Comment in Opposition to a Petition/Motion for Relief from Judgment
(Philippine Rules of Court, Rule 38)
Scope and purpose of this article – This primer is written for lawyers and law-students who need to draft or evaluate a comment (sometimes captioned “Opposition”) to a petition or motion for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. It surveys the governing rules, time limits, substantive defenses, best drafting practices, and the controlling jurisprudence—so that you have everything you need in one reference.
1. Nature of a Petition or Motion for Relief from Judgment
| Key point | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Governing rule | Rule 38 (Petition for Relief from Judgment, Orders or Other Proceedings). |
| Character | An equitable remedy—invoked after a judgment, final order, or other proceeding has become final and executory, when no ordinary remedies (appeal, MR, new trial, certiorari) are available. |
| Two-pronged requirements | (a) Fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence (FAME) and (b) a meritorious defense or cause of action. |
| Strict, dual-period rule | (1) 60 days from knowledge of the judgment or order and (2) 6 months from entry of judgment. Both must be met (strictissimi juris). |
Case law: Workmen’s Insurance v. Court of Appeals, G.R. L-41993 (1976); Sps. Arranza v. BF Corp., G.R. 171557 (2010) – petitions filed even one day late are dismissed.
2. When and Why a Comment / Opposition Becomes Necessary
- Court direction – The trial court or tribunal often issues an order requiring “the adverse party to file a comment within ten (10) days” (Rule 38 §4).
- Proactive practice – Even without an order, counsel may file an opposition to (a) contest prima facie sufficiency and (b) preserve defenses that might otherwise be deemed waived.
- Strategic value – A well-crafted comment can:
- obtain outright dismissal on procedural defects,
- undermine the “meritorious defense,” and
- convince the court to deny ex parte interim relief (e.g., injunction against execution).
3. Substantive Defenses Available in a Comment
3.1 Jurisdictional / Threshold Defenses
| Defense | Rationale | Authorities |
|---|---|---|
| Untimeliness | Any non-compliance with both 60-day and 6-month periods is fatal. | Arranza; Workmen’s Insurance |
| Improper mode (motion vs. verified petition) | Rule 38 requires a verified petition, filed and docketed as a separate case, with docket fees. A mere “motion” is a nullity. | Abrogar v. IAC, G.R. 69834 (1987) |
| Lack of verification / certification of non-forum shopping | Mandatory under Sec. 4, Rule 38 and A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC. | Spouses Ortiz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 126513 (1999) |
| No prior tender of evidence of FAME | Allegations must be backed by affidavits of merit and supporting documents. | Perla Compania de Seguros v. Villagracia, G.R. 82315 (1989) |
3.2 Merits-Based Defenses
- Absence of FAME – e.g., negligence of counsel is not excusable if client was also negligent (the “double negligence” doctrine).
- Lack of meritorious defense – Attack the proposed answer or complaint-in-intervention for being speculative, barred by res judicata, prescription, or admissions on record.
- Estoppel and laches – Especially where petitioners have participated in execution proceedings or otherwise acquiesced.
4. Procedural Toolkit in Drafting the Comment
- Caption – Use the same case title but add “—Opposition (Comment) to Petition for Relief from Judgment.”
- Verification & CNFS – Mirror the rule’s requirement even though a comment is technically a responsive pleading.
- Summary of facts – Recite material dates with emphasis on dual-period violation.
- Argument headings – Lead with the fatal-defect argument (“The petition must be dismissed outright for being filed out of time”).
- Affidavits / documentary exhibits – E.g., registry return card proving earlier receipt of judgment; sheriff’s returns; docket entries.
- Prayer – Include (a) dismissal of the petition, (b) denial of ancillary relief (stay of execution), (c) award of costs.
- Notice of Hearing & Service – Under Sec. 5, Rule 15; attach proof of personal service or accredited courier.
5. Timeline Cheat-Sheet
| Day | Procedural Event | Best practice for oppositor |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Petition for relief filed & raffled | Secure copy ASAP; calendar 10-day comment period (unless court fixes shorter). |
| +3 | Court may grant TRO against execution ex parte | File Urgent Motion to Lift TRO if TRO was improvidently issued. |
| +7 | Execution officer may suspend sale | Submit Manifestation that relief petition is fatally defective. |
| +10 | Deadline to file Comment (if not otherwise set) | Personally serve on petitioner and file with court (via e-filing where implemented). |
| +30 | Court sets hearing or resolves motu proprio | If no action, consider Motion to Resolve (Sec. 15, Rule 15). |
6. Common Drafting Pitfalls (and How to Avoid Them)
| Pitfall | Cure |
|---|---|
| Attacking only procedural defects without touching merits | Include fallback arguments on substance; some courts give petitioners chance to amend. |
| Reliance on bare allegations | Attach certified true copies—entry of judgment, sheriff’s return, proof of receipt. |
| Overlooking Rule 15 notice-of-hearing | Even comments must contain a notice of hearing; else treated as a mere scrap of paper. |
| Conflating Rule 38 with Rule 37 (motion for new trial) | Stress that post-entry remedies are extraordinary and strictly construed. |
7. Selected Jurisprudence to Cite
- Sps. Arranza v. B.F. Corp., G.R. 171557, June 8 2010 – strict application of 60/180-day rule.
- Workmen’s Insurance Co. v. CA, L-41993, June 30 1976 – equitable relief cannot revive judgment that has become immutable.
- Abrogar v. IAC, G.R. 69834, Aug 26 1987 – motion (instead of petition) is a nullity.
- Bank of America NT&SA v. Gerochi, G.R. 73350, Oct 9 1991 – “double negligence” bars relief.
- Sps. Ortiz v. CA, G.R. 126513, March 31 1999 – forum-shopping certification required.
- FGU Insurance v. RTC Makati, G.R. 161282, April 20 2010 – affidavits of merit must accompany petition and show good defense on the merits.
8. Model Skeleton (for quick reference)
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch ___, ____________
ABC CORPORATION, Civil Case No. ____
Plaintiff,
– versus – (Opposition to Rule 38 Petition)
XYZ CORPORATION, For: Sum of Money
Defendant.
OPPOSITION (COMMENT) TO
PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
DEFENDANT, through counsel, most respectfully STATES:
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Judgment dated 15 May 2024, received by petitioner on 20 May 2024…
2. Entry of judgment made on 21 August 2024…
II. ARGUMENTS
A. **The petition is fataly defective for being filed out of time.**
(show timeline, cite *Arranza*)
B. **No fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence is shown.**
(quote affidavits, cite *Bank of America* double-negligence doctrine)
C. **Petitioner pleads no meritorious defense.**
(attach earlier answer admitting liability)
III. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent prays that the petition be DISMISSED with costs.
Respectfully submitted.
[signature block]9. Practical Tips from the Trenches
- Do the math visibly – Judges appreciate a table that counts exact days from receipt to filing; remove doubt.
- Attack the meritorious defense like a demurrer – Show res judicata, prescription, or admissions.
- If execution is ongoing, coordinate with sheriff – File a copy of your opposition with the Office of the Sheriff to forestall any ex parte orders.
- Ask for damages sparingly – Courts seldom grant damages for a denied Rule 38 petition absent bad faith; focus on costs.
- Use precedents from the same division – Some RTC branches lean heavily on their own past rulings for consistency.
10. Conclusion
A comment in opposition to a petition or motion for relief from judgment is your one shot at preventing an otherwise final and executory decision from being reopened. Mastery of the strict dual-period rule, the twin requisites of FAME + meritorious defense, and the mandatory formalities of Rule 38 will let you draft an opposition that not only survives scrutiny but often persuades the court to dismiss the petition outright.
This article is for instructional purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific concerns, consult counsel licensed in the Philippines.