Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 36 of the Rules of Court provide for several and separate judgments.
“SECTION 4. Several judgments. – In an action against several defendants, the court may, when a several judgment is proper, render judgment against one or more of them, leaving the action to proceed against the others.
“SECTION 5. Separate judgments. – When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, the court, at any stage, upon a determination of the issues material to a particular claim and all counterclaims arising out of the transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of the claim, may render a separate judgment disposing of such claim. The judgment shall terminate the action with respect to the claim so disposed of and the action shall proceed as to the remaining claims….”
The term “judgment” as used in Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 36 should be deemed to include “final orders.”[1] It would appear that Section 4 of Rule 36 limits the definition of a several judgment to a situation involving a plurality of defendants and to a judgment rendered against the defendant or defendants. However, case law and a reading of Section 1(f) of Rule 41 show that a several judgment may involve also a plurality of plaintiffs and a judgment which is rendered in favor of a defendant or defendants.[2]
Appealability of several and separate judgments
The Rules of Court provide that no appeal may be taken from “[a] judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party complaints, while the main case is pending, unless the court allows an appeal therefrom.” (Sec. 1[f], Rule 41 of the Rules of Court). The aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action as provided for in Rule 65 (Section 1, last paragraph, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court).
Section 1(f) of Rule 41 stresses the interlocutory nature of a several or separate judgment and states that they are not separately appealable as a rule. The Rules discourage piece-meal appeal by providing that the aggrieved party should appeal the several or separate judgment together with the judgment in the main case. In contrast, several or separate judgments (or partial judgments as they are known in the U.S.) are treated as final judgments under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and are thus appealable.
Section 1(f) of Rule 41, however, also provides that the court may allow an appeal from a separate or several judgment. No standard is provided in the Rules to guide a judge in deciding whether or not to allow the appeal. Under American procedural law, the judge should direct entry of a partial judgment, and consequently allow an appeal, “only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.”[3] It is submitted that the “unjust delay” standard may be used in the Philippines. This would include the possible injustice of a delay to the aggrieved party who is constrained to await adjudication of the entire case before he can appeal from the several or separate judgment.
For instance, the plaintiff files a complaint against B, C, and D. B files a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the case as against him. The court renders summary judgment dismissing the case against B while continuing proceedings against C and D. Here, the court may allow the plaintiff to appeal the summary judgment upon a showing that a delay in the resolution of the matter until the rendition of the subsequent judgment or judgments against C and D would prejudice him.
The plaintiff may resort to a special civil action for certiorari to challenge the dismissal order. However, a special civil action for certiorari sets a much higher bar than an appeal since it requires the petitioner to show not just reversible error but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction.
If the plaintiff wants to appeal instead of filing a petition for certiorari, he should file a motion for leave to appeal. If leave is granted, he should take his appeal by filing a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within 30 days from notice. A record on appeal is required in cases of multiple or separate appeals.[4]
Remedy from a separate judgment dismissing a case without prejudice
Let us say that a plaintiff filed a torts case against B, C, and D. B filed an answer raising the affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted B’s affirmative defense and ordered the dismissal of the case against B while proceeding with the case against C and D. May the plaintiff move for leave to file an appeal from the dismissal order?
It is submitted that the plaintiff may do so notwithstanding Section 1(g) of Rule 41 which provides that an order dismissing an action without prejudice, such as a dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction, is not appealable.[5] It is submitted that Section 1(f) of Rule 41 is the applicable provision since it is the special rule. Moreover, allowance of the plaintiff’s appeal would further the aim of Section 1(f) to prevent unjust delay to the aggrieved party.
Enforceability of a several or separate judgment
Since our rules in effect treat a several or separate judgment as an interlocutory order, the same may not be enforced separately from the judgment in the entire case. This is clear since only a judgment or final order may be executed.[6]
The last sentence of Section 5 of Rule 36, however, provides that “[i]n case a separate judgment is rendered, the court by order may stay its enforcement until the rendition of a subsequent judgment or judgments and may prescribe such conditions as may be necessary to secure the benefit thereof to the party in whose favor the judgment is rendered.”[7]
This proviso is quite puzzling since it gives the distinct impression that a separate judgment is immediately enforceable upon rendition unless stayed by the court. However, as previously stated a several or separate judgment may not be enforced separately from the judgment in the entire case.
The explanation lies in the fact that proviso was adopted from American procedural law, specifically, FRCP 62(h). The rule in the U.S. is that the enforcement of a judgment is not stayed, even by an appeal, unless the losing party posts a bond or other security. FRCP 62(h) provides for one of the exceptions in case of a partial judgment: “[a] court may stay the enforcement of a [partial judgment] until it enters a later judgment or judgments, and may prescribe terms necessary to secure the benefit of the stayed judgment for the party in whose favor it was entered.” This is the proviso which was copied almost verbatim in the 1964 Rules of Court.[8]
It can thus be seen that the stay of enforcement of a separate judgment is inapplicable in our procedural law. If at all, the proviso of Section 5 of Rule 36 may be applied only to the situation where the court allowed the losing party to appeal from the separate judgment, but such party failed to take the appeal or the appeal was finally resolved. In this case, the separate judgment would become executory, but the court may nevertheless stay its enforcement until rendition of the subsequent judgment or judgments.
-oOo-
[1] See Sec. 1(f), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court; Palma v. Galvez, 615 SCRA 86, 93-94 (2010); Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(a).
[2] See Palma v. Galvez, supra.
[3] See FRCP 54(b) and advisory committee notes thereon.
[4] Section 3, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court.
[5] See Section 13, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.
[6] Section 1, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
[7] Emphasis supplied.
[8] The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provided that several or separate judgments are rendered, not entered, but otherwise retained the original wording. This change should have led to the deletion of the proviso on stay of enforcement.
