Below is a comprehensive discussion of Motions for New Trial under Rule 37 of the Rules of Court (Philippines). This write-up incorporates the key provisions of the rule itself, its procedural requirements, the grounds and formalities, as well as doctrinal guidelines laid down by jurisprudence. Although styled for clarity, it is quite detailed and “meticulous,” as requested.
I. LEGAL BASIS AND NATURE OF A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Source of authority
- Rule 37, Rules of Court governs motions for new trial (and motions for reconsideration) in civil cases in the Philippines.
- As an official issuance of the Supreme Court, the text of Rule 37 is in the public domain. The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure were amended in 2019 (A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC), which took effect in May 2020. The 2019 Amendments introduced certain changes primarily aimed at expediting the resolution of cases, but the basic framework for motions for new trial under Rule 37 remains mostly intact.
Definition and purpose
- A motion for new trial is a post-judgment remedy filed by a party who seeks to set aside or vacate a judgment or final order, in order for the case to be tried again by the same court.
- It presupposes that a final judgment or final order has already been promulgated/issued but is not yet final and executory. The aim is to correct errors or inequities that occurred during the trial—particularly when there were irregularities or newly discovered evidence that could affect the outcome of the case.
Distinction from Motion for Reconsideration
- A motion for reconsideration attacks the legal correctness of the judgment by pointing out errors of law or fact contained in the decision itself (i.e., the findings or conclusions of the court).
- A motion for new trial attacks the factual underpinnings or the trial process, seeking a reopening of the proceedings either because new evidence has been discovered or because there were certain vitiating irregularities.
II. GROUNDS FOR NEW TRIAL
Rule 37, Section 1 enumerates the grounds for a new trial as follows:
Fraud, Accident, Mistake, or Excusable Negligence (FAME)
- The motion for new trial may be granted when the movant’s substantial rights have been impaired because of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. In jurisprudence, this is often abbreviated as “FAME.”
- Fraud refers to any deceitful act or strategy which prevented the movant from fully presenting his/her case or defense.
- Accident or a situation beyond the party’s control that materially impaired a party’s ability to prosecute or defend.
- Mistake must generally be one of fact, not of law, and must be excusable—not due to the gross negligence or inexcusable inattention of the party or counsel.
- Excusable negligence refers to a negligence which is not so gross or reckless as to deprive the defaulting party of relief. Philippine jurisprudence clarifies that the negligence of counsel binds the client, except in exceptional circumstances where the lawyer’s gross negligence or incompetence amounts to a deprivation of due process.
Newly Discovered Evidence
- Newly discovered evidence is evidence that:
- Was discovered after trial;
- Could not have been discovered and produced during trial with reasonable diligence; and
- Is of such weight and materiality that, if it had been introduced and admitted, it would probably alter the judgment.
- All three conditions must be met. The discovery of new evidence that merely “corroborates” or is “cumulative” of existing evidence is generally insufficient to warrant a new trial.
- Newly discovered evidence is evidence that:
III. FORM AND CONTENTS OF A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Written Motion
- The motion must be in writing and must specify the particular grounds relied upon, as well as the arguments and supporting facts.
Affidavits of Merit or Affidavits of Witnesses
- If the ground relied upon is FAME, the motion must be accompanied by affidavits of merit showing the facts constituting such fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.
- If the ground relied upon is newly discovered evidence, the motion must be supported by affidavits of witnesses or duly authenticated documents which the movant would introduce if the motion is granted. These affidavits or documents should demonstrate the relevance, admissibility, and probable effect on the outcome of the case.
Notice of Hearing and Service
- Under Rule 15 (Motions), the movant must provide notice of hearing to all parties concerned, and file and serve copies of the motion in accordance with the Rules.
- Failure to properly serve the motion with notice of hearing may be fatal to the motion, as it can be treated as a mere scrap of paper.
IV. PERIOD FOR FILING A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Reglementary Period
- A motion for new trial (or reconsideration) must be filed within the period for taking an appeal, which is 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order.
- If a party files a timely motion for new trial, the period for appeal will be interrupted. After the denial of the motion (either in an order of denial or by operation of law), the movant has the balance of the reglementary period within which to appeal. Under the 2019 Amendments, once the motion is denied, the moving party typically has 15 days from notice of such denial within which to file a notice of appeal, unless otherwise specified by subsequent rules or jurisprudence.
Extension to File
- Generally, the rules on extension to file a motion for new trial are quite strict. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the period for filing such post-judgment motions is non-extendible. The only recognized extension for a “belated” motion for new trial is if a strong showing of compelling reasons akin to extrinsic fraud or other extraordinary circumstances is established, but this is extremely rare and typically frowned upon.
V. EFFECT OF FILING A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Suspension of the Running of Period to Appeal
- Filing a proper motion for new trial within the 15-day period suspends the running of the period to appeal.
- If the motion is denied, the movant has the remaining period to appeal, typically 15 days from notice of denial, unless only a portion of the 15 days remained unconsumed at the time of filing (in which case only the remainder is left).
Prohibition on Second Motion
- Rule 37, Section 5 explicitly states that a second motion for new trial (or reconsideration) is prohibited, except for very limited and highly exceptional reasons (e.g., newly discovered evidence discovered after the denial of the first motion but within the remainder of the period to appeal). As a general rule, courts rarely allow multiple or successive motions for new trial.
VI. PROCEDURE UPON GRANT OF A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Setting Aside of Judgment
- If the court grants the motion for new trial, the judgment or final order previously rendered is set aside or vacated.
Reopening of Proceedings
- The case is reopened for the reception of additional evidence or for such other proceedings as are necessary. The court may either:
- Hold a complete new trial, re-conducting all procedural steps, or
- Conduct a limited or partial hearing only on the matters specified by the court (particularly if the ground is newly discovered evidence that focuses on a specific factual matter).
- The case is reopened for the reception of additional evidence or for such other proceedings as are necessary. The court may either:
Duty of the Court after Re-trial
- After conducting the new trial, the court will render a new judgment in accordance with the results of the re-trial.
- This new judgment will supersede the prior judgment in the same case.
VII. DENIAL OF THE MOTION AND REMEDIES
Denial of the Motion
- If the court denies a motion for new trial, the movant’s remedy is ordinarily to appeal the original judgment or final order. The movant is given the balance of the period (or 15 days from notice of denial, whichever is applicable) to file a notice of appeal.
Remedy of Appeal
- Once the motion is denied, the party can either (a) file an ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals (if the case is within the CA’s jurisdiction) or (b) file a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court (if the case falls under SC jurisdiction or if appealing a CA decision). The choice depends on the hierarchy of courts, the subject matter, and the amount or nature of relief.
- In certain exceptional cases, a party may resort to Rule 65 (Certiorari) if there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court in denying the motion.
Pro-forma Motion
- Courts will not entertain pro-forma motions. A motion for new trial is considered pro-forma when it does not specifically point out the supposed errors or does not comply with the required affidavits or supporting documents. A pro-forma motion does not toll the reglementary period to appeal.
- The test for a pro-forma motion under the law and jurisprudence is whether the motion is “a mere rehash” of previous arguments that does not comply with the mandated formal requirements and does not raise any substantial ground.
VIII. IMPORTANT JURISPRUDENTIAL POINTS
Negligence of Counsel
- In general, the negligence of counsel binds the client. However, the Supreme Court has recognized an exception in cases of “gross negligence” of counsel that results in the deprivation of a party’s due process. The movant must demonstrate that the counsel’s negligence was so gross that it effectively deprived the client of the chance to present or defend the case, and that the client was vigilant in protecting his/her rights but was misled by the counsel’s inexcusable conduct.
Substantial Justice vs. Technicalities
- The Supreme Court has, in some cases, relaxed the rules in favor of substantial justice—particularly when “the interests of substantial justice and equity” clearly require such. However, the party seeking relaxation must still show compelling reasons and an otherwise meritorious case.
Newly Discovered Evidence
- Philippine case law is strict in applying the test for newly discovered evidence. It must truly be evidence that could not, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered or produced at trial. The Supreme Court emphasizes that “reasonable diligence” is the standard—meaning there must be no willful or negligent inaction during the original trial.
Proper Allegation and Proof of FAME
- When relying on FAME, the movant must state with particularity how the alleged fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence prevented him/her from fully and fairly presenting the case or defense. Conclusory statements do not suffice; the affidavits of merit must detail the specific facts constituting the ground.
No Additional Ground on Appeal
- A party moving for new trial should specify all possible grounds in the motion itself, since additional grounds not raised in the motion might be deemed waived or barred from consideration if raised only on appeal.
IX. RELATION TO OTHER RULES
Rule 38 (Relief from Judgment)
- Distinguish a motion for new trial under Rule 37 from a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38.
- A motion for new trial is filed within the 15-day reglementary period (or within the period to appeal) after receipt of the judgment.
- A petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 is a remedy of “last resort” available after the judgment has become final and executory, and must comply with the specific 60-day from knowledge and 6-month from entry time frames.
Rule 65 (Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus)
- A motion for new trial is not the same as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. A petition for certiorari questions the court’s lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, whereas a motion for new trial (Rule 37) is an ordinary remedy questioning the correctness of a final judgment based on FAME or newly discovered evidence.
No combination with Rule 45
- Parties cannot invoke Rule 45 (Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court) and simultaneously file a motion for new trial in the same forum. If the trial court or the CA has rendered a judgment, a motion for new trial is not filed in the Supreme Court. The remedy is to either file a motion for new trial with the original trial court (within the appeal period) or appeal directly to the higher court. Once the case is elevated to a higher court, the rules for new trial in the Supreme Court differ and are covered by separate provisions (e.g., Rule 53 for the Court of Appeals or Rule 56 for the Supreme Court).
X. PRACTICAL TIPS AND BEST PRACTICES
Be Thorough and Specific
- State the ground(s) clearly. If FAME is relied upon, narrate the events meticulously in the affidavit of merit and prove that the party was prevented from adequately presenting the case.
- If newly discovered evidence is the ground, explain precisely why the evidence could not have been discovered before and why it is material.
Observe Strict Timelines
- Always file the motion for new trial within 15 days from receipt of the judgment. The courts strictly enforce deadlines.
Attach All Necessary Documents
- For FAME: an affidavit of merit detailing relevant facts;
- For newly discovered evidence: affidavits of witnesses or authenticated documents which form the newly discovered evidence.
Avoid Repetition
- Do not simply re-argue the points decided in the judgment. That is more akin to a motion for reconsideration. A motion for new trial must address the conditions that prevented a full-blown fair trial or the existence of new evidence.
Use of Verifications and Certifications
- Ensure that the motion is properly verified (when required) and that it complies with the required certification against forum shopping if it is a special pleading (generally appended to other pleadings as well).
Evaluate the Necessity of a New Trial
- If the issue is purely one of law or apparent legal misinterpretation by the court, a motion for reconsideration (not for new trial) may be more appropriate.
XI. SUMMARY
A motion for new trial under Rule 37 is a vital post-judgment remedy in Philippine civil procedure. It allows the reopening of the case when the moving party convincingly shows that:
- Fraud, Accident, Mistake, or Excusable Negligence (FAME) occurred to prevent a fair trial, or
- Newly discovered evidence has surfaced that could alter the outcome and could not have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence.
It interrupts the running of the 15-day appeal period, requires affidavits of merit or witness affidavits, and must be filed within 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order.
Grant of the motion sets aside the judgment and reopens the proceedings; denial of the motion allows the movant to proceed with an ordinary appeal within the balance of the reglementary period.
Philippine jurisprudence underscores strict adherence to procedural rules while allowing, in exceptional cases, a liberal approach when warranted by substantial justice and extraordinary circumstances.