(/CONTACT)

+639989758791 (TEL:+639989758791) C O N TA C T U S ( / C O N TA C T )

RESPICIO & CO. (/)

January 22, 2025 (/bar/2025/remedial-law-legal-ethics-legal-forms/civil-procedure/post-judgment-

remedies/motion-for-new-trial-rule-37)

Motion for new trial (RULE 37) | Post-judgment

Remedies | CIVIL PROCEDURE (/bar/2025/remedial-
law-legal-ethics-legal-forms/civil-procedure/post-
judgment-remedies/motion-for-new-trial-rule-37)
REMEDIAL LAW LEGAL ETHICS & LEGAL FORMS

(/BAR/2025/CATEGORY/REMEDIAL+LAW+LEGAL+ETHICS+%26+LEGAL+FORMS)

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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:

1. 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.
2. Newly Discovered Evidence

Newly discovered evidence is evidence that:

1. Was discovered after trial;
2. Could not have been discovered and produced during trial with reasonable
diligence; and
3. 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.

III. FORM AND CONTENTS OF A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

1. Written Motion

The motion must be in writing and must specify the particular grounds relied upon, as
well as the arguments and supporting facts.
2. 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.
3. 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

1. 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.
2. 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

1. 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).
2. 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
1. 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.
2. 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).
3. 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
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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

1. 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.
2. Observe Strict Timelines

Always file the motion for new trial within 15 days from receipt of the judgment. The
courts strictly enforce deadlines.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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).
6. 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:
 1. Fraud, Accident, Mistake, or Excusable Negligence (FAME) occurred to prevent a fair
trial, or
2. 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.

I N E S S E N C E , R U L E 3 7 I S A B U I LT- I N M E C H A N I S M O F T H E R U L E S O F C O U R T
T O E N S U R E T H AT D E C I S I O N S A R E M A D E U P O N A F U L L A N D FA I R
P R E S E N TAT I O N O F R E L E VA N T E V I D E N C E . I F A PA R T Y I S D E P R I V E D O F T H AT
FA I R P R E S E N TAT I O N T H R O U G H FA M E O R I S I N P O S S E S S I O N O F C R U C I A L
N E W E V I D E N C E D I S C O V E R E D O N LY A F T E R T R I A L , T H E M O T I O N F O R N E W
T R I A L I S A P O T E N T R E M E DY T O C O R R E C T P O T E N T I A L I N J U S T I C E S AT T H E
T R I A L - C O U R T L E V E L B E F O R E R E S O R T I N G T O A P P E L L AT E R E V I E W.

Tagged: CIVIL PROCEDURE (/BAR/2025/TAG/CIVIL+PROCEDURE) , POST-

JUDGMENT REMEDIES (/BAR/2025/TAG/POST-JUDGMENT+REMEDIES) ,
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL RULE 37
(/BAR/2025/TAG/MOTION+FOR+NEW+TRIAL+RULE+37)

 Share
Bar Reviewers 2025 (/bar-2025)

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be
inaccurate.

Newer Post Older Post

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (RULE 37) | POST- POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES | CIVIL PROCEDURE

JUDGMENT REMEDIES | CIVIL PROCEDURE (/BAR/2025/REMEDIAL-LAW-LEGAL-ETHICS-LEGAL-

(/BAR/2025/REMEDIAL-LAW-LEGAL-ETHICS-LEGAL- FORMS/CIVIL-PROCEDURE/POST-JUDGMENT-

FORMS/CIVIL-PROCEDURE/POST-JUDGMENT- REMEDIES)

REMEDIES/MOTION-FOR-RECONSIDERATION-RULE-

37)
 Privacy Policy (/the-fine-print)

Resources
(https://docs.google.com/document/d/14a3DQKF7vEwNv2xRW6ZssQbDxt4tMltGApAQm1QT3FM/edit?
usp=sharing)

Services (/services) Contact (/contact)

(mai (http (http (http (http (http