In criminal procedure, nothing is mentioned about a pro-forma motion for new trial or reconsideration.
Q: What is a pro- forma motion?
A: A pro- forma motion is one which does not satisfy the requirements of the rules and one which will be treated as a motion intended to delay the proceedings (Marikina Development Corporation v. Flojo, 251 SCRA 87).
In Rule 37, for civil cases, a motion for new trial or reconsideration must strictly comply with the requirements of a motion so that such motion will not fall under the concept of a pro-forma motion.
Pro-forma motion for reconsideration in civil cases is almost always denied; it could result to an instance where a losing party moving that all remedies available will be unavailable as sanction. A pro-forma motion for reconsideration does not stop the running of the reglementary period to appeal, and if the denial of such motion comes after the expiration of the period to file an appeal, remember that entry of judgment takes place by operation of law under Rule 36. Upon entry of judgment, movant/losing party loses the remedy of appeal and is left only with the after judgment remedies of petition for relief from judgment, annulment from judgment or a petition under Rule 65 as remedies.
A motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration in civil cases is always initiated by the losing party.
There is no pro forma motion for new trial or reconsideration in a criminal case. The court cannot simply discard the motion for new trial or reconsideration for non-compliance, even if the motion does not comply with the requirements of a motion. The motion for reconsideration or new trial will always stop the running of the period to appeal. The idea for the accused to file motion for new trial or reconsideration could come from the court. The court can even initiate a new trial or reconsideration as long as the accused gives his consent.
(Rule 37)Grounds for motion for new trial is completely different from grounds for reconsideration. This is the reason why these motions are distinct and different from one another.
New Trial
1. Extrinsic fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence (FAME) which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against and by reason of which the rights of the aggrieved party was impaired; or
2. Newly discovered evidence, which could not with reasonable diligence, have been discovered and produced at the trial, and which if presented, would probably alter the result (Sec. 1, Rule 37).
Reconsideration
1. The damages awarded are excessive;
2. The evidence is insufficient to satisfy the decision or final order; or 3. The decision or final order is contrary to law (Sec. 1, Rule 37).
Let us say that a losing defendant/accused is advised by his counsel that they have 3 remedies while the period of appeal was running, motion for reconsideration, motion for new trial and appeal. The defendant/accused told the counsel to avail of all three. Thus, the counsel filed a motion for new trial, a motion for reconsideration and lastly, an appeal. The trial court received all three. The appeal was duly perfected. What remedy will the court entertain?
SC had held that if the aggrieved party files or perfects an appeal during the pendency of his motions for new trial and reconsideration, the motions shall be deemed abandoned.
It is really inconsistent for an aggrieved party to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration, and while waiting for the resolution of his motion he perfects an appeal. It will render the motions academic. The court, upon perfection of the appeal and upon payment of the docket fee, will lose jurisdiction over the case, and what will remain with the court is residual jurisdiction.
The winning party, after receiving a copy of the decision, moved for the execution pending appeal. It is a matter of discretion to the court founded on special circumstances. The losing party filed a motion for new trial while the former motion was pending. Can the court grant the motion for execution pending appeal?
No. The trial court should resolve the motion for new trial first before the motion pending appeal is resolved, even if the motion pending execution is for special reasons. Motion for reconsideration or motion for new trial of the aggrieved party should be given preference over any other motion by the prevailing party.
Motion for new trial on ground of FAMEN.
There must be an affidavit of merit. FAMEN must be the reason for which the motion for new trial is bound. Affidavits should show FAMEN. The affidavit should be executed by persons with personal knowledge surrounding the circumstances of FAMEN.
It is not correct to say that in a motion for new trial, we always need an affidavit of merit. We need affidavit of merit only if the ground relied upon is FAMEN. Motion for new trial on ground of NDE will not need Affidavit of Merit, merely the affidavit of the new witness will give testimony, or an authentic copy of document or object evidence to be presented.
Extrinsic fraud vs. Intrinsic Fraud in Motion for New Trial
EXTRINSIC FRAUD INTRINSIC FRAUD
Connotes any fraudulent scheme executed by the prevailing party outside trial against the losing party who because of such fraud was prevented from presenting his side of the case
Refers to the acts of party during trial which does not affect the presentation of the case
The principle in new trial in the case of fraud, the fraud committed must always be EXTRINSIC FRAUD. It cannot be intrinsic fraud. In Rule 37, there is a basis for the court to determine extrinsic fraud from intrinsic fraud for the trial to be properly resolved. If the fraud alleged in the motion is intrinsic, that motion will be denied. What should be proven should be an extrinsic fraud.
Rule 37 could give a good basis for making a distinction between the two frauds.. There are 2 clauses to justify extrinsic fraud as a ground for new trial compared to extrinsic fraud:
“which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against” and “by reason of which such aggrieved party has probably been impaired in his rights.”
If we rely solely on Rule 37, in court cases, the court has allowed lawyers to ‘cheat’ one another, so long as ‘cheating’ is limited only of intrinsic fraud, which could be prevented through the use of ordinary diligence.
For instance, the court has ruled that if a party wins the case because his cause of action is supported by a document which could serve as preponderant evidence which could show his title to recover from the defendant. But later on, the aggrieved party is able to prove that the document presented by the plaintiff, and which is the basis for the judgment in his favor, is a forged document. Forging a document is a crime. But in a trial, the admission of a forged document will not be a ground for a new trial, or even as NDE. This is because the presentation of a forged document by the plaintiff could easily be avoided by the defendant through the exercise of ordinary diligence. If confronted with such document, and the defendant is not sure as to its authenticity, the defendant could have called upon witnesses, such as an expert witness, to prove that such document was forged. His failure to do so is a waiver of this fact.
Another instance of ‘cheating’ duly proven by the movant in a motion for new trial based on extrinsic fraud which the SC did not consider as extrinsic is when the prevailing party presented witnesses who had perjured. But if the aggrieved party relies solely on the allegation that all the witnesses presented by the party all committed perjury, that is not a ground for new trial, that it is only intrinsic fraud. What the SC is telling the defendant is that he should also have ‘cheated,’ that he should also have been dishonest. If the plaintiff presented 2 perjured witnesses, the defendant should have called 5. So the message given with respect to extrinsic and intrinsic fraud is that litigants, through their lawyers, can be dishonest during the course of a litigation. But they should see to it that the ;cheating’ will not amount to extrinsic fraud, that which will not deprive the other party of his day in court, that the other party will have the opportunity to present his side in court.
That is the life of a lawyer, he is encouraged to be dishonest, he should be deceptive in his relationship with others lawyers.
Anyway, lawyers will not go to heaven, that is a given fact. It is found in the Bible. But that is only a part of a passage in the
Bible. The additional passage is that lawyers do not go to hell. But that does not make the life of a lawyer less worthwhile. If a lawyer cannot go to heaven or to hell, where will the lawyer go after death? The implication is that a lawyer does not have a soul.
That is how the SC looks at the situation. In fact the S in several cases said we should expect dishonesty in the course of a litigation. We cannot avoid that. The SC said that if they allow every act of dishonesty to be a ground for new trial, there will never be an end to a litigation, because a lawyer will always be able to point out to the court certain acts of dishonesty or
‘cheating’ in a motion for new trial.
Mistake
The mistake of a lawyer is the mistake of the client. If the aggrieved party lost the case due to a serious mistake of the lawyer, the said party fires his lawyer and gets a new one, the new lawyer cannot capitalize on the mistake committed by the former lawyer. The is just applying the rule on agency. The act of the agent is the act of the principal.
But, there is one situation where the SC relaxed the application of this principle. The SC said that while it is true the mistake of the lawyer will always be considered the mistake of the client. But if the mistake of the lawyer was tantamount to bad faith, there is an insinuation that the lawyer deliberately caused the loss of the case of the client, then that is a ground for new trial. The client’s rights should be protected in this situation.
But the general rule is that the mistake of a lawyer is the mistake of the client, and it cannot be a ground for new trial under FAMEN.
Newly Discovered Evidence
This is an adaptation of an American principle called the Berry Rule : “Newly discovered evidence, which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial, and which if presented would probably alter the result.”
Q: What are the requisites of newly discovered evidence as a ground for New Trial?
A:
1. The evidence was discovered after trial;
2. Such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial with reasonable diligence; and
3. Such evidence is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching, and is of such weight that if admitted would probably change the judgment (BERRY RULE) (CIR v. A. Soriano Corporation, GR No. 113703 January 31, 1997).
Because of the requirement, that the result of the case would probably be altered, we cannot consider cumulative, corroborative or impeaching evidence as NDE, as these cannot alter the result of the case. The recantation of a witness is not NDE. In fact, the SC has been emphatic in its ruling continuously that if a witness recants, the recantation should not even be given any attention at all. Because if we give attention to the recantation of a witness, you can expect lawyers to produce recantations by witnesses who already testified in court. So, the stand of the court is that the testimony of a witness given in open court reflects the truth, not the recantation. The recantation shall not be treated as NDE.
In a motion for reconsideration under Rule 37, there are 3 grounds:
damages awarded are excessive,
the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final order, the decision or final order is contrary to law
There is also a rule under Rule 37 allowing only one motion for reconsideration by the same party, either prevailing or aggrieved party. If that is denied, a second motion for reconsideration will not be allowed, even if the second motion for reconsideration is founded on a different ground. The rule against the filing of a second motion for reconsideration is almost absolute.
Unlike in a motion for new trial, Rule 37 allows a movant to file second motion for new trial if founded on a ground different from the one used in the first motion for new trial.
But whether it is a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration, there is another rule contained in other provisions where the court will not allow an extension of time to file motion for new trial or reconsideration (15-30 day period). The party must observe the 15/30-day period.
If motion for reconsideration is favorably acted upon, the court will simply render an amended judgment. If the court feels that the judgment is contrary to law or the evidence does not fully support the judgment, the motion for reconsideration should be granted to reduce the liability of the aggrieved party, but the court will only amend the previous judgment in order to reduce the liability of the party aggrieved.
If the motion for new trial in a civil case is granted, and such is not a partial motion for new trial, the judgment will be vacated. But the evidence presented during the trial will not be disturbed. There is no need for the witnesses who had testified in the trial to give their testimony again.
If the Motion for new trial granted was that in a criminal case, the judgment will also be vacated, and all evidence taken during the trial need to be retaken and witnesses who testified will be recalled. The grounds for new trial in a criminal case are serious irregularities or errors committed by the trial court, not FAMEN. Even if the evidence taken in court will not be retaken, there will be a recalling of the witnesses who had testified during the trial.
In Rule 37, it is clearly provided that if a motion for new trial or reconsideration is denied, the denial cannot be appealed or be subject to Rule 65 as the order of denial is interlocutory. What is to be appealed is the judgment rendered on the merits, not the order of denial. Note that Rule 65 is now unavailing in the amended Rules in Rule 41. The only remedy is an appeal from the judgment on the merits that is the subject of new trial or reconsideration. SC said that in appealing the judgment, the aggrieved party can assign as an error the denial of the trial court of the motion for new trial or motion for
reconsideration. But, he is no longer allowed to file a petition under Rule 65 to challenge the denial of the motion and appeal at the same time, which was allowed prior to the amendment of Section1 of Rule 41.
MNT or MR in Criminal Cases MNT or MR in Civil Cases
Either on motion of accused, or the court motu propio with consent of the accused
Must be upon motion of a party, cannot be motu propio
Grounds for MNT – errors of law or irregularities committed during the trial, or newly discovered evidence
Grounds for MNT – FAME, or newly discovered evidence
Ground for MR – error of law or fact Grounds for MR – Excessive damages, insufficient evidence, or decision is contrary to law
Filed any time before judgment of conviction becomes final Filed within the period for taking an appeal. Should include all the grounds then available and those not so included shall be deemed waived.
When granted, the original judgment is always set aside or vacated and a new judgment rendered.
There may be partial grant