the parties.

PETITION FOR REVIEW (Rules 42, 43, 45)

• Two kinds

a) From RTC to CA on decisions rendered by the RTC in its appellate jurisdiction (MTC —> RTC —> CA) (Rule 41, Section 2B; Rule 42)

b) From quasi-judicial agencies to the CA (Rule 43)

• Note that this is a petition, that this is not a matter of right. In contrast, an appeal by notice of appeal is a matter of right.
• The petitioner files the petition directly with the court that will review the decision. In this case, file it with the CA.
• The designation of the parties: petitioner and respondent
• Petition must be verified, and docket fees must be paid.
• A certification of non-forum shopping is required.
• A copy of the petition must be served upon the adverse party before the same is filed with the CA.
• The CA may require the respondent to file a comment within 10 days from notice.
• Certified true copies of the material portions of the records must be submitted to the court. Note: this is not like an ordinary appeal where the whole case file is forwarded by the RTC to the CA.
• CA may set the case for oral arguments or require the parties to file memoranda within 15 days from notice.
• Case will be submitted for decision.

APPEAL BY CERTIORARI OR PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI (RULE 45)

• From RTC, CA, CTA, Sandiganbayan to SC on pure questions of law
• File a petition for review on certiorari which must be verified and may include application for writ of preliminary injunction and other provisional remedies
• Not a matter of right
• Discretionary upon the Court
• Filed within the 15-day period to appeal
• Docket fees must be paid
• Statement of material dates
• Certified copy of the judgment, final order or resolution subject of the petition
• Grounds for review that the SC may consider
• When the court a quo has decided a question of substance, not theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, or has decided it in a way probably not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court; or
• When the court a quo has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of the power of supervision.
• SC may require that the whole records or parts of it be elevated

REMEDIES THAT YOU CAN FILE AFTER THE 15-DAY PERIOD OF APPEAL

• Petition for relief from judgment (Rule 38)
• Action for annulment of judgment, order, or resolution of the RTC, filed as an original action with the CA (Rule 47)
• Action for annulment of judgment, order, or resolution of the MTC, filed with the RTC (Section 10 of Rule 47)
• Petition for certiorari under Rule 65
• General rule: This is NOT a post-judgment remedy. It is an original action.
• Exception: With respect to the final judgments, orders, or resolutions of the COMELEC and COA, a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 is a post-judgment remedy.

PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (RULE 38)

• Verified petition for relief from judgment
• Judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is taken against a party in any court through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.
• File a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the judgment, order, or proceeding be set aside.

• Verified petition for relief from denial of appeal.
• Judgment or final order is rendered by any court in a case, and a party thereto, by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, has been prevented from taking an appeal
• File a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the appeal be given due course.

• Time for filing petition
• Filed within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six (6) months after such judgment or final order was entered, or such proceeding was taken

• Contents
• Petition must be accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the petitioner’s good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be

• Order to file answer
• The court in which it is filed shall issue an order requiring the adverse parties to answer the same within fifteen (15) days from the receipt thereof. The order shall be served in such manner as the court may direct, together with copies of the petition and the accompanying affidavits.

• Preliminary injunction pending proceedings.
• The court may grant preliminary injunction as may be necessary for the preservation of the rights of the parties, upon the filing by the petitioner of a bond in favor of the adverse party, conditioned that if the petition is dismissed or the petitioner fails on the trial of the case upon its merits, he will pay the adverse party all damages and costs that may be awarded to him by reason of the issuance of such injunction or the other proceedings following the petition; but such injunction shall not operate to discharge or extinguish any lien which the adverse party may have acquired upon the property of the petitioner.

• Proceedings after answer is filed.
• Court shall hear the petition and if after such hearing, it finds that the allegations thereof are not true, the petition shall be dismissed;
• If it finds said allegations to be true, it shall set aside the judgment or final order or other proceeding complained of upon such terms as may be just.
• Thereafter the case shall stand as if such judgment, final order or other proceeding had never been rendered, issued or taken.
• The court shall then proceed to hear and determine the case as if a timely motion for a new trial or reconsideration had been granted by it.

• Procedure where the denial of an appeal is set aside.
• Where the denial of an appeal is set aside, the lower court shall be required to give due course to the appeal and to elevate the record of the appealed case as if a timely and proper appeal had been made.

ACTION FOR ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT, ORDER, OR RESOLUTION OF THE RTC, FILED AS AN ORIGINAL ACTION WITH THE CA (RULE 47)

• Coverage.
• This Rule shall govern the annulment by the Court of Appeals of judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.

• Grounds for annulment. - The annulment may be based only on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
• Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for relief.

• Period for filing action. - If based on extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed within four (4) years from its discovery; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel.

• Filing and contents of petition. - The action shall be commenced by filing a verified petition alleging therein with particularity the facts and the law relied upon for annulment, as well as those supporting the petitioner’s good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be.

• A certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution shall be attached to the original copy of the petition intended for the court and indicated as such by the petitioner.

• The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition affidavits of witnesses or documents supporting the cause of action or defense

• Certification against forum shopping is required.

• Action by the court. 
• Should the court find no substantial merit in the petition, the same may be dismissed outright with specific reasons for such dismissal.
• Should prima facie merit be found in the petition, the same shall be given due course and summons shall be served on the respondent.

• Procedure. - The procedure in ordinary civil cases shall be observed. Should a trial be necessary, the reception of the evidence may be referred to a member of the court or a judge of a Regional Trial Court.

• Effect of judgment. - A judgment of annulment shall set aside the questioned judgment or final order or resolution and render the same null and void, without prejudice to the original action being refiled in the proper court. However, where the judgment or final order or resolution is set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud, the court may on motion order the trial court to try the case as if a timely motion for new trial had been granted therein.

• Suspension of prescriptive period. - The prescriptive period for the refiling of the aforesaid original action shall be deemed suspended from the filing of such original action until the finality of the judgment of annulment. However, the prescriptive period shall not be suspended where the extrinsic fraud is attributable to the plaintiff in the original action.

• Relief available. - The judgment of annulment may include the award of damages, attorney s fees and other relief.

• If the questioned judgment or final order or resolution had already been executed, the court may issue such orders of restitution or other relief as justice and equity may warrant under the circumstances.

ACTION FOR ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT, ORDER, OR RESOLUTION OF THE MTC (SECTION 10 OF RULE 47)

• An action to annul a judgment or final order of a Municipal Trial Court shall be filed in the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the former. It shall be treated as an ordinary civil action and sections 2, 3 4, 7, 8 and 9 of this Rule shall be applicable thereto.

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65

• General rule: This is NOT a post-judgment remedy. It is an original action.
• Exception: With respect to the final judgments, orders, or resolutions of the COMELEC and COA, a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 is a post-judgment remedy.

• Scope
• Review of judgments and final orders or resolutions of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit.

• Mode of review
• A judgment or final order or resolution of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit may be brought by the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65, except as hereinafter provided.

• Time to file petition
• The petition shall be filed within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed.
• The filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration of said judgment or final order or resolution, if allowed under the procedural rules of the Commission concerned, shall interrupt the period herein fixed.
• If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of denial.

• Docket and other lawful fees.
• Upon the filing of the petition, the petitioner shall pay to the clerk of court the docket and other lawful fees and deposit an amount for costs.

• Form and contents of petition.
• The petition shall be verified.
• The petition shall name the aggrieved party as petitioner and shall join as respondents the Commission concerned and the person or persons interested in sustaining the judgment, final order or resolution a quo.
• The petition shall state the facts with certainty, present clearly the issues involved, set forth the grounds and brief arguments relied upon for review, and pray for judgment annulling or modifying the questioned judgment, final order or resolution.
• Findings of fact of the Commission supported by substantial evidence shall be final and non-reviewable.
• The petition shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, final order or resolution subject thereof, together with certified true copies of such material portions of the record as are referred to therein and other documents relevant and pertinent thereto.
• The petition shall state the specific material dates showing that it was filed within the period fixed herein, and shall contain a sworn certification against forum shopping.
• The petition shall further be accompanied by proof of service of a copy thereof on the Commission concerned and on the adverse party, and of the timely payment of docket and other lawful fees.
• The failure of petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.

• Order to comment
• If the Supreme Court finds the petition sufficient in form and substance, it shall order the respondents to file their comments on the petition within ten (10) days from notice thereof; otherwise, the Court may dismiss the petition outright.

• The Court may also dismiss the petition if it was filed manifestly for delay, or the questions raised are too unsubstantial to warrant further proceedings. 
• Comments of respondents.
• The original shall be accompanied by certified true copies of such material portions of the record as are referred to therein together with other supporting papers. The requisite number of copies of the comments shall contain plain copies of all documents attached to the original and a copy thereof shall be served on the petitioner.
• No other pleading may be filed by any party unless required or allowed by the Court.

• Effect of filing.
• The filing of a petition for certiorari shall not stay the execution of the judgment or final order or resolution sought to be reviewed, unless the Supreme Court shall direct otherwise upon such terms as it may deem just.

• Submission for decision.
• Unless the Court sets the case for oral argument, or requires the parties to submit memoranda, the case shall be deemed submitted for decision upon the filing of the comments on the petition, or of such other pleadings or papers as may be required or allowed, or the expiration of the period to do so.