INSTANCES WHERE A WRIT OF EXECUTION MAY BE APPEALED:

   1) the writ of execution varies the judgment;  2) there has been a change in the situation of the parties making execution inequitable or unjust;  3) execution is sought to be enforced against property exempt from execution;  4)  it appears that the controversy has never been subject to the judgment of the court; 5) the terms of the judgment are not clear enough and there remains room for interpretation thereof; or 6) it appears that the writ of execution has been improvidently issued, or that it is defective in substance, or is issued against the wrong party, or that the judgment debt has been paid or otherwise satisfied, or the writ was issued without authority. (GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION VS. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 183122, JUNE 15, 2011, PEREZ, J.).

THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT, AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, ARE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE AND MAY NOT BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL:

   The established exceptions are: (1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the CA is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (8) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (9) when the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record (FILIPINAS FIBER SYNTHETIC CORPORATION vs. WILFREDO DELOS SANTOS ET AL., G.R. No. 152033, MARCH 16, 2011, PERALTA, J.)

THE SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION OF CERTIORARI IS NOT AND CANNOT BE A SUBSTITUTE FOR AN APPEAL, WHERE THE LATTER REMEDY IS AVAILABLE:

   To be sure, a petition for certiorari is dismissible for being the wrong remedy. Indeed, we have noted a number of exceptions to this general rule, to wit: 1) when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictate; 2) when the broader interest of justice so requires; 3) when the writs issued are null and void; 4) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority; 5) when, for persuasive reasons, the rules may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedure; or 6) in other meritorious cases. None of the above exceptions are present in the instant case; hence, we apply the general rule. Respondent not having availed himself of the proper remedy to assail the dismissal of the case against petitioners, the dismissal has become final and executory. (SANTOS vs. ORDA, G.R. No. 189402, May 6, 2010, NACHURA, J.).

APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT:

  The RTC the exercise of appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective territorial jurisdictions.  Clearly, the amount involved P13, 300.00 assessed value of the subject property as declared by respondents, is immaterial for purposes of the RTC’s appellate jurisdiction.  All cases decided by the MTC are generally appealable to the RTC irrespective of the amount involved. (Sec. 22 of B.P. 129; Federica M. Serrano vs. Spouses Anselmo and Carmelita Gutierrez, G.R. No. 162366, November 10, 2006, Tinga, J.)

A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS A CONDITION SINE QUA NON FOR THE FILING OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI.

     The rule is, however, circumscribed by well-defined exceptions, such as (1) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (2) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; (3) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay will prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner, or the subject matter of the action is perishable; (4) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration will be useless; (5) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (6) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; (7) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (8) where the proceedings was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (9) where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved. (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved. (BEATRIZ SIOK PING TANG vs. SUBIC BAY DISTRIBUTION, INC., G.R. No. 162575, December 15, 2010, PERALTA, J.).

DISTINCTION BETWEEN CERTIORARI REMEDIES UNDER RULES 45 AND 65 OF THE RULES OF COURT:

     The proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45, which is not similar to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. As provided in Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, decisions, final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to the Supreme Court by filing a petition for review, which would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. On the other hand, a special civil action under Rule 65 is an independent action based on the specific grounds therein provided and, as a general rule, cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that under Rule 45. (SANTIAGO CUA, JR., et. al. vs. MIGUEL OCAMPO TAN et. al., G.R. No. 181455-56, December 4, 2009, CHICO-NAZARIO, J.).

WAYS OF COMMITTING FORUM SHOPPING:

     Forum shopping can be committed in three ways: (1) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (where the ground for dismissal is litis pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the previous case having been finally resolved (where the ground for dismissal is res judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action, but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata). x x x If the forum shopping is not considered willful and deliberate, the subsequent case shall be dismissed without prejudice, on the ground of either litis pendentia or res judicata. However, if the forum shopping is willful and deliberate, both (or all, if there are more than two) actions shall be dismissed with prejudice. (CHUA vs. METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO. G.R. No. 182311, August 19, 2009, Third Division, Chico-Nazario, J.).

ANY INTERESTED PERSON MAY OPPOSE THE ISSUANCE OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY:

     An "interested person" has been defined as one who would be benefited by the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor. The interest must be material and direct, and not merely indirect or contingent. (Edgar San Luis vs. Felicidad San Luis, G.R. No. 133743, February 6, 2007, Rodolfo San Luis vs. Felicidad Sagalongos, G.R. No. 134029, February 6, 2007, YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.).

AN ADMISSION, VERBAL OR WRITTEN, MADE BY A PARTY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE SAME CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE PROOF:

     It may be made: (a) in the pleadings filed by the parties; (b) in the course of the trial either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations; or (c) in other stages of judicial proceedings, as in the pre-trial of the case. When made in the same case in which it is offered, “no evidence is needed to prove the same and it cannot be contradicted unless it is shown to have been made through palpable mistake or when no such admission was made.” The admission becomes conclusive on him, and all proofs submitted contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether an objection is interposed by the adverse party or not. (Republic of the Philippine vs. Estate of Hans Menzi, G.R. No. I83446, November 13, 2012, Perez, J.)

WRITING OR DOCUMENT MAY BE PROVEN AS PUBLIC OR OFFICIAL RECORD OF A FOREIGN COUNTRTY:

     As held in Garcia vs. Recio, 418 Phil. 723, (2001), divorce obtained abroad is proven by the divorce decree itself. Indeed the best evidence of a judgment is the judgment itself.  The decree purports to be a written act or record of an act of an official body or tribunal of a foreign country.  Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, on the other hand, a writing or document may be proven as a public or official record of a foreign country by either (1) an official publication or (2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the document. If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office. (Merope Enriquez Vda. De Catalan vs. Louella A. Catalan-Lee, G. R. No. 183622, February 8, 2012, Sereno, J.).

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL:

   New trial is a remedy that seeks to temper the severity of a judgment or prevent the failure of justice. The effect of an order granting a new trial is to wipe out the previous adjudication so that the case may be tried de novo for the purpose of rendering a judgment in accordance with law, taking into consideration the evidence to be presented during the second trial. Consequently, a motion for new trial is proper only after the rendition or promulgation of a judgment or issuance of a final order. A motion for new trial is only available when relief is sought against a judgment and the judgment is not yet final. (Nemia Castro vs. Rosalyn Guevarra and Jamir Guevarra, G.R. No. 192737, April 25, 2012, MENDOZA, J.).

HOW GENUINENESS OF HANDWRITING PROVED:

   Well-entrenched is the rule that resort to handwriting experts is not mandatory.  handwriting experts, while probably useful, are not indispensable in examining or comparing handwritings or signatures. This is so since under Section 22, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, the handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person, because he has seen the person write; or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or has been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person.  Moreover, the opinion of a non-expert witness, for which proper basis is given, may be received in evidence regarding the handwriting or signature of a person with which he has sufficient familiarity. (Fullero vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 170583, September 12, 2007, Chico-Nazario, J.)

REFERRAL OF SOME CASES FOR COURT ANNEXED MEDIATION AND JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION:

     The following are under the mandatory coverage for court-annexed mediation (CAM) and judicial dispute resolution (JDR):  a) all civil cases and the civil liability of criminal cases covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure, including the civil liability for violation of B.P. 22, except those which by law may not be compromised; b) special proceedings for the settlement of estates; c) all civil and criminal cases filed with a certificate to file action issued by the Punong Barangay or the Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo under the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law; d) the civil aspect of Quasi-Offenses under Title 14 of the Revised Penal Code; e) the civil aspect of less grave felonies punishable by correctional penalties not exceeding 6 years imprisonment, where the offended party is a private person; f) the civil aspect of estafa, theft and libel; g) All civil cases and probate proceedings, testate and intestate, brought on appeal from the exclusive and original jurisdiction granted to the first level courts under Section 33, par. (1) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980; h) all cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer brought on appeal from the exclusive and original jurisdiction granted to the first level courts under Section 33, par. (2) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980;  i) all civil cases involving title to or possession of real property or an interest therein brought on appeal from the exclusive and original jurisdiction granted to the first level courts under Section 33, par.(3) of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980; and j) all habeas corpus cases decided by the first level courts in the absence of the Regional Trial Court judge, that are brought up on appeal from the special jurisdiction granted to the first level courts under Section 35 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (A-114. No, 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA).

EXECUTION AS A MATTER OF RIGHT AND DISCRETION:

     Normally, execution will issue as a matter of right only (a) when the judgment has become final and executory; (b) when the judgment debtor has renounced or waived his right of appeal; (c) when the period for appeal has lapsed without an appeal having been filed; or (d) when, having been filed, the appeal has been resolved and the records of the case have been returned to the court of origin. Execution pending appeal is the exception to the general rule.  As such exception, the court’s discretion in allowing it must be strictly construed and firmly grounded on the existence of good reasons. "Good reasons," it has been held, consist of compelling circumstances that justify immediate execution lest the judgment becomes illusory. The circumstances must be superior, outweighing the injury or damages that might result should the losing party secure a reversal of the judgment. Lesser reasons would make of execution pending appeal, instead of an instrument of solicitude and justice, a tool of oppression and inequity” (ROSARIO T. FLORENDO vs. PARAMOUNT INSURANCE CORP., G.R. No. 167976, January 20, 2010, ABAD, J.).