Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 77

University of Santo Tomas

Faculty of Civil Law

REMEDIAL LAW
Questions Asked More
Than Once
(QuAMTO 2017)
*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and
other distinct luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to
fit for the 2017 Bar Exams.

*Bar questions are arranged per topic in accordance with the bar syllabus released by the
Supreme Court and were selected based on their occurrence on past bar examinations from
1987 to 2016.
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE
CAMILLE ANGELICA B. GONZALES SECRETARY GENERAL

EMNIE VALERIE B. DURAN


IRVIN L. PALANCA
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
LARA NICOLE T. GONZALES
MARIELLA A. MARASIGAN

CAMILLE ANGELICA B. GONZALES LAYOUT AND DESIGN

QUAMTO COMMITTEE MEMBERS

JACKIELYN KRYSTYL NIHAMA BANA


KARL ANTHONY BULAONG
MERVIN MARCOS
KELLY ANN RUBIN
NESTOR FERNANDO SIAZON

ATTY. AL CONRAD B. ESPALDON


ADVISER
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
of fact is when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth
REMEDIAL LAW QUAMTO or falsehood of alleged facts (Ramos v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling
Co. of the Phil., G.R. No. L-22533, February 9, 1967).

Q: Goodfeather Corporation, through its President, Al


GENERAL PRINCIPLES Pakino, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a
complaint for specific performance against Robert
White. Instead of filing an answer to the complaint,
CONCEPT OF REMEDIAL LAW Robert White filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
the ground of lack of the appropriate board resolution
Q: How shall the Rules of Court be construed? (1998 Bar) from the Board of Directors of Good feather Corporation
to show the authority of Al Pakino to represent the
A: The Rules of Court should be liberally constructed in corporation and file the complaint in its behalf. The RTC
order to promote their objective of securing a Just, speedy granted the motion to dismiss and, accordingly it
and inexpensive disposition of every action and ordered the dismissal of the complaint. Al Pakino filed a
proceeding (Sec. 6, Rule 1). motion for reconsideration which the RTC denied. As
nothing more could be done by Al Pakino before the RTC,
Q: What is the concept of Remedial Law? Distinguish he file an appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA). Robert
between substantive law and remedial law. (2006 Bar) White moved for dismissal of the appeal in the ground
that the same involved purely a question of law and
A: The concept of Remedial Law is that it is a branch of public should have been filed with the Supreme Court (SC).
law which prescribes the procedural rules to be observed in However, Al Pakino claimed that the appeal involved
litigations, whether civil, criminal, or administrative, and in mixed questions of fact and law because there must be a
special proceedings, as well as the remedies or reliefs factual determination if, indeed, Al Pakino was duly
available in each case. authorized by Goodfeather Corporation to file the
complaint. Whose position is correct? Explain. (2014
Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines Bar)
and regulates rights and obligations, the violation of which
gives rise to a cause of action. On the other hand, remedial A: Al Pakino is correct in claiming that the appeal involved
law prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtaining mixed questions of fact and law. There is a question of law
redress for their invasion (cf. Bustos v. Lucero, 81 Phil. 540, when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on
650 [1948]). a certain state of facts. On the other hand, there is a question
of fact, when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or
Q: How are remedial laws implemented in our system of falsehood of alleged facts. (Mirant Philippines Corporation v.
government? (2006 Bar) Sario, G.R. No. 197598, November 21, 2012). Since the
complaint was dismissed due to the alleged lack of
A: Remedial Laws are implemented in our system of appropriate board resolution from the Board of Directors of
government through the judicial system, including the Goodfeather Corporation, the appeal will necessarily involve
prosecutory service, our courts and quasi-judicial agencies. a factual determination of the authority to file the Complaint
for the said Corporation. Hence, the appeal before the Court
Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine of judicial of Appeals is correct.
stability
Court of Appeals
Q: In rendering a decision, should a court take into
consideration the possible effect of its verdict upon the Q: Give at least three instances where the Court of
political stability and economic welfare of the nation? Appeals may act as a trial court. (2008 Bar)
(2003 Bar)
A:
A: No, because a court is required to take into
consideration only the legal issues and the evidence a. In annulment of judgment under Secs. 5 and 6, Rule 47.
admitted in the case. The political stability and Should the Court o Appeals find prima facie merit in the
economic welfare of the nation are extraneous to the petition, the same shall be given due course and
case. They can have persuasive influence but they are summons shall be served on the respondent, after which
not the main factors that should be considered i n trial will follow, where the procedure in ordinary civil
deciding a case. A decision should be based on the law, cases shall be observed.
rules of procedure, justice and equity. However, in b. When a motion for new trial is granted by the Court of
exceptional cases the court may consider the political Appeals, the procedure in the new trial shall be the same
stability and economic welfare of the nation when as that granted by a Regional Trial Court (Sec. 4, Rule 53).
these are capable of being taken into jud icial notice of c. A petition for habeas corpus shall be set for hearing (Sec.
and are relevant to the case. 12, Rule 102).
d. In a petition for the writs of amparo and habeas data, a
JURISDICTION hearing can be conducted.
e. Under Section 12, Rule 124 of the Rules of Criminal
JURISDICTION OF COURTS Procedure, the Court of Appeals has the power to try
cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and
Supreme Court perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual
issues cases which fall within its original and appellate
Q: Distinguish Questions of Law from Questions of Fact. jurisdiction.
(2004 Bar) f. The Court of Appeals can grant a new trial based on the
ground of newly discovered evidence (Sec. 14, Rule 124).
A: A question of law is when the doubt or difference arises g. The Court of Appeals, under Section 6, Rule 46,
as to what the law is on a certain set of facts, while a question whenever necessary to resolve factual issues, may
conduct hearing thereon or delegate the reception of the
1
REMEDIAL LAW
evidence of such issues to any of its members or to an in an indictment for conspiracy (People of the Philippines v.
appropriate agency or office. Henry T. Go, G.R. No. 168539, March 25, 2014).

Q: Does the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to review Regional Trial Courts
the Decisions in criminal and administrative cases of the Q: State at least five (5) civil cases that fall under the
Ombudsman? (2006 Bar) exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC). (2016 Bar)
A: The Supreme Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction
over decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases (Sec. 14, A: The Regional Trial Courts inter alia shall exercise
RA 6770). In administrative and disciplinary cases, appeals exclusive original jurisdiction in the following civil cases:
from the Ombudsman must be taken to the Court of Appeals
under Rule 43 (Lanting v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 141426, May 1. In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is
6, 2005; Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, September 16, incapable of pecuniary estimation;
1998; Sec. 14, RA 6770). 2. In all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of,
real property, or any interest therein, where the
Court of Tax Appeals assessed value of the property involved exceeds twenty
thousands pesos (P20, 000.00) or, for civil actions in
Q: Mark filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue a Metro Manila where such value exceeds fifty thousand
complaint for refund of taxes paid, but it was not acted pesos (P50, 000.00) except actions for forcible entry into
upon. So, he filed a similar complaint with the Court of and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original
Tax Appeals raffled to one of its Divisions. Marks jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the
complaint was dismissed. Thus, he filed with the Court of Metropolitan Trial Courts;
Appeals a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Does the 3. In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction
Court of Appeals have jurisdiction over Marks petition? where the demand or claim exceeds three hundred
(2006 Bar) thousand pesos (P300, 000.00) or, in Metro Manila,
where such demand or claim exceeds four hundred
A: No. The procedure is governed by Sec. 11 of R.A. 9282. thousand pesos (P400, 000.00);
Decisions of a division of the Court of Tax Appeals must be 4. In all matters of probate, both testate and intestate,
appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals En Banc. Further, the where the gross value of the estate exceeds three
CTA now has the same rank as the Court of Appeals and is no hundred thousand pesos (P300, 000.00) or, in probate
longer considered as a quasi-judicial agency. It is likewise matters in Metro Manila, where such gross value exceeds
provided in the said law that the decisions of the CTA en banc four hundred thousand pesos (P400, 000.00);
are congnizable by the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the 5. In all actions involving the contract of marriage and
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. marital relations;
6. In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any
Sandiganbayan court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions;
Q: The Ombudsman, after conducting the requisite 7. In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within
preliminary investigation, found probable cause to the exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and
charge Gov. Matigas in conspiracy with Carpinter, a Domestic Relations Court and of the Court of Agragrian
private individual, for violating Section 3(e) of Republic Relations as now provided by law; and
Act (RA) No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, 8. In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of
as amended). Before the information could be filed with interest, damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees,
the Sandiganbayan, Gov. Matigas was killed in an litigation expenses, and costs or the value of the
ambush. This, notwithstanding, an information was filed property in controversy exceeds three hundred
against Gov. Matigas and Carpintero. thousand pesos (P300, 000.00) or, in such other cases in
Metro Manila, where the demand exclusive of the
At the Sandiganbayan, Carpintero through counsel, filed abovementioned item exceeds four hundred thousand
a Motion to Quash the information, on the ground of lack pesos (P400, 000.00). (Sec. 1 and 19 of Batas Pambansa
of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, arguing that with Blg. 129 otherwise known as the Judiciary
the death of Gov. Matigas, there is no public officer Reorganization Act of 1980)
charged in the information.
Q: A files an action in the Municipal Trial Court against B,
Is the Motion to Quash legally tenable? (2014 Bar) the natural son of As father, for the partition of a parcel
of land located in Taytay, Rizal with an assessed value of
A: No. The Motion to quash is not legally tenable. While it is P20,000.00. B moves to dismiss the action on the ground
true that by reason of the death of Gov. Matigas, there is no that the case would have been brought in the RTC
longer any public officer with whom he can be charge for because the action is one that is not capable of pecuniary
violation of R.A. 3019, it does not mean, however, that the estimation as it involves primarily a determination of
allegation of conspiracy between them can no longer be hereditary rights and not merely the bare right to real
proved or that their alleged conspiracy is already expunged. property. Resolve the motion. (2000 Bar)
The only thing extinguished by the death of Gov. Matigas is
his criminal liability. His death did not extinguish the crime A: The motion should be granted. The action for partition
nor did it remove the basis of the charge of conspiracy depends on a determination of the hereditary rights of A and
between him and Carpintero. The requirement before a B, which is not capable of pecuniary estimation. Hence, even
private person may be indicated for violation of Section 3(g) though the assessed value of the land is P20, 000.00, the
of R.A. 3019, among others, is that such private person must Municipal Trial Court has no jurisdiction (Russell v. Vestil, G.R.
be alleged to have acted in conspiracy with a public officer. No. 119347. March 17, 1999).
The law, however, does not require that such person must, in
all instances, be indicated together with the public officer. Q: A filed with the MTC of Manila an action for specific
Indeed, it is not necessary to join all alleged co-conspirators performance against B, a resident of Quezon City, to
compel the latter to execute a deed of conveyance
UST BAR OPERATIONS 2
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
covering a parcel of land situated in Quezon City having Q: On August 13, 2008, A, as shipper and consignee,
an assessed value of P19,000.00. B received the loaded on the M/V Atlantis in Legaspi City 100,000
summons and a copy of the Complaint of 02 January pieces of century eggs. The shipment arrived in Manila
2003. On 10 January 2003, B filed a Motion to Dismiss totally damaged on August 14, 2008. A filed before the
the Complaint on the ground that the subject matter of Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila a complaint
the suit was incapable of pecuniary estimation. The against B Super Lines, Inc. (B Lines), owner of the M/V
court denied the motion. In due time, B filed with the Atlantis, for recovery of damages amounting to
RTC a Petition for Certiorari praying that the said Order P167,899. He attached to the complaint the Bill of
be set aside because the MTC has no jurisdiction over the Lading.
case. On 13 February 2003, A filed with the MTC a Motion
to declare B in default. The motion was opposed by B on a. B Lines filed a Motion to Dismiss upon the ground
the ground that his Petition for Certiorari was still that the Regional Trial Court has exclusive original
pending. jurisdiction over "all actions in admiralty and
maritime" claims. In his Reply, A contended that
a. Was the denial of the Motion to Dismiss the while the action is indeed "admiralty and maritime"
Complaint correct? in nature, it is the amount of the claim, not the nature
of the action, that governs jurisdiction. Pass on the
A: The denial of the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint was not Motion to Dismiss.
correct. Although the assessed value of the parcel of land
involved was P19, 000.00, within the jurisdiction of the MTC A: The Motion to Dismiss is without merit and therefore
Manila, the action filed by A for Specific Performance against should be denied. Courts of the first level have jurisdiction
B to compel the latter to execute a Deed of Conveyance of over civil actions where the demand is for sum of money not
said parcel of land was not capable of pecuniary estimation exceeding P300, 000.00 or in Metro Manila, P400, 000.00,
and, therefore, the action was within the jurisdiction of RTC exclusive of interest, damages, attorneys fees, litigation
(Russel v. Vestil, supra; Copioso v. Copioso, G.R. No. 149243, expenses and costs: this jurisdiction includes admiralty and
October 28, 2002; Cabutihan v. Landcenter Construction, G.R. marine cases. And where the main cause of action is the claim
No. 146594, June 10, 2002]). for damages, the amount thereof shall be considered in
determining the jurisdiction of the court (Adm. Circular No.
b. Resolve the Motion to Declare the Defendant in 09-94, June 14, 1994).
Default. (1997, 2003, 2012 Bar)
b. The MeTC denied the Motion in question A. B Lines
A: The Court could declare B in default because B did not thus filed an Answer raising the defense that under
obtain a writ of preliminary injunction or a temporary the Bill of Lading it issued to A, its liability was
restraining order from the RTC prohibiting the judge from limited to P10, 000. At the pre-trial conference, B
proceeding in the case during the pendency of the petition Lines defined as one of the issues whether the
for certiorari (Sec. 7 Rule 65; Diaz v. Diaz, G.R. No. 135885, stipulation limiting its liability to P10, 000 binds A.
April 28, 2000). A countered that this was no longer in issue as B
Lines had failed to deny under oath the Bill of Lading.
Q: Angelina sued Armando before the Regional Trial Which of the parties is correct? Explain.
Court (RTC) of Manila to recover the ownership and
possession of two parcels of land; one situated in A: The Contention of B is correct; As contention is wrong. It
Pampanga, and the other in Bulacan. (2009 Bar) is A who pleaded the Bill of Lading as an actionable document
where the stipulation limits Bs liability to A to P10, 000 only.
a. May the action prosper? Explain. The issue raised by B does not go against or impugn the
genuineness and due execution of the Bill of Lading as an
A: No, the action may not prosper, because under Rep. Act actionable document pleaded by A, but invokes the binding
No. 7691, exclusive original jurisdiction in civil actions which effect of said stipulation. The oath is not required of B,
involve title to, or possession or real property or any interest because the issue raised by the latter does not impugn the
therein is determined on the basis of the assessed value of genuiness and due execution of the Bill of Lading.
the land involved, whether it should be P20, 000 in the rest
of the Philippines, outside of the Manila with courts of the c. On July 21, 2009, B Lines served on A a "Notice to
first level or with the Regional Trial Court. The assessed Take Deposition," setting the deposition on July 29,
value of the parcel of land in Pampanga is different from the 2009 at 8:30 a.m. at the office of its counsel in
assessed value of the land in Bulacan. What is involved is not Makati. A failed to appear at the deposition-taking,
merely a matter of venue, which is waivable, but of a matter despite notice. As counsel for B Lines, how would you
of jurisdiction. However, the action may prosper if proceed? (2010 Bar)
jurisdiction is not in issue, because venue can be waived.
A: As counsel for B Lines (which gave notice to take the
b. Will your answer be the same if the action was for deposition), I shall proceed as follows:
foreclosure of the mortgage over the two parcels of 1. Find out why A failed to appear at the deposition-taking,
land? Why or why not? (2000 Bar) despite notice;
2. If failure was for valid reason, then set another date for
A: No, the answer would not be the same. The foreclosure taking the deposition;
action should be brought in the proper court of the province 3. If failure to appear at deposition taking was without
where the land or any part thereof is situated, either in valid reason, then I would file a motion/application in
Pampanga or in Bulacan. Only one foreclosure action need be the court where the action is pending, for an Order to
filed unless each parcel of land is covered by distinct show cause for his refusal to the discovery; and
mortgage contract. In foreclosure suit, the cause of action is 4. For the court to issue appropriate Order provided under
for the violation of the terms and conditions of the mortgage Rule 29 of the Rules, for non-compliance with the show-
contract; hence, one foreclosure suit per mortgage contract cause order, aside from contempt of court.
violated is necessary.
Family courts

3
REMEDIAL LAW
Q: How should the records of child and family cases in Pasay City where the action for recovery of physical
the Family Courts or RTC designated by the Supreme possession was filed, is part of Metro Manila and therefore
Court to handle Family Court cases be treated and dealt has exclusive jurisdiction over the parcel of land situated
with? Under what conditions may the identity of parties therein whose assessed value is P40,000.00. The claim for
in child and family cases be divulged? (2001 Bar) damages of P500,000.00 for the unlawful retention of the
A: The records of child and family cases in the Family Courts land involved is not determinative of the courts jurisdiction
or Regional Trial Court designated by the Supreme Court to which is based on the nature of the action. The claim for
handle Family Court cases shall be dealt with utmost damages of P500,000.00 is just a consequence of the
confidentiality. (Sec. 12, Family Courts Act of 1997) shall not unlawful detention of the property subject of the action,
be divulged unless necessary and with authority of the judge which should not be taken separately from the land.
(Id.). Filomeno has only one cause of action which is the action for
recovery of possession of the land against Marcelino, with
Q: Juliet invoking the provisions of the Rule on Violence damages.
Against Women and their Children filed with the RTC
designated as a Family Court a petition for issuance of a Q: Anabel filed a complaint against B for unlawful
Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against her detainer before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of
husband, Romeo. The Family Court issued a 30-day TPO Candaba, Pampanga. After the issues had been joined,
against Romeo. A day before the expiration of the TPO, the MTC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction
Juliet filed a motion for extension. Romeo in his after noting that the action was one for accion
opposition raised, among others, the constitutionality of publiciana. Anabel appealed the dismissal to the RTC
R.A. No. 9262 (The VAWC Law) arguing that the law which affirmed it and accordingly dismissed her appeal.
authorizing the issuance of a TPO violates the equal She elevates the case to the Court of Appeals, which
protection and due process clauses of the 1987 remands the case to the RTC. Is the appellate court
Constitution. The Family Court judge, in granting the correct? Explain. (2010 Bar)
motion for extension of the TPO, declined to rule on the
constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262. The Family Court A: Yes, the Court of appeals is correct in remanding the case
judge reasoned that Family Courts are without to RTC for the latter to try the same on the merits. The RTC,
jurisdiction to pass upon constitutional issues, being a having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case
special court of limited jurisdiction and R.A. No. 8369, appealed from MTC should try the case on the merits as if the
the law creating the Family Courts, does not provide for case was originally filed with it, and not just to affirm the
such jurisdiction. Is the Family Court judge correct when dismissal of the case. R.A. No 7691, however, vested
he declined to resolve the constitutionality of R.A. No. jurisdiction over specified accion publiciana with courts of
9262? (2015 Bar) the first level (Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts) in cases where
A: No, the Family Court Judge is not correct when it declined the assessed value of the real property involved does not
to resolve the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9262. exceed P20, 000 outside Metro Manila, or in Metro Manila
where such value does not exceed P50, 000.
In Garcia v. Hon. Rey Allan Drilon, G.R. No. 179267, June 25,
2013, the Supreme Court held that the Family Courts have Q: Plaintiff filed a complaint for a sum of money against
authority and jurisdiction to resolve the constitutionality of defendant with the MeTC-Makati, the total amount of the
a statute. In spite of its designation as a family court, the RTC demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
remains to possess the authority as a court of general kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses and costs, being
original jurisdiction to pass upon all kinds of cases whether P1 million. In due time, defendant filed a motion to
civil, criminal, special proceedings, land registration, dismiss the complaint on the ground of MeTCs lack of
guardianship, naturalization, admiralty or insolvency. This jurisdiction over the subject matter. After due hearing,
authority is embraced in the general definition of judicial the MeTC (1) ruled that the court indeed lacked
power to determine the valid and binding laws in conformity jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint;
with the fundamental law. and (2) ordered that the case therefore should be
forwarded to the proper RTC immediately. Was the
Metropolitan Trial Courts/Municipal Trial Courts courts ruling concerning jurisdiction correct? Was the
courts order to forward the case correct? Explain
Q: Filomeno brought an action in the Metropolitan Trial briefly. (2000, 2004 Bar)
Court (MeTC) of Pasay City against Marcelino pleading
two causes of action. The first was a demand for the A: Yes. The MeTC did not have jurisdiction over the case
recovery of physical possession of a parcel of land because the total amount of the demand exclusive of interest,
situated in Pasay City with an assessed value of P40,000; damages of whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation
the second was a claim for damages of P500,000 for expenses, and costs, was P1 million. Its jurisdictional amount
Marcelino's unlawful retention of the property. at this time should not exceed P400, 000.00 (Sec. 33 of B.P.
Marcelino filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that Big 29, as amended by R.A. No. 7691). The courts order to
the total amount involved, which is P540,000, is beyond forward the case to the RTC is not correct. It should merely
the jurisdiction of the MeTC. Is Marcelino correct? (2008 dismiss the complaint. Under Sec. 3 of Rule 16, the court may
Bar) dismiss the action or claim, deny the motion or order the
amendment of the pleading but not to forward the case to
A: No, Marcelino is not correct. Under Rep. Act No. 7691, another court.
Metropolitan Trial Court and other courts of the first level
have been vested with exclusive original jurisdiction in all Q: Estrella was the registered owner of a huge parcel of
civil actions which involve title to, or possession of real land located in a remote part of their barrio in Benguet.
property or any interest therein where the assessed value of However, when she visited the property after she took a
the property or interest therein does not exceed P20,000.00, long vacation abroad, she was surprised to see that her
or in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value childhood friend, John, had established a vacation house
does not exceed P50,000.00 exclusive of interest, damages of on her property. Both Estrella and John were residents
whatever kind, attorneys fees, litigation expenses and costs. of the same barangay.
UST BAR OPERATIONS 4
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
Insurance Corp. v. Eddy Ng Kok Wei, G.R. No. 139791,
To recover possession, Estrella filed a complaint for December 12, 2003; Kakilala v. Faraon, G.R. No. 143233,
ejectment with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), alleging October 18, 2004; Sec. 1, PD 1344).
that she is the true owner of the land as evidenced by her
certificate of title and tax declaration which showed the
assessed value of the property as P21,000.00. On the HOW JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANT IS
other hand, John refuted Estrellas claim of ownership ACQUIRED
and submitted in evidence a Deed of Absolute Sale
between him and Estrella. After the filing of Johns Q: Lani filed an action for partition and accounting in the
answer, the MTC observed that the real issue was one of Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila against her sister
ownership and not of possession. Hence, the MTC Mary Rose, who is a resident of Singapore and is not
dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. found in the Philippines. Upon motion, the court ordered
the publication of the summons for three weeks in a
On appeal by Estrella to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), local tabloid, Bulgar. Linda, an OFW vacationing in the
a full-blown trial was conducted as if the case was Philippines, saw the summons in Bulgar and brought a
originally filed with it. The RTC reasoned that based on copy of the tabloid when she returned to Singapore.
the assessed value of the property, it was the court of Linda showed the tabloid and the page containing the
proper jurisdiction. Eventually, the RTC rendered a summons to Mary Rose, who said, "Yes I know,
judgment declaring John as the owner of the land and, my kumare Anita scanned and e-mailed that page
hence, entitled to the possession thereof. of Bulgar to me!" Did the court acquire jurisdiction over
Mary Rose? (2008)
a. Was the MTC correct in dismissing the complaint for
lack of jurisdiction? Why or why not? A: NO. The court did not acquire jurisdiction over Mary Rose,
the defendant. While serving summons by publication is
A: No. The Metropolitan Trial Court was not correct in allowed in this case under Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of
dismissing the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. It is well Court, the required sending of the copy of the summons and
settled that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations the order of the Court by registered mail to the last known
contained in the complaint. The contention of defendant in address of the same defendant has not been followed; service
his Motion to Dismiss has nothing to do in the determination of summons by publication under said Rule has not been
of jurisdiction. Otherwise, jurisdiction would become complied with; thus, there is no valid service.
dependent almost entirely upon the whims of the defendant
(Medical Plaza Makati Condominium v. Cullen, G.R. No. TOTALITY RULE
181416, November 11, 2013). Relative thereto, the Municipal
Trial Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of Q: Lender extended to Borrower a P100, 000.00 loan
forcible entry and unlawful detainer (Section 33, B.P. 129). covered by a promissory note. Later, Borrower obtained
Hence, the Metropolitan Trial Court is not correct in another P100, 000.00 loan again covered by a
dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Besides, the promissory note. Still later, Borrower obtained a P300,
rules allow provisional determination of ownership in 000.00 loan secured by a real estate mortgage on his
ejectment cases when the defendant raises the defense of land valued at P500, 000.00. Borrower defaulted on his
ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession payments when the loans matured. Despite demand to
cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership pay the P500, 000.00 loan, Borrower refused to pay.
(Sec. 16, Rule 70). Accordingly, the inferior courts have Lender, applying the totality rule, filed against Borrower
jurisdiction to resolve questions of ownership whenever it is with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, a
necessary to decide the question of possession in an collection suit for P500, 000.00. Did Lender correctly
ejectment case. (Serreno v. Spouses Gutierrez, G.R. No. 162366, apply the totality rule and the rule on joinder of causes
November 10, 2006). of action? (2015 Bar)

b. Was the RTC correct in ruling that based on the A: Yes. The Lender correctly applied the totality rule and the
assessed value of the property, the case was within rule on joinder of causes of action because where the claims
its original jurisdiction and, hence, it may conduct a in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of sum
full-blown trial of the appealed case as if it was of money, the aggregate amount of the claim shall be the test
originally filed with it? Why or why not? (2014 Bar) of jurisdiction [Section 5(d), Rule 2].

A: No. It is settled that forcible entry and unlawful detainer Here, the total amount of the claim is P500, 000.00. Hence,
cases are within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila has jurisdiction over
MTC. Moreover, all cases decided by the MTC are generally the suit. At any rate, it is immaterial that one of the loans is
appealable to the RTC irrespective of the amounts involved secured by a real estate mortgage because the Lender opted
(Sec. 22, B.P. 129). to file a collection of sum of money instead of foreclosure of
the said mortgage.
Special Courts
Q: At the trial, Borrower's lawyer, while cross-examining
Q: What court has jurisdiction over an action for specific Lender, successfully elicited an admission from the
performance filed by a subdivision homeowner against latter that the two promissory notes have been paid.
a subdivision developer? Explain. (2002 Bar) Thereafter, Borrower's lawyer filed a motion to dismiss
the case on the ground that as proven only P300, 000.00
A: An action for specific performance by a subdivision was the amount due to Lender and which claim is within
homeowner against a subdivision developer is within the the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan
jurisdiction of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board Trial Court. He further argued that lack of jurisdiction
(HLURB). Sec.1 of P.D. 1344 provides that the HLURB has over the subject matter can be raised at any stage of the
jurisdiction over cases involving specific performance of proceedings. Should the court dismiss the case? (2015
contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers of Bar)
subdivision lots and condominium units against the owner,
developer, dealer, broker or salesman (Manila Bankers Life
5
REMEDIAL LAW
A: No. The court should not dismiss the case. What ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The motion to dismiss should be
determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the denied. An action for the annulment of a real estate mortgage
action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the is a personal action, which may be commenced and tried
complaint. The averments therein and the character of the where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may
relief sought are the ones to be consulted (Navida v. Hon. be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides
Teodoro A. Dizon, Jr., G.R. No. 125078, May 30, 2011). or may be found, at the election of plaintiff. (Section 2, Rule 4,
Rules of Court; Chua v. Total Office Products & Services, Sept.
Accordingly, even if the defendant is able to prove in the 30, 2005; Orbeta v. Orbeta, G.R. No. 166837, Nov. 27, 2006)
course of the trial that a lesser amount is due, the court does Since the plaintiff resides in Manila, the complaint was
not lose jurisdiction and a dismissal of the case is not in order properly filed in RTC of Manila.
(Paadlan v. Dinglasan, G.R. No. 180321, March 20, 2013).
CAUSE OF ACTION

CIVIL PROCEDURE Q: Distinguish Cause of Action from Action. (1997, 1999


Bar)

PERSONAL ACTIONS AND REAL ACTIONS A: An action is one by which a party sues another for the
enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or
Q: What do you mean by a) real actions; and b) personal redress of a wrong (Sec. 3(a), second par.) A cause of action is
action? (2006 Bar) the act or omission by which a party violates a right of
another (Sec. 2, Rule 2). An action must be based on a cause
A: Real actions are actions affecting title to or possession of of action (Sec. 1, Rule 2).
real property or an interest therein. All other actions are
personal actions (Sec. 1, Rule 4). Q: A bought a Volvo Sedan from ABC Cars for P 5.0M. ABC
Cars, before delivering to A, had the car rust proofed and
Q: Eduardo, a resident of the City of Manila, filed before tinted by XYZ Detailing. When delivered to A, the cars
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila a complaint for upholstery was found to be damaged. ABC Cars and XYZ
the annulment of a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage he Detailing both deny any liability. Who can A sue and on
signed in favor of Galaxy Bank (Galaxy), and the what cause(s) of action? Explain. (2012 Bar)
consequent foreclosure and auction sale on his
mortgaged Makati property. Galaxy filed a Motion to A: A can file an action for specific performance and damages
Dismiss on the ground of improper venue alleging that against ABC Cars since the damage to the Volvo sedans
the complaint should be filed with the RTC of Makati upholstery was caused before delivery of the same to A, and
since the complaint involves the ownership and therefore prior to the transfer of ownership to the latter
possession of Eduardos lot. Resolve the motion with (Article 1477, NCC). Under Article 1170 of the Civil Code,
reasons (2016 Bar) those who contravene the tenor of the obligation are liable
for damages. Hence, an action for specific performance
A: The motion to dismiss should be granted. An action for against ABC Corporation to deliver the agreed Volvo Sedan
nullification of the mortgage documents and foreclosure of in the contract free form any damage or defects, with
the mortgaged property is a real action that affects the title corresponding damages will lie against ABC Cars.
to the property; thus, venue of the real action is before the
court having jurisdiction over the territory in which the Splitting a single cause of action and its effects
property lies. (Jimmy T. Go v. United Coconut Planters Bank,
G.R. No. 156187, Nov. 11, 2004; Chua v. Total Office Products Q: What is the rule against splitting a cause of action and
and Services, Sept. 30, 2005) its effect on the respective rights of the parties for failure
to comply with the same? (1999 Bar)
In Fortune Motors v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Ni. 112191,
February 7, 1997, the Supreme Court also held that an action A: The rule against splitting a cause of action and its effect
to annul a foreclosure sale of a real estate mortgage is no are that if two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the
different from an action to annula a private sale of real same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the
property. While it is true that petitioner does not directly merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of
seek the recovery of title or possession of the property in the others (Sec. 4, Rule 2).
question, his action for annulment of sale and his claim for
damages are closely intertwined with the issue of ownership Q: A purchased a lot from B for P1,500,000.00. He gave a
of the building which, under the law, is considered down payment of P500,000.00, signed a promissory
immovable property, the recovery of which is petitioners note payable thirty days after date, and as a security for
primary objective. The prevalent doctrine is that an action the settlement of the obligation, mortgaged the same lot
for the annulment or rescission of a sale of real property does to B. When the note fell due and A failed to pay, B
not operate to efface the fundamental and prime objective commenced suit to recover form A the balance of
and nature of the case which is to recover said real property. P1,000,000.00. After securing a favorable judgment on
It is a real action. (Paglaum Management & Development his claim, B brought another action against A before the
Corporation v. Union Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179018, same court to foreclose the mortgage. A now files a
June 12, 2012) motion to dismiss the second action on the ground of bar
by prior judgment. Rule on the Motion. (1999 Bar)
Being a real action, it shall be commenced and tried in the
proper court which has jurisdiction over the area where the A: The motion to dismiss should be granted. When B
real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. commenced suit to collect on the promissory note, he waived
(Section 1, Rule 4, Rules of Court) The complaint should be his right to foreclose the mortgage. B split his cause of action.
filed in the RTC of Makati where the mortgaged property is
situated. Q: Raphael, a warehouseman, filed a complaint against V
Corporation, X Corporation and Y Corporation to compel
them to interplead. He alleged therein that the three
UST BAR OPERATIONS 6
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
corporations claimed title and right of possession over
the goods deposited in his warehouse and that he was Q: Give the effects of the following:
uncertain which of them was entitled to the goods. After
due proceedings, judgment was rendered by the court 1. Splitting a single cause of action; and
declaring that X Corporation was entitled to the goods. 2. Non-joinder of a necessary party. (1998 Bar)
The decision became final and executory. Raphael filed
a complaint against X Corporation for the payment of A:
P100, 000.00 for storage charges and other advances for 1. The effect of splitting a single cause of action is found in
the goods. X Corporation filed a motion to dismiss the the rule as follows: If two or more suits are instituted on
complaint on ground of res judicata. X Corporation the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or
alleged the Raphael should have incorporated in his a judgment on the merits in any one is available as a
complaint for interpleader his claim for storage fees and ground for the dismissal of the others (Sec. 4, Rule 2).
advances that for his failure he was barred from 2. The effect of the non-joinder of a necessary party may be
interposing his claim. Rapahel replied that he could not stated as follows: The court may order the inclusion of
have claimed storage fees and other advances in his an omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his
complaint for interpleader because he was not yet person may be obtained. The failure to comply with the
certain as to who was liable therefor. Resolve the motion order for his inclusion without justifiable cause is a
with reasons. (2005 Bar) waiver of the claim against such party. The court may
proceed with the action but the judgment rendered shall
A: The motion to dismiss should be granted. Raphael should be without prejudice to the rights of such necessary
have incorporated in his complaint for interpleader his claim party (Sec. 9, Rule 3).
for storage fees and advances, the amounts of which were
obviously determinable at the time of the filing of the Q: What is the rule on joinder of causes of action? (1999
complaint. They are part of Raphaels cause of action which Bar)
he may not split. Hence, when the warehouseman asks the
court to ascertain who among the defendants are entitled to A: The rule on joinder of causes of action is that a party may
the goods, he also has the right to ask who should pay for the in one pleading assert, in the alternative or otherwise, as
storage fees and other related expenses. The filing of the many causes of action as he may have against an opposing
interpleader is available as a ground for dismissal for the party, provided that the rule on joinder of parties is complied
second case (Sec. 4, Rule 2). It is akin to a compulsory with; the joinder shall not include special civil actions or
counterclaim which, if not set up, shall be barred (Sec. 2, Rule actions governed by special rules, but may include causes of
9; Arreza v. Diaz, G.R. No. 133113, August 30, 2001). action pertaining to different venues or jurisdictions
provided one cause of action falls within the jurisdiction of a
Q: Rolando filed a petition for declaration of the nullity Regional Trial Court and venue lies therein; and the
of his marriage to Carmela because of alleged aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction
psychological incapacity of the latter. After trial, the where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for
court rendered judgment dismissing the petition on the the recovery of money (Sec. 5, Rule 2).
ground that Rolando failed to prove the psychological
incapacity of his wife. The judgment having become Q: A secured two loans from B. One for P500,000.00 and
final, Rolando filed another petition, this time on the the other for P1,000,000, payable on different dates.
ground that his marriage to Carmela had been Both have fallen due. Is B obliged to file only one
celebrated without a license. Is the second action barred complaint against A for the recovery of both loans?
by the judgment in the first? Why? (2002 Bar) Explain. (1999 Bar)

A: No. The second action is not barred by the judgment in the A: No. Joinder is only permissive since the loans are separate
first because they are different causes of action. The first is loans which may be governed by the different terms and
for annulment of marriage on the ground of psychological conditions. The two loans give rise to two separate causes of
incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code, while the action and may be the basis of two separate complaints.
second is for the declaration of nullity of the marriage in view
of the absence of a basic requirement, which is a marriage Q: Perry is a resident of Manila, while Ricky and Marvin
license (Arts. 9 & 35 [3], FC). They are different causes of are residents of Batangas City. They are the co-owners of
action because the evidence required to prove them are not a parcel of residential land located in Pasay City with an
the same (Pagsisihan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-34885, assessed value of P100, 000.00. Perry borrowed P100,
January 28, 1980; and other cases). 00.00 from Ricky which promised to pay on or before
December 1, 2004. However, Perry failed to pay his loan.
Joinder and misjoinder of causes of action Perry also rejected Ricky and Marvins proposal to
partition the property. Ricky filed a complaint against
Q: P sued A and B in one complaint in the RTC-Manila, the Perry and Marvin in the RTC of Pasay City for the
cause of action against A being an overdue promissory partition of the property. He also incorporated in his
note for P300,000.00 and that against B being on an complaint his action against Perry for the collection of
alleged balance of P300,000.00 on the purchase price of the latters P100, 000.00 loan, plus interests and
goods sold on credit. Does the RTC-Manila have attorneys fees. State with reasons whether it was proper
jurisdiction over the case? Explain. (2002 Bar) for Ricky to join his causes of action in his complaint for
partition against Perry and Marvin in the RTC of Pasay
A: No. The RTC-Manila has no jurisdiction over the case. A City. (2005 Bar)
and B could not be joined as defendants in one complaint
because the right to relief against both defendants do not A: It was not proper for Ricky to join his causes of action
arise out of the same transaction or series of transaction and against Perry in his complaint for partition against Perry and
there is no common question of fact common to both (Rule 3, Marvin. The causes of action may be between the same
Sec. 6). Hence, separate complaints will have to be filed and parties, Ricky and Perry, with respect to the loan but not with
they would fall under the jurisdiction on the Metropolitan respect to the partition which includes Marvin. The joinder
Trial Court (Flores v. Mallare-Phillips, G.R. No. L-66620, is between a partition and a sum of money, but Partition is a
September 24, 1986). special civil action under Rule 69, which cannot be joined
7
REMEDIAL LAW
with other causes of action (See 5[b], Rule 2). Also, the causes A: Yes. In case of Transfer of interest pending litigation, the
of action pertain to different venues and jurisdictions. The action may be continued by or against the original party
case for a sum of money pertains to the municipal court and unless the court, upon motion, directs a person to be
cannot be filed in Pasay City because the plaintiff is from substituted in the action or joined with the original party
Manila while Ricky and Marvin are from Batangas City (Sec. (Sec. 19, Rule 3). The owners of property over which
5, Rule 2). reconveyance is asserted are indispensable parties and must
be joined in the action. Accordingly, the contention of Carlo
PARTIES TO CIVIL ACTIONS who is such party to the action filed by Salvio, is tenable. He
is not bound by the judgment because he became a co-owner
Real parties-in-interest; indispensable parties; of the land before the case was filed and yet he has not been
representatives as parties; necessary parties; indigent included as a party thereto (Matuguina Integrated Wood
parties; alternative defendants Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 98310, October 24,
1996; Ma. Valentia Santana-Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
Q: In 1996, Congress passed Republic Act No. 8189, 120176, July 20, 2001). Nina, however is a successor-in-
otherwise known as the Voters Registration Act of 1996, interest of Roscoe and privy to the case. Hence, she is bound
providing for the computerization of elections. Pursuant by the judgment as against Roscoe although she is not party
thereto, the COMELEC approved the Voters Registration to the case (Sec. 19, Rule 3; Cabresos v. Tero, G.R. No. L-46843
and Identification System (VRIS) Project. It issued October 18, 1988). A judgment is conclusive between the
invitations to pre-qualify and bid for the project. After parties and their successors-in-interest by title subsequent
the public bidding, Fotokina was declared the winning to the case (Sec. 47, Rule 39).
bidder with a bid of P6 billion and was issued a Notice of
Award. But COMELEC Chairman Gener Go objected to the Q: Strauss filed a complaint against Wagner for
award on the ground that that under the Appropriations cancellation of title. Wagner moved to dismiss the
Act, the budget for the COMELECs modernization is only complaint because Grieg, to whom he mortgaged the
P1 billion. He announced to the public that the VRIS property as duly annotated in the TCT, was not
project has been set aside. Two Commissioners sided impleaded as defendant.
with Chairman Go, but the majority voted to uphold the
contract. Meanwhile, Fotokina filed with the RTC a a. Should the complaint be dismissed?
petition for mandamus to compel the COMELEC to
implement the contract. The Office of the Solicitor A: No. The complaint should not be dismissed because the
General (OSG), representing Chairman Go, opposed the mere non-joinder of an indispensable party is not a ground
petition on the ground that mandamus does not lie to for the dismissal of the action (Sec. 11, Rule 3; Republic v. Hon.
enforce contractual obligations. During the proceedings, Mangotara, G.R. No. 170375, July 7, 2010).
the majority Commissioners filed a manifestation that
Chairman Go was not authorized by the COMELEC En b. If the case should proceed to trial without Grieg
Banc to oppose the petition. May the OSG represent being impleaded as a party to the case, what is his
Chairman Go before the RTC notwithstanding that his remedy to protect his interest? (2015 Bar)
position is contrary to that of the majority? (2002 Bar)
A: If the case should proceed to trial without Grieg being
A: Yes, the OSG may represent the COMELEC Chairman impleaded as a party, he may intervene in the action (Sec. 1,
before the RTC notwithstanding that his position is contrary Rule 19). He may also file a petition for annulment of
to that of the majority of the Commission members in the judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.
COMELEC because the OSG is an independent office; its
hands are not shackled to the cause of its client agency. The In Metrobank v. Hon. Floro Alejo, G.R. No. 141970, September
primordial concern of the OSG is to see to it that the best 10, 2001, the Supreme Court held that it in a suit to nullify an
interest of the government is upheld (COMELEC v. Quijano- existing Torrens Certificate of Title (TCT) in which a real
Padilla, G. R. No. 151992, September 18, 2002). estate mortgage is annotated, the mortgagee is an
indispensable party. In such suit, a decision cancelling the
Q: Half-brothers Roscoe and Salvio inherited from their TCT and the mortgage annotation is subject to a petition for
father a vast tract of unregistered land. Roscoe annulment of judgment, because the non-joinder of a
succeeded in gaining possession of the parcel of land in mortgagee deprived the court of jurisdiction to pass upon the
its entirety and transferring the tax declaration thereon controversy.
in his name. Roscoe sold the northern half to Bono,
Salvio's cousin. Upon learning of the sale, Salvio asked Class suit
Roscoe to convey the southern half to him. Roscoe
refused as he even sold one-third of the southern half Q: Distinguish a derivative suit from a class suit. (2005
along the West to Carlo. Thereupon, Salvio filed an action Bar)
for the reconveyance of the southern half against Roscoe
only. Carlo was not impleaded. After filing his answer, A: A derivative suit is a suit in equity that is filed by a
Roscoe sold the middle third of the southern half to Nina. minority shareholder in behalf of a corporation to redress
Salvio did not amend the complaint to implead Nina. wrongs committed against it, for which the directors refuse
After trial, the court rendered judgment ordering to sue, the real party in interest being the corporation itself
Roscoe to reconvey the entire southern half to Salvio. (Lim v. Lim-Yu, G.R. No. 138343, February 19, 2001). A class
The judgment became final and executory. A writ of suit is filed in behalf of many persons so numerous that it is
execution having been issued, the Sheriff required impracticable to join all as parties (Sec. 12, Rule 3).
Roscoe, Carlo and Nina to vacate the southern half and
yield possession thereof to Salvio as the prevailing party. Effect of death of party-litigant
Carlo and Nina refused, contending that they are not
bound by the judgment as they are not parties to the Q: What is the effect of the death of a party upon a
case. Is the contention tenable? Explain fully. (2008 Bar) pending action? (1999 Bar)

UST BAR OPERATIONS 8


QUAMTO (1997-2016)
A: When the claim in a pending action is purely personal, the of B, was deprived of due process and should have been
death of either of the parties extinguishes the claim and the heard before judgment (Rule 47).
action is dismissed. When the claim is not purely personal
and is not thereby extinguished, the party should be Q: Prince Chong entered into a lease contract with King
substituted by his heirs or his executor or administrator (Sec. Kong over a commercial building where the former
16, Rule 3). If the action is for recovery of money arising from conducted his hardware business. The lease contract
contract, express or implied, and the defendant dies before stipulated, among others, a monthly rental of P50,
entry of final judgment in the court in which the action was 000.00 for a four (4) year period commencing on
pending at the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed January 1, 2010. On January 1, 2013, Prince Chong died.
but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final Kin II Chong was appointed administrator of the estate
judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff of Prince Chong, but the former failed to pay the rentals
shall be enforced in the manner provided in the rules for for the months of January to June 2013 despite King
prosecuting claims against the estate of a deceased person Kongs written demands. Thus, on July 1, 2013, King
(Sec. 20, Rule 3). Kong filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) an action
for rescission of contract with damages and payment of
Q: PJ engaged the services of Atty. ST to represent him in accrued rentals as of June 30, 2013.
a civil case filed by OP against him which was docketed
as Civil Case No. 123. A retainership agreement was a. Can Kin II Chong move to dismiss the complaint on
executed between PJ and Atty. ST whereby PJ promised the ground that the RTC is without jurisdiction since
to pay Atty. ST a retainer sum of P24, 000.00 a year and the amount claimed is only P300,000.00?
to transfer the ownership of a parcel of land to Atty. ST
after presentation of PJs evidence. PJ did not comply A: No. Kin II Chong cannot move to dismiss the Complaint.
with his undertaking. Atty. ST filed a case against PJ An action for rescission of contract with damages and
which was docketed as Civil Case No. 456. During the payment of accrued rentals is considered incapable of
trial of Civil Case No. 456, PJ died. pecuniary estimation and therefore cognizable by the
Regional Trial Court. (Ceferina De Ungria v. Court of Appeals,
a. Is the death of PJ a valid ground to dismiss the money G.R. No. 165777, July 25, 2011).
claim of Atty. ST in Civil Case No. 456? Explain.
b. If the rentals accrued during the lifetime of Prince
A: No. Under Sec. 20, Rule 3, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Chong, and King Kong also filed the complaint for
when the action is for recovery of money arising from sum of money during that time, will the action be
contract, express or implied, and the defendant dies before dismissible upon Prince Chongs death during the
entry of final judgment in the court in which the action is pendency of the case? (2014 Bar)
pending at the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed
but shall instead be allowed to continue until entry of final A: No. The action will not be dismissible upon Prince Chongs
judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff death during the pendency of the case. When the action is for
shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in the recovery of money arising from contract, and defendant dies
Rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of the before entry of final judgment in the court in which the action
deceased person. was pending at the time of such death, it shall not be
dismissed but shall instead be allowed to continue until
b. Will your answer be the same with respect to the entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by
real property being claimed by Atty. ST in Civil Case the plaintiff shall be enforced under Rule 86 (Sec. 20, Rule 3).
No. 456? Explain. (1999, 2000, 2009 Bar) Relative thereto, since the complaint for sum of money filed
by King Kong survives the death of Prince Chong, the case
A: Yes. An action to recover real property in any event shall not be dismissed and the Court shall merely order the
survives the death of the defendant (Sec.1, Rule 87). substitution of the deceased defendant. (Atty. Rogelio E.
However, a favorable judgment may be enforced in Sarsaba v. Fe Vda. De Te, G.R. No. 175910, July 30, 2009).
accordance with Sec. 7(b) Rule 39 against the executor or
administrator or successor in interest of the deceased. VENUE

Q: A filed a complaint for the recovery of ownership of Q: Distinguish Jurisdiction from Venue. (2006 Bar)
land against B who was represented by her counsel X. In
the course of the trial, B dies. However, X failed to notify A: Jurisdiction is the power of the Court to decide a case on
the court of Bs death. The court proceeded to hear the the merits, while venue refers to the place where the suit
case and rendered judgment against B. After the may be filed. In criminal actions, however, venue is
judgment became final, a writ of execution was issued jurisdictional. Jurisdiction may not be conferred upon a court
against C, who being Bs sole heir, acquired the property. by consent through waiver, but venue may be waived except
If you were the counsel of C, what course of action would in criminal cases.
you take? (1998 Bar)
Q: Angela, a resident of Quezon City, sued Antonio, a
A: As counsel of C, I would move to set aside the writ of resident of Makati City before the RTC of Quezon City for
execution and the judgment for lack of jurisdiction and lack the reconveyance of two parcels of land situated in
of due process in the same court because the judgment is Tarlac and Nueva Ecija, respectively. May her action
void. If X had notified the court of Bs death, the court would prosper? Assuming that the action was for foreclosure
have ordered the substitution of the deceased by C, the sole on the mortgage of the same parcels of land, what is the
heir of B (Sec. 16, Rule 3). The court acquired no jurisdiction proper venue for the action? (2008 Bar)
over C upon whom trial and the judgment are not binding
(Ferreria v. Ibarra Vda. De Gonzales, G.R. No. L-11567, July 17, A: Yes. The action may prosper because improper venue can
1958; Vda. De la Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-41107, be waived; and there appears to be no objection from the
February 28, 1979; Lawas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-45809 defendant. An action for reconveyance of parcels of land
December 12, 1986). I could also file an action to annul the partakes of an action to recover title to or possession of such
judgment for lack of jurisdiction because C, as the successor land; hence a real action which should be filed in the place

9
REMEDIAL LAW
where the parcels of land are situated in Tarlac and Nueva Q: X, a resident of Angeles City, borrowed P300, 000.00
Ecija. from A, a resident of Pasay City. In the loan agreement,
the parties stipulate that the parties agree to sue and be
If the action was for foreclosure of mortgage, the action may sued in the City of Manila.
be filed either in Tarlac or Nueva Ecija where any of the
parcels of land is situated. Only one action for foreclosure a. In case of non-payment of the loan, can A file his
need be filed as only one contract had been instituted (Bank complaint to collect the loan from X in Angeles City?
of P.I. v. Green, G.R. No. 35125, December 12, 1932).
A: Yes, because the stipulation in the loan agreement that
Q: A law was passed declaring Mt. Karbungko as a the parties agree to sue and be sued in the City of Manila
protected area since it was a major watershed. The does not make Manila the exclusive venue thereof (Sec. 4,
protected area covered a portion located in Municipality Rule 4). Hence, A can file his complaint in Angels City where
A of the Province I and a portion located in the City of Z he resides (Sec. 2, Rule 4).
of Province II. Maingat is the leader of Samahan ng
Tagapag-ingat ng Karbungko (STK), a people's b. Suppose the parties did not stipulate in the loan
organization. He learned that a portion of the mountain agreement as to the venue, where can A file his
located in the City of Z of Province II was extremely complaint against X?
damaged when it was bulldozed and leveled to the
ground, and several trees and plants were cut down and A: If the parties did not stipulate on the venue, A can file his
burned by workers of World Pleasure Resorts, Inc. complaint either in Angeles City where he resides or in Pasay
(WPRI) for the construction of a hotel and golf course. City where X resides (Id).
Upon inquiry with the project site engineer if they had a
permit for the project, Maingat was shown a copy of the c. Suppose the parties stipulated in their loan
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) issued by agreement that venue for all suits arising from this
the DENR-EMB, Regional Director (RD-DENR-EMB). contract shall be the courts in Quezon City, can A file
Immediately, Maingat and STK filed a petition for the his complaint against X in Pasay City? (1997 Bar)
issuance of a writ of continuing mandamus against RD-
DENR-EMB and WPRI with the RTC of Province I, a A: NO. If the parties stipulated that the venue shall be in the
designated environmental court, as the RD-DENR-EMB courts in Quezon City, A cannot file his complaint in Pasay
negligently issued the ECC to WPRI. City because the use of the word shall makes Quezon City
the exclusive venue thereof (Hoechst Philippines v. Torres,
On scrutiny of the petition, the court determined that the G.R. No. L-44351 May 18, 1978).
area where the alleged actionable neglect or omission
subject of the petition took place in the City of Z of RULES ON PLEADINGS
Province II, and therefore cognizable by the RTC of
Province II. Thus, the court dismissed outright the Q: What is counterclaim? Distinguish a counterclaim
petition for lack of jurisdiction. from a crossclaim. (1999 Bar)

a. Was the court correct in motu proprio dismissing the A: A counterclaim is distinguished from a cross-claim in that
petition? a cross-claim is any claim by one party against a co-party
arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the
A: No. The court was not correct in motu propio dismissing subject matter either of the original action or of a
the petition. While it appears that the alleged actionable counterclaim therein. A counterclaim is against an opposing
neglect or omission took place in the City of Z of Province II party while a cross-claim is against a co-party (Sec. 8, Rule 6).
and, therefore cognizable by the RTC of Province II,
nonetheless, venue is not jurisdictional, and it can be waived Q: A, who is engaged in tile installation business, was
in a special civil action for continuing mandamus (Dolot v. sued by EE Industries for breach of contract for installing
Hon. Paje, G.R. No. 199199, August 27, 2013). different marble tiles in its offices as provided in their
contract. Without filing any motion to dismiss, A filed its
Besides, under Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, Answer with Counterclaim theorizing that EE Industries
defenses and objections not pleaded in the answer or in the has no legal capacity to sue because it is not a duly
motion to dismiss are deemed waived. Hence, the court registered corporation. By way of counterclaim, A asked
cannot motu propio dismiss the case on the ground of for moral and actual damages as her business depleted
improper venue. as a result of the withdrawal and cancellation by her
clients of their contracts due to the filing of the case. The
Q: Assuming that the court did not dismiss the petition, case was dismissed after the trial court found that EE
the RD-DENR-EMB in his Comment moved to dismiss the Industries is not a registered corporation and therefore
petition on the ground that petitioners failed to appeal has no legal capacity to sue. However, it set a date for the
the issuance of the ECC and to exhaust administrative reception of evidence on As counterclaim. EE Industries
remedies provided in the DENR Rules and Regulations. opposed on the ground that the counterclaim could no
Should the court dismiss the petition? (2015 Bar) longer be prosecuted in view of the dismissal of the main
case. Is the stand of EE Industries sustainable? Explain.
A: Yes, the court should dismiss the petition because the (1999 Bar)
proper procedure to question defect in an ECC is to follow
the DENR administrative appeal process in accordance with A: No, because if no motion to dismiss has been filed, any of
the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies (Dolot the grounds for dismissal provided in the Rules may be
v. Hon. Paje, G.R. No. 199199, August 27, 2013; Paje v. Casio, pleaded as an affirmative defense in the Answer which may
G.R. No. 207257, February 3, 2015). include a counterclaim. This is what A did by filing an Answer
alleging the lack of legal capacity of EE Industries to sue
Effects of Stipulations on Venue because it is not a duly registered corporation with a
counterclaim for damages. The dismissal of the complaint on
this ground is without prejudice to the prosecution of the
UST BAR OPERATIONS 10
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
counterclaim in the same action because it is a compulsory Mercedes moved for a reconsideration of the
counterclaim (Sec. 6, Rule 16). dismissal of the Counterclaim. Pass upon Mercedes
motion.
Q: Fe filed a suit for collection of P387, 000 against
Ramon in the RTC of Davao City. Aside from alleging A: Mercedes Motion for Reconsideration is impressed with
payment as a defense, Ramon in his answer set up merit: the trial court should not have dismissed her counter-
counterclaims for P100, 000 as damages and P30,000 as claim despite the dismissal of the Complaint. Since it was the
attorney's fees as a result of the baseless filing of the plaintiff (Benjamin) who moved for the dismissal of his
complaint, as well as for P250,000 as the balance of the Complaint, and at a time when the defendant (Mercedes) had
purchase price of the 30 units of air conditioners he sold already filed her Answer thereto and with counterclaim, the
to Fe. dismissal of the Complaint should not carry with it the
dismissal of the counterclaim without the conformity of the
a. Does the RTC have jurisdiction over Ramon's defendant-counterclaimant. The Revised Rules of Court
counterclaims, and if so, does he have to pay docket provides in Rule 15, Section 2 thereof that if a counterclaim
fees therefor? has been pleaded by a defendant prior to the service upon
him of the plaintiffs motion for dismissal, the dismissal shall
A: Yes. The RTC has jurisdiction over Ramons counterclaims be limited to the complaint. The dismissal shall be without
because they are all money claims in which the totality rule prejudice to the right of the defendant to prosecute his
applies in determining jurisdiction (Sec. 5[d], Rule 2). Ramon counterclaim.
has to pay docket fees for his counterclaims whether
counterclaim is compulsory or permissive in nature. Rule b. Suppose there was no Counterclaim and Benjamins
141 of the Rules of Court has been amended to require complaint was not dismissed, and judgment was
payment of docket fees for counterclaims and cross-claims rendered against Mercedes for P1, 000, 000. The
whether compulsory or permissive. judgment became final and executory and a writ of
execution was correspondingly issued. Since
b. Suppose Ramon's counterclaim for the unpaid Mercedes did not have cash to settle the judgment
balance is P310, 000, what will happen to his debt, she offered her Toyota Camry model 2008
counterclaims if the court dismisses the complaint valued at P1.2 million. The Sheriff, however, on
after holding a preliminary hearing on Ramon's request of Benjamin, seized Mercedes 17th century
affirmative defenses? ivory image of the La Sagrada Familia estimated to
be worth over P1, 000, 000. Was the Sheriffs action
A: The dismissal of the complaint is without prejudice to the in order? (2010 Bar)
right of the defendant (Ramon) to prosecute his
counterclaim in the same or in a separate action (Sec. 6, Rule A: No, the Sheriffs action was not in order. He should not
16, last par.; Pinga v. Heirs of Santiago, G.R. No. 170354, June have listened to Benjamin, the judgment obligee/creditor, in
30, 2006). levying on the properties of Mercedes, the judgment
obligor/debtor. The option to immediately choose which
c. Under the same premise as paragraph (b) above, property or part thereof may be levied upon, sufficient to
suppose that instead of alleging payment as a satisfy the judgment, is vested by law (Rule 39, Sec. 9[b])
defense in his answer, Ramon filed a motion to upon the judgment obligor, Mercedes, not upon the
dismiss on that ground, at the same time setting up judgment obligee, Benjamin, in this case. Only if the
his counterclaims, and the court grants his motion. judgment obligor does not exercise the option is the Sheriff
What will happen to his counterclaims? (2008 Bar) authorized to levy on personal properties if any, and then on
the real properties if the personal properties are insufficient
A: Since Ramon filed only a motion to dismiss, not an answer, to answer for the judgment.
the dismissal of the complaint would also bring about the
dismissal of his counterclaims but he can file a separate Q: The plaintiff sued the defendant in the RTC for the
action for his permissive counterclaims. The compulsory damage allegedly caused by the latters encroachment
counterclaims are deemed waived when he filed a motion to on the plaintiffs lot. In his answer, the defendant denied
dismiss the complaint instead of answering the same the plaintiffs claim and alleged that it was the plaintiff
(Financial Building Corporation v. Forbes Park Association, who in fact had encroached on his (defendants) land.
Inc., G.R. No. 133119, August 17, 2000). Accordingly, the defendant counterclaimed against the
plaintiff for damages resulting from the alleged
Q: Antique dealer Mercedes borrowed P1, 000, 000 from encroachment on his lot. The plaintiff filed an ex parte
antique collector Benjamin. Mercedes issued a motion for extension of time to answer the defendants
postdated check in the same amount to Benjamin to counterclaim, but the court denied the motion on the
cover the debt. On the due date of the check, Benjamin ground that it should have been set for hearing. On the
deposited it but it was dishonored. As despite demands, defendants motion, therefore, the court declared the
Mercedes failed to make good the check, Benjamin filed plaintiff in default on the counterclaim. Was the plaintiff
in January 2009 a complaint for collection of sum of validly declared in default? Why? (2002 Bar)
money before the RTC of Davao. Mercedes filed in
February 2009 her Answer with Counterclaim, alleging A: No, the plaintiff was not validly declared in default. A
that before the filing of the case, she and Benjamin had motion for extension of time may be filed ex parte and need
entered into a dacion en pago agreement in which her not be set for hearing (Amante v. Sunga, G.R. No. L-40491, May
vintage P1, 000, 000 Rolex watch which was taken by 28, 1975).
Benjamin for sale on commission was applied to settle
her indebtedness; and that she incurred expenses in Q: PX filed a suit for damages against DY. In his answer,
defending what she termed a "frivolous lawsuit." She DY incorporated a counterclaim for damages against PX
accordingly prayed for P50, 000 damages. and AC, counsel for plaintiff in said suit, alleging in said
counterclaim, inter alia, that AC, as such counsel,
a. Benjamin soon after moved for the dismissal of the maliciously induced PX to bring the suit against DY
case. The trial court accordingly dismissed the despite ACs knowledge of its utter lack of factual and
complaint. And it also dismissed the Counterclaim. legal basis. In due time, AC filed a motion to dismiss the
11
REMEDIAL LAW
counterclaim as against him on the ground that he is not execution for the enforcement thereof. Conformably
a proper party to the case, he being merely plaintiffs with the said writ, the sheriff levied upon certain
counsel. Is the counterclaim of DY compulsory or not? properties under Bs name. C filed a third-party claim
Should ACs motion to dismiss the counterclaim be over said properties claiming that B had already
granted or not? Reason. (2004 Bar) transferred the same to him. A moved to deny the third-
party claim and to hold B and C jointly and severally
A: Yes. The counterclaim of DY is compulsory because it is liable to him for the money judgment alleging that B had
one which arises out of or is connected with the subject transferred said properties to C to defraud him (A). After
matter of the opposing partys claim and does not require for due hearing, the court denied the third-party claim and
its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the rendered an amended decision declaring B and C jointly
court cannot acquire jurisdiction (Sec. 7, Rule 6). The motion and severally liable to A for the money judgment. Is the
to dismiss of plaintiffs counsel should not be granted ruling of the court correct? Explain. (2005 Bar)
because bringing in plaintiffs counsel as a defendant in the
counterclaim is authorized by the Rules. Where it is required A: No. C has not been properly impleaded as a party
for the grant of complete relief in the determination of the defendant. He cannot be held liable for the judgment against
counterclaim, the court shall order the defendants counsel A without a trial. In fact, since no bond was filed by B, the
to be brought in since jurisdiction over him can be obtained sheriff is liable to C for damages. C can file a separate action
(Sec. 12, Rule 6; Aurelio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 90742, to enforce his third-party claim. It is in that suit that B can
May 6, 1991). Here, the counterclaim was against both the raise the ground of fraud against C. However, the execution
plaintiff and his lawyer who allegedly maliciously induced may proceed where there is a finding that the claim is
the plaintiff to file the suit. fraudulent (Tanongan v. Samson, G.R. No. 140889, May 9,
2002).
Q: B and C borrowed P400, 000.00 from A. The
promissory note was executed by B and C in a joint and Q: X files a complaint in the RTC for the recovery of a sum
several capacity. B, who received the money from A, gave of money with damages against Y. Y files his answer
C P200, 000.00. C, in turn, loaned P100, 000.00 out of the denying liability under the contract of sale and praying
P200, 000.00 he received to D. for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack
of cause of action because the contract of sale was
a. In an action filed by A against B and C with the RTC superseded by a contract of lease executed and signed by
of Quezon City, can B file a cross-claim against C for X and Y two weeks after the contract of sale was
the amount of P200, 000.00? executed. The contract of lease was attached to the
answer. X does not file a reply. What is the effect of non-
A: Yes. B can file a cross-claim against C for the amount of filing of a reply? Explain. (2000 Bar)
P200, 000.00 given to C. A cross-claim is a claim filed by one
party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or A: A reply is generally optional. If it is not filed, the new
occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action or matters alleged in the answer are deemed controverted (Sec.
a counterclaim therein and may include a claim that the party 10, Rule 6). However, since the contract of lease attached to
against whom it is asserted is or may be liable to the cross- the answer is the basis of the defense, by not filing a reply
claimant for all or part of a claim asserted against the cross- denying under oath the genuineness and due execution of
claimant. (Sec.8, Rule 6) said contract, the plaintiff is deemed to have admitted the
genuineness and due execution thereof (Secs. 7 and 8, Rule 8;
b. Can C file a third party complaint against D for the Toribio v. Bidin, G.R. No. L-57821 January 17, 1985).
amount of P100, 000.00? (1997 Bar)
Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping
A: No. C cannot file a third-party complaint against D because
the loan of P100, 000 has no connection with the opponents Q: What is Forum Shopping? (2006 Bar)
claim. C could have loaned the money out of other funds in
his possession. A: Forum-shopping is the act of filing multiple suits involving
the same parties for the same cause of action, either
Q: JKs real property is being attached by the sheriff in a simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining
civil action for damages against LM. JK claims that he is a favorable judgment (Executive Secretary v. Gordon, G.R. No.
not a party to the case; that his property is not involved 134171, November 18, 1998).
in said case; and that he is the sole registered owner of
said property. Under the Rules of Court, what must JK do Q: Honey filed with the Regional Trial Court Taal,
to prevent the sheriff from attaching his property? (2000 Batangas, a complaint for specific performance against
Bar) Bernie. For lack of certification against forum shopping,
the judge dismissed the complaint. Honeys lawyer filed
A: If the real property is being attached, the remedy is to file a motion for reconsideration, attaching thereto an
a third-party claim. The third-party claimant should make an amended complaint with the certification against forum
affidavit of his title to the property attached, stating the shopping. If you were the judge, how will you resolve the
grounds of his title thereto, and serve such affidavit upon the motion? (2006 Bar)
sheriff while the latter has possession of the attached
property, and a copy thereof upon the attaching party (Sec. A: If I were the judge, the motion should be denied after
14, Rule 57). The third-party claimant may also intervene or hearing because, as expressly provided in the Rules, failure
file a separate action to vindicate his claim to the property to comply with the requirement of forum shopping is not
involved and secure the necessary reliefs, such as curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other
preliminary injunction, which will not be considered as initiatory pleading, but shall be cause for dismissal of the
interference with a court of coordinate jurisdiction (Ong v. case, without prejudice, unless otherwise provided (Sec. 5,
Tating, G.R. No. L-61042, April 15, 1987). Rule 7). However, the trial court in the exercise of its sound
discretion, may choose to be liberal and consider the
Q: A obtained a money judgment against B. After the amendment as substantial compliance (Great Southern
finality of the decision, the court issued a writ of Maritime Services Corp. v. Acuna, G.R. No. 140189, February
UST BAR OPERATIONS 12
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
28, 2005; Chan v. RTC of Zamboanga del Norte, G.R. 149253, decision was assailed in a special civil action under Rule
April 15, 2004; Uy v. Land Bank, G.R. 136100, July 24, 2000). 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA). In the verification
and certification against forum shopping, only Toto
Q: As counsel for A, B, C and D, Atty. XY prepared a signed the verification and certification, while Atty.
complaint for recovery of possession of a parcel of land Arman signed for Nelson. Empire filed a motion to
against Z. Before filing the complaint, XY discovered that dismiss on the ground of defective verification and
his clients were not available to sign the certification of certification. Decide with reasons. (2016 Bar)
non-forum shopping. To avoid further delays in the filing
of the complaint, XY signed the certification and A: The motion to dismiss should be granted. The verification
immediately filed the complaint in court. Is XY justified and certification against non-forum shopping were not
in signing the certification? Why? (2000 Bar) signed by all petitioners. There was no showing that Toto nor
Atty. Arman were duly authorized by the other petitioners
A: No, counsel cannot sign the anti-forum shopping through a special power of attorney to sign on their behalf;
certification because it must be executed by the plaintiff or hence, the motion to dismiss should be granted.
principal party himself (Sec. 5, Rule 7), since the rule
requires personal knowledge by the party executing the ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The motion to dismiss should be
certification, unless counsel gives a good reason why he is denied, because there is substantial compliance of the
not able to secure his clients signatures and shows that his requirements of the rules.
clients will be deprived of substantial justice (Ortiz v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 127393, December 4, 1998) or unless he is Verification is not a jurisdictional but merely a formal
authorized to sign it by his clients through a special power of requirement which the court may motu proprio direct a party
attorney. to comply with or correct, as the case may be. On the other
hand, regarding the certificate of non-forum shopping, the
Q: Mr. Humpty file with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a general rule is that all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case
complaint against Ms. Dumpty for damages. The RTC, should sign it. However, the Supreme Court has time and
after due proceedings, rendered a decision granting the again stressed that the rules on forum shopping, which were
complaint and ordering Ms. Dumpty to pay damages to designed to promote the orderly administration of justice, do
Mr. Humpty. Ms. Dumpty timely filed an appeal before not interdict substantial compliance with its provisions
the Court of Appeals (CA), questioning the RTC decision. under justifiable circumstances. As ruled by the Court, the
Meanwhile, the RTC granted Mr. Humptys motion for signature of any of the principal petitioners or principal
execution pending appeal. Upon receipt of the RTCs parties, would constitute a substantial compliance with the
order granting execution pending appeal, Ms. Dumpty rule on verification and certification of non-forum shopping.
filed with the CA another case, this time a special civil And should there exist a commonality of interest among the
action for certiorari assailing said RTC order. Is there a parties, or where the parties filed the case as a collective,
violation of the rule against forum shopping considering raising only one common cause of action or presenting a
that two (2) actions emanating from the same case with common defense, then the signature of one of the petitioners
the RTC were filed by Ms. Dumpty with the CA? Explain. or complainants, acting as representative, is sufficient
(2014 Bar) compliance. (Irene Marcos-Araneta v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 154096, August 22, 2008) Evidently, since there is a
A: No. There is no violation of the rule against forum commonality of interest among tailors Toto, Nelson and
shopping. The essence of forum shopping is the filing by a Yenyen, there is substantial compliance with the ruels on
party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered verification and certification against forum shopping, when
in one forum, seeking another and possibly favorable Toto signed the verification and certification, and Atty.
opinion in another suit other than by appeal or special civil Arman signed the same for Nelson.
action for certiorari; the act of filing of multiple suits
involving the same parties for the same cause of action, Allegations in a pleading
either simultaneously or successively for the purpose of
obtaining a favorable judgment. Forum shopping exists Q: In his complaint for foreclosure of mortgage to which
where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a was duly attached a copy of the mortgage deed plaintiff
final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the PP alleged inter alia as follows: (1) that defendant DD
action under consideration (Roberto S. Benedicto v. Manuel duly executed the mortgage deed, copy of which is Annex
Lacson, G.R. No. 141508, May 5, 2010). In Philippines Nails and A of the complaint and made an integral part thereof;
Wires Corporation v. Malayan Insurance Company, Inc., G.R. and (2) that to prosecute his complaint, plaintiff
No. 143933, February 14, 2003, the Supreme Court held that contracted a lawyer, CC, for a fee of P50,000. In his
one party may validly question a decision in a regular appeal answer, the defendant alleged, inter alia, that he had no
and at the same time assail the execution pending appeal via knowledge of the mortgage deed and he also denied any
certiorari without violating the rule against forum shopping. liability for plaintiffs contracting with a lawyer for a fee.
This is because the merits of the case will not be addressed Does defendants answer as to plaintiffs allegation no. 1
in the Petition dealing with the execution and vice versa. as well as no. 2 sufficiently raise an issue of fact? Reason
Since Ms. Dumpty merely filed a special civil action for briefly. (2004 Bar)
certiorari, the same will not constitute a violation of the rules
on forum shopping because the resolution or a favorable A: As to plaintiffs allegation no. 1, defendant does not
judgment thereon will not amount to res judicata in the sufficiently raise an issue of fact, because he cannot allege
subsequent proceedings between the same parties. (Roberto lack of knowledge of the mortgage deed since he should have
S. Benedicto v. Manuel Lacson, G.R. No. 141508, May 5, 2010). personal knowledge as to whether he signed it or not and
because he did not deny under oath the genuineness and due
Q: Tailors Toto, Nelson and Yenyen filed a special civil execution of the mortgage deed, which is an actionable
action for certiorari under Rule 65 from an adverse document. As to plaintiffs allegation no. 2, defendant did not
decision of the National Labor Relations Commission properly deny liability as to plaintiffs contracting with a
(NLRC) on the complaint for illegal dismissal against lawyer for a fee. He did not even deny for lack of knowledge
Empire Textile Corporation. They were terminated on (Sec. 10, Rule 8).
the ground that they failed to meet the prescribed
production quota at least four (4) times. The NLRC Default
13
REMEDIAL LAW

Q: When may a party be declared in Default? What is the Q: Mario was declared in default but before judgment
effect of an Order of Default? (1999 Bar) was rendered, he decided to file a motion to set aside the
order of default.
A: A party may be declared in default when he fails to answer
within the time allowed therefor and upon motion of the a. What should Mario state in his motion in order to
claiming party with notice to the defending party, and proof justify the setting aside of the order of default?
of such failure (Sec. 3, Rule 9). The effect of an Order of
Default is that the court may proceed to render judgment A: In order to justify the setting aside of the order of default,
granting the claimant such relief as his pleading may warrant Mario should state in his motion that his failure to answer
unless the court in its discretion requires the claimant to was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence
submit evidence. The party in default cannot take part in the and that he has a meritorious defense (Sec. 3(b) Rule9).
trial but shall be entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings
(Sec. 3[a], Rule 9). b. In what form should such motion be? (2001 Bar)

Q: Circe filed with the RTC a complaint for the A: The motion should be under oath (Id.).
foreclosure of real estate mortgage against siblings
Scylla and Charybdis, co-owners of the property and co- Q: For failure to seasonably file his Answer despite due
signatories to the mortgage deed. The siblings notice, A was declared in default in a case instituted
permanently reside in Athens, Greece. Circe tipped off against him by B. The following day, As mistress who is
Sheriff Pluto that Scylla is on a balikbayan trip and is working as a clerk in the sala of the Judge before whom
billeted at the Century Plaza Hotel in Pasay City. Sheriff his case pending, informed him of the declaration of
Pluto went to the hotel and personally served Scylla the default. On the same day, A presented a motion under
summons, but the latter refused to receive summons for oath to set aside the order of default on the ground that
Charybdis as she was not authorized to do so. Sheriff his failure to answer was due to fraud and he has a
Pluto requested Scylla for the email address and fax meritorious defense. Thereafter, he went abroad. After
number of Charybdis which the latter readily gave. his return a week later, with the case still undecided, he
Sheriff Pluto, in his return of the summons, stated that received the order declaring him in default. The motion
"Summons for Scylla was served personally as shown by to set aside default was opposed by B on the ground that
her signature on the receiving copy of the summons. it was filed before A received notice of his having been
Summons on Charybdis was served pursuant to the declared in default, citing the rule that the motion to set
amendment of Rule 14 by facsimile transmittal of the aside may be made at any time after notice but before
summons and complaint on defendant's fax number as judgment. Resolve the Motion. (1999 Bar)
evidenced by transmission verification report
automatically generated by the fax machine indicating A: Assuming that the motion to set aside complies with the
that it was received by the fax number to which it was other requirements of the rule, it should be granted.
sent on the date and time indicated therein." Circe, sixty Although such a motion may be made after notice but before
(60) days after her receipt of Sheriff Pluto's return, filed judgment (Sec. 3[b], Rule 9), with more reason may it be filed
a Motion to Declare Charybdis in default as Charybdis after discovery even before receipt of the order of default.
did not file any responsive pleading.
Q: What are the available remedies of a party declared in
a. Should the court declare Charybdis in default? Default:

A: No, the court should not declare Charybdis in default a. Before the rendition of judgment;
because there was no proper service of summons. Section 12,
Rule 14 of the Rules of Court applies only to a foreign private A: Before the rendition of judgment (a) he may file a motion
juridical entity that is not registered in the Philippines and under oath to set aside the order of default on the grounds of
has no resident agent in the country, and not to individuals fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence and that he
(A.M. No. 11-3-6-SC, March 15, 2011). The service of summons has a meritorious defense (Sec. 3[b), Rule 9); and if it is
by facsimile under said rule is, therefore, defective. denied, he may move to reconsider, and if reconsideration is
denied, he may file the special civil action of certiorari for
A foreclosure of real estate mortgage is a quasi in rem action, grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of the
thus, the court can render judgments as long as it has lower court's jurisdiction. (Sec. 1, Rule 65) or (b) he may file
jurisdiction over the res and any of the modes of extra- a petition for certiorari If he has been illegally declared in
territorial service of summons under Section 15 of Rule 14 is default, e.g. during the pendency of his motion to dismiss or
complied with prior leave of court. There is, unfortunately, before the expiration of the time to answer (Matute v. Court
no showing in the problem that a prior leave of court was of Appeals, G.R. No. 26751, January 31, 1969; Acosta-Ofalia v.
obtained before resorting to extra-territorial service of Sundiam, G.R. No. L-42648, September 30, 1978).
summons; hence, the service of summons is defective.
b. After judgment but before its finality; and
b. Scylla seasonably filed her answer setting forth
therein as a defense that Charybdis had paid the A: After judgment but before its finality, he may file a motion
mortgage debt. On the premise that Charybdis was for new trial on the grounds of fraud, accident, mistake,
properly declared in default, what is the effect of excusable negligence, or a motion for reconsideration on the
Scylla's answer to the complaint? (2015 Bar) ground of excessive damages, insufficient evidence or the
decision or final order being contrary to law (See. 2, Rule 37);
A: Assuming that Charybdis was properly declared in and thereafter. If the motion is denied, appeal is available
default, the court shall try the case against all the defendants under Rules 40 or 41, whichever is applicable.
upon the answer filed by Scylla, and render judgment upon
the evidence presented (Sec. 3[c], Rule 9). c. After the finality of judgment? (1998, 2006 Bar)

Relief from an order of default


UST BAR OPERATIONS 14
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
A: After finality of the judgment, there are three ways to
assail the Judgment, which are: (a) a petition for relief under Q: On May 12, 2005, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the
Rule 38 on the grounds of fraud, accident, mistake or RTC of Quezon City for the collection of P250, 000. The
excusable negligence; (b) annulment of Judgment under Rule defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the
47 for extrinsic fraud or lack of Jurisdiction; or (c) certiorari ground that the court had no jurisdiction over the action
if the Judgment Is void on Its face or by the judicial record since the claimed amount of P250, 000.00 is within the
(Balangcad v. Justices of the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83888, exclusive jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court, of
February 12, 1992). Quezon City. Before the court could resolve the motion,
the plaintiff, without leave of court, amended his
Q: For failure of K.J. to file an answer within the complaint to allege a new cause of action consisting in
reglementary period, the Court, upon motion of LM, the inclusion of an additional amount of P200,000.00,
declared KJ in default. In due time, KJ filed an unverified thereby increasing his total claim to P450,000.00. The
motion to lift the order of default without an affidavit of plaintiff thereafter filed his opposition to the motion to
merit attached to it. KJ however attached the motion in dismiss, claiming that the RTC had jurisdiction, over his
his answer under oath, stating in said answer his action. Rule on the motion of the defendant with
reasons for his failure to file an answer on time, as well reasons. (2005 Bar)
as his defenses. Will the motion to lift the order of
default prosper? Explain. (2000 Bar) A: The motion to dismiss should be denied. Basic is the rule
that a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading. Under
A: Yes, there is substantial compliance with the rule. the Rules, a pleader may amend his pleading as a matter of
Although the motion is unverified, the answer attached to the right before the other party has served his responsive
motion is verified. The answer contains the motion to lift the pleading (Sec. 2, Rule 10). The court, in allowing the
order of default and the affidavit of merit should contain, amendment, would not be acting without jurisdiction
which are the reasons of the movants failure to answer as because allowing an amendment as a matter of right does not
well as his defenses (Sec. 3[b], Rule 9; Cf. Cititbank, N.A. v. require the exercise of discretion (Soledad v. Mamangun, G.R.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 61508, March 17, 1999). No. L-17983, May 30 1963; Gumabay v. Baralin, G.R. No. L-
30683, May 31, 1977; Prudence Realty v. CA, G.R. No. 110274,
Amendment March 21, 1994).

Q: Arturo lent P1 Million to his friend Robert on the Q: After an answer has been filed, can the plaintiff amend
condition that Robert will execute a promissory note for his complaint, with leave of court, by changing entirely
the loan and a real estate mortgage over his property the nature of the action? (2003 Bar)
located in Tagaytay City. Robert complied. In his
promissory note dated September 20, 2006, Robert A: Yes. The present rules allow amendments substantially
undertook to pay the loan within a year from its date at altering the nature of the cause of action (Sec. 3, Rule 10; Heirs
12% per annum interest. In June 2007, Arturo requested of Marcelino Pagobo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
Robert to pay ahead of time but the latter refused and 121687, October 16, 1997). This should only be true,
insisted on the agreement. Arturo issued a demand however, when the substantial change or alteration in the
letter and when Robert did not comply, Arturo filed an cause of action or defense shall serve the higher interests of
action to foreclose the mortgage. Robert moved to substantial justice and prevent delay and equally promote
dismiss the complaint for lack of cause of action as the the laudable objective of the rules which is to secure a just,
debt was not yet due. The resolution of the motion to speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and
dismiss was delayed because of the retirement of the proceeding (Valenzuela v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
judge. 131175, August 28, 2001).

a. On October 1, 2007, pending resolution of the Amendments to conform to or authorize presentation of


motion to dismiss, Arturo filed an amended evidence
complaint alleging that Robert's debt had in the
meantime become due but that Robert still refused Q: In a complaint for a sum of money filed before the MM
to pay. Should the amended complaint be allowed RTC, plaintiff did not mention or even just hint at any
considering that no answer has been filed? demand for payment made on defendant before
commencing suit. During the trial, plaintiff duly offered
A: No. Even though an amendment of complaint before Exh. A in evidence for the stated purpose of proving the
answer is a matter of right, lack of a cause of action at the making of extrajudicial demand on defendant to pay
commencement of the suit is not cured by the accrual of a P500.000, the subject of the suit. Exh. A was a letter of
cause of action subsequent thereto, such that an amendment demand for defendant to pay said sum of money within
setting up the after-accrued cause of action is not allowed 10 days from receipt, addressed to and served on
(Swagman Hotel and Travel, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. defendant some two months before suit was begun.
161135, April 8, 2005). Without objection from defendant, the court admitted
Exh. A in evidence. Was the courts admission of Exh.
b. Would your answer be different had Arturo filed A in evidence erroneous or not? Reason. (2004 Bar)
instead a supplemental complaint stating that the
debt became due after the filing of the original A: The courts admission of Exhibit A in evidence is not
complaint? (2008 Bar) erroneous. It was admitted in evidence without objection on
the part of the defendant. It should be treated as if it had been
A: No, because a complaint whose cause of action has not raised in the pleadings. The complaint may be amended to
accrued yet when filed, does not gain any standing in court conform to the evidence, but if it is not so amended, it does
such that no amendment, whether by amended or not affect the result of the trial on this issue (Sec. 5, Rule 10).
supplemental pleading, can cure the deficiency. The
subsequent cause of action that arose may only be subject of Effect of amended pleading
a different suit but cannot be pleaded as a supplement to the
complaint where no cause action exists. Simply put, no Q: X, an illegitimate child of Y, celebrated her 18 th
amended or supplemental complaint is allowed (Id.). birthday on May 2, 1996. A month before her birthday, Y
15
REMEDIAL LAW
died. The legitimate family of Y refused to recognize X as service filed with the court in sum states that the
an illegitimate child of Y. After countless efforts to summons, with attached copy of the complaint, was
convince them, X filed on April 25, 2000 an action for served on defendant at his residence thru his wife, a
recognition against Z, wife of Y. After Z filed an answer person of suitable age and discretion then residing
on August 14, 2000, X filed a motion for leave to file an therein. Defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that
amended complaint and a motion to admit the said the court had no jurisdiction over his person as there
amended complaint impleading the three (3) legitimate was no valid service of summons on him because the
children of Y. The trial court admitted the amended sheriffs return or proof of service does not show that the
complaint on August 22, 2000. What is the effect of the sheriff first made a genuine attempt to serve the
admission of the amended complaint? Has the action of summon on defendant personally before serving it thru
X prescribed? Explain. (2000 Bar) his wife. Is the motion to dismiss meritorious? What is
the purpose of summons and by whom may it be served?
A: NO. The action filed on April 25, 2000 is still within the Explain. (2004 Bar)
four-year prescriptive period which started to run on May 2,
1996. The amended complaint impleading the three A: The motion to dismiss is not meritorious because the
legitimate children, though admitted on August 22, 2000 defendant actually received the summons on time from his
beyond the four-year prescriptive period, retroacts to the wife. Service on the wife was sufficient (Boticano v. Chu, G.R.
date of the filing of the original complaint. Amendments No. L-58036, March 16, 1987). It is the duty of the court to
impleading new defendants retroact to the date of the filing look into the sufficiency of the service. The sheriffs
of the complaint because they do not constitute a new cause negligence in not stating in his return that he first made a
of action (Verzosa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 119511-13, genuine effort to serve the summons on the defendant,
November 24, 1998). should not prejudice the plaintiff (Mapa v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. Nos. 79374 and 82986, October 2, 1992). The purpose of
SUMMONS the summons is to inform the defendant of the complaint
filed against him and to enable the court to acquire
Q: What is the effect of absence of summons on the jurisdiction over his person. It may be served by the sheriff
judgment rendered in the case? (1999 Bar) or his deputy or any person authorized by the court.

A: The effect of the absence of summons on a judgment Q: Alfie Bravo filed with the Regional Trial Court of
would make the judgment null and void because the court Caloocan, a complaint for a sum of money against Charlie
would not have jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, Delta. The claim is for Php1.5Million. The complaint
but if the defendant voluntarily appeared before the court, alleges that Charlie borrowed the amount from Alfie and
his appearance is equivalent to the service of summons (Sec. duly executed a promissory note as evidence of the loan.
20, Rule 14). Charlies office secretary, Esther, received the summons
at Charlies office. Charlie failed to file an answer within
Q: When additional defendant is impleaded in the action, the required period, and Alfie moved to declare Charlie
is it necessary that summons be served upon him? in default and to be allowed to present evidence ex parte.
Explain. (1999 Bar) Ten days later, Charlie filed his verified answer, raising
the defense of full payment with interest. (2006, 2013
A: Yes. Summons must be served on an additional defendant Bar)
impleaded in the action so that the court can acquire
jurisdiction over him, unless he makes a voluntary a. Was there proper and valid service of summons on
appearance. Charlie?
Q: Is summons required to be served upon a defendant A: No. There is no showing that earnest efforts were exerted
who was substituted for the deceased? Explain. (1999 to personally serve the summons on the defendant before
Bar) substituted service was resoted to; the service of sumoons
was improper.
A: No. A defendant who was substituted for the deceased
need not be served with summons because it is the court In an action strictly in personam like a complaint for sum of
which orders him as the legal representative of the deceased money, personal service on the defendant is the preferred
to appear and substitute the deceased (Sec. 16, Rule 3). mode of service, that is, by handing a copy of the summons
to the defendant in person. If defendant, for excusable
Substituted Service reasons, cannot be served with summons within a
reasonable period, then substituted service can be resorted
Q: A sued XX Corporation (XXC), a corporation organized to (Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130974, August 16,
under Philippine laws, for specific performance when 2006). Otherwise stated, it is only when the defendant cannot
the latter failed to deliver T-shirts to the former as be served personally within a reasonable time that a
stipulated in their contract of sale. Summons was served substituted service may be made. Impossibility of prompt
on the corporations cashier and director. Would you service should be shown by stating the efforts made to find
consider service of summons on either officer sufficient? the defendant personally and the fact that such efforts failed.
Explain. (1999 Bar) This statement should be made in the proof of service
(Galura v. Math-Agro Corporation, G.R. No. 167230, August 14,
A: Summons on a domestic corporation through its cashier 2009).
and director are not valid under the present rules (Sec. 11,
Rule 14). Since there was no prior attempt to serve the summons in
person, the substituted service to Charlies secretary is
Q: Summons was issued by the MM RTC and actually invalid.
received on time by defendant from his wife at their
residence. The sheriff earlier that day had delivered the b. If declared in default, what can Charlie do to obtain
summons to her at said residence because defendant relief?
was not home at the time. The sheriffs return or proof of
UST BAR OPERATIONS 16
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
regard for the rights and possibility of loss, if any, to the
A: If Charlie is declared in default, he has the following other party. Moreorver, it must be indicated therein
remedies to wit: that the sheriff has made several attempts at personal
service for at least three (3) times on at least two (2)
a. he may, at any time after discovery of the default but different dates.
before judgment, file a motion, under oath, to set aside 2. Specific details in the return, i.e., the sheriff must
the order of default on the ground that his failure to describe in the Return of Summons the facts and
answer was due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable circumstances surrounding the attempted personal
neglect, and that he has a meritorious defense; service.
b. if judgment has already been rendered when he 3. Substituted service effected on a person of suitable age
discovered the default, but before the same has become and discretion residing at defendants house or
final and executory, he may file a motion for new trial residence; or on a competent person in charge of
under Section 1(a) of Rule 37; defendants office or regular place of business. (Ma.
c. if he discovered the default after the judgment has Imelda M. Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130974,
become final and executory, he may file a petition for August 16, 2006)
relief under Section 2 of Rule 38; and
d. he may also appeal from the judgment rendered against Q: Tristan filed a suit with the RTC of Pasay against
him as contrary to the evidence or to the law, even if no Arthur King and/or Estate of Arthur King for
petition to set aside the order of default has been reconveyance of a lot declared in the name of Arthur
presented by him. (B.D. Longspan Builders, Inc. v. R.S. King under TCT No. 1234. The complaint alleged thaton
Ampeloquio Realty Development, G.R. No. 169919, account Arthur Kings residence abroad up to the
September 11, 2009) present and the uncertainty of whether he is still alive or
dead, he or his estate may be served with summons by
NOTE: There are additional remedies to address judgments publication. Summons was published and nobody filed
by default: Motion for Reconsideration (Rule 37), Annulment any responsive pleading within sixty (60) days
of Judgment (Rule 47) and Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65). therefrom. Upon motion. Defendants were declared in
default and judgment was rendered declaring Tristan as
Q: Juan sued Roberto for specific performance. Roberto legal owner and ordering defendants to reconvey said
knew that Juan was going to file the case so he went out lot to Tristan.
of town and temporarily stayed in another city to avoid
service of summons. Juan engaged the service of Sheriff Jojo, the court-designated administrator of Athur Kings
Matinik to serve the summons but when the latter went estate, filed a petition for annulment of judgment before
to the residence of Roberto, he was told by the caretaker the CA praying that the decision in favor of Tristan be
thereof that his employer no longer resides at the house. declared null and void for lack of jurisdiction. He claims
The caretaker is a high school graduate and is the that the action filed by Tristan is an action in personam
godson of Roberto. Believing the caretakers story to b and that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over
true, Sheriff Matinik left a copy of the summons and defendants Arthur King and/or his estate. On the other
complaint with the caretaker. Was there a valid hand, Tristan claims that the suit is an action in rem or
substituted service of summons? Discuss the at least an action quasi in rem. Is the RTC judge correct
requirements for a valid service of summons. (2016 Bar) in ordering service of summons by publication? Explain.
(2016 Bar)
A: No, there was no valid substituted service of summons. In
an action strictly in personam, personal service on the A: Yes. The RTC Judge is correct in ordering the service of
defendant is the preferred mode of service, that is, by summons by publication. An action for declaration of nullity
handing a copy of the summons to the defendant in person. of title and recovery of ownership of real property, or re-
If defendant, for excusable reasons, cannot be served with conveyance, is not a real action but it is an action in
the summons within a reasonable period, then substituted personam, for it binds a particular individual only although it
service can be resorted to. While substituted service of concerns the right to a tangible thing. Any judgment therein
summons is permitted, it is extraordinary in character and in is binding only upon the parties properly impleaded. (Heirs
derogation of the usual method of service; hence, it must of Eugenio Lopez, Sr. v. Enriquez cited in Emerita Munoz v.
faithfully and strictly comply with the prescribed Atty. Victoriano R. Yabut, Jr. and Samuel Go Chan, G.R. No.
requirements and circumstances authorized by the rules. 142676, June 6, 2011)
Compliance witht the rules regarding the service of
summons is as important as the issue of due process for the In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the
Court to acquire jurisdiction. For the presumption of defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide
regularity in the performance of official duty to apply, the the case. Jurisdiction over the person of a resident defendant
Sheriffs Return must show that serious efforts or attemtps who does not voluntarily appear in court can be acquired by
were exerted to personally serve the summons and that said personal service of summons as provided under Section 7,
efforts failed. These facts must be specifically narrated in the Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. If he cannot be personally served
Return. It must clearly show that the substituted service with summons within a reasonable time, substituted service
must be made in person of suitable age and discretion living may be made in accordance with Section 8 of said Rule.
in the dwelling or residence of defendant; otherwise, the (Spouses Domingo M. Belen, et. al., v. Hon. Pablo R. Chavez, et.
Return is flawed and the presumption cannot be availed of. al., G.R. No. 175334, March 26, 2008)
The Supreme Court laid down the requirements as follows:
Under Section 14, Rule 14, Rules of Court, in any action
1. Impossibility of prompt personal service, i.e., the party where the defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or
relying on substituted service or the sheriff must show the like, or whenever his whereabouts are unknown and
that defendant cannot be served promptly or there is cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may, by
impossibility of prompt service within a reasonable leave of court, be effected upon him by publication in a
time. Reasonable time being so much time as is newspaper of general circulation and in such places and for
necessary under the circumstances for a reasonably such time as the court may order. This rule applies to any
prudent and diligent man to do, conveniently, what the action, whether in personam, in rem or quasi in rem. (Pedro T.
contract or duty requires that should be done, having a Santos, Jr., v. PNOC Exploration Corporation, G.R. No. 170943,
17
REMEDIAL LAW
September 23, 2008) Clearly, since the action for re-
conveyance is an action in personam, the RTC Judge is correct A: As counsel of the bank, I shall recommend to the bank as
in ordering service of summons by publication. judgment obligor, to make a tender of payment to the
judgment oblige and thereafter make a consignation of the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: No. The RTC Judge is not correct amount due by filing an application therefore placing the
in ordering service of summons by publication. It is well- same at the disposal of the court which rendered the
settled that in an action in personam wherein the defendant is judgment (Arts. 1256 and 1258, NCC).
a non-resident who does not voluntarily submit himself to the
authority of the court, personal service of summons within Motions for bill of particulars
the state is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over
her person. This method of service is possible if such Q: When can a bill of particulars be availed of? What is
defendant is physicially present in the country. If he is not the effect of non-compliance with the order of a bill of
found therein, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his particulars? (2003 Bar)
person and therefor cannot validly try and decide the case
against him. (Spouses Domingo M. Belen, et al., v. Hon. Pablo A: Before responding to a pleading, a party may move for a
R. Chavez, et al., G.R. No. 175334, March 26, 2008) bill of particulars of any matter which is not averred with
Accordingly, the RTC Judge is not correct in ordering service sufficient definiteness or particularity to enable him
of summons by publication. properly to prepare his responsive pleading. If the pleading
is a reply, the motion must be filed within ten (10) days from
MOTIONS service thereof (Sec. 1, Rule 12). If the order is not complied
with, the court may order the striking out of the pleading or
Omnibus motion rule the portions thereof to which the order was directed or make
such other order as it deems just (Sec. 4, Rule 12).
Q: Charisse, alleging that she was a resident of Lapu-
Lapu City, filed a complaint for damages against Atlanta Q: Within the period for filing a responsive pleading, the
Bank before the RTC of Lapu-Lapu City, following the defendant filed a motion for bill of particulars that he set
dishonor of a check she drew in favor of Shirley against for hearing on a certain date. However, the defendant
her current account which she maintained in the banks was surprised to find on the date set for hearing that the
local branch. The bank filed a Motion to Dismiss the trial court had already denied the motion on the day of
complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of its filing, stating that the allegations of the complaint
action, but it was denied. It thus filed an Answer. were sufficiently made.

a. In the course of the trial, Charisse admitted that she a. Did the judge gravely abuse his discretion in acting
was a US citizen residing in Los Angeles, California on the motion without waiting for the hearing set for
and that she was temporarily billeted at the Pescado the motion?
Hotel in Lapu-Lapu City, drawing the bank to file
another motion to dismiss, this time on the ground A: No, the judge did not gravely abuse his discretion when he
of improper venue, since Charisse is not a resident of denied the motion for bill of particulars without waiting for
Lapu-Lapu City. Charisse opposed the motion citing the hearing set for the motion. Section 2, Rule 12 of the Rules
the "omnibus motion rule." Rule on the motion. of Court authorizes the court to either deny or grant said
motion outright upon the clerk of court bringing such motion
A: The banks second motion to dismiss which is grounded to the attention of the court. The motion may lack merit.
on improper venue should be denied. The improper venue of
an action is deemed waived by the banks filing an earlier b. If the judge grants the motion and orders the
motion to dismiss without raising improper venue as an plaintiff to file and serve the bill of particulars, can
issue, and more so when the bank filed an Answer without the trial judge dismiss the case if the plaintiff does
raising improper venue as an issue after its first motion to not comply with the order? (2008 Bar)
dismiss was denied. Under the omnibus motion rule (Rule
15, Sec. 8) which governs the banks motion to dismiss, such A: Yes, the trial judge can dismiss the case if the plaintiff
motion should include all objections then available; failed to comply with the courts order to file and serve the
otherwise, all objections not so included shall be deemed needed bill of particulars. Section 4, Rule 12 of the Rules of
waived. Court authorizes the court to order the striking out of the
pleading affected, hence the dismissal of the complaint. To
b. Suppose Charisse did not raise the "omnibus motion the same end is the provision of Section 3, Rule 17 of the
rule," can the judge proceed to resolve the motion to Rules when plaintiff fails to comply for no justifiable cause
dismiss? Explain. with any order of the court or with the Rules.

A: Yes, the judge can proceed to resolve the motion to Res judicata
dismiss, because the ground raised therefor became known
to the movant only during the trial, such that it was only then Q: What is "res judicata in prison grey"? What are the
that the objection became available to him. essential requisites of res judicata? (2000, 2010 Bar)

c. Suppose the judge correctly denied the second A: Res judicata in prison grey" is the criminal concept of
motion to dismiss and rendered judgment in favor of double jeopardy, as res judicata" is the doctrine of civil law
Charisse, ordering the bank to pay her P100,000 in (Trinidad v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 166038,
damages plus legal interest. The judgment became December 4, 2007). Described as res judicata in prison grey,
final and executory in 2008. To date, Charisse has the right against double jeopardy prohibits the prosecution
not moved to execute the judgment. The bank is of a person for a crime of which he has been previously
concerned that its liability will increase with the acquitted or convicted. The purpose is to set the effects of the
delay because of the interest on the judgment award. first prosecution forever at rest, assuring the accused that he
As counsel of the bank, what move should you take? shall not thereafter be subjected to the danger and anxiety of
(2010 Bar) a second charge against him for the same offense (Joel B. Caes
UST BAR OPERATIONS 18
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. Nos. 74989-90, November certification alluded to, pertains to official acts, or records of
6, 1989). The essential requisites of res judicata are: official bodies, tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
Phillippines or of a foreign country: the requirement in Sec.
1. the judgment or order rendered must be final; 24, Rule 132 refers only to paragraph (a) of Sec. 29 which
2. the court rendering the same must have jurisdiction of does not cover notarial documents. It is enough that the
the subject matter and of the parties; notary public who notarized the verification and certification
3. it must be a judgment or order on the merits; and of non-forum shopping is clothed with authority to
4. there must be between the two cases identity of parties, administer oath in the State or foreign country.
identity of subject matter, and identity of causes of
action (San Diego v. Cardona, G.R. No. 46655, June 27, Q: Mariano, through his attorney-in-fact, Marcos, filed
1940). with the RTC of Baguio City a complaint for annulment of
sale against Henry. Marcos and Henry both reside in
Q: Distinguish bar by prior judgment from Asin Road, Baguio City, while Mariano resides in Davao
conclusiveness of judgment. (1997 Bar) City. Henry filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
the ground of prematurity for failure to comply with the
A: Bar by prior judgment is the doctrine of res judicata, mandatory barangay conciliation. Resolve the motion
which bars a second action when there is identity of parties, with reasons. (2009 Bar)
subject matter and cause of action (Sec. 47[b], Rule 39).
Conclusiveness of judgment precludes the relitigation of a A: The motion to dismiss should be denied because the
particular issue in another action between the same parties parties in interest, Mariano and Henry, do not reside in the
on a different cause of action (Sec. 47[c], Rule 39). same city/municipality, or is the property subject of the
controversy situated therein. The required
Grounds conciliation/mediation before the proper Barangay as
mandated by the Local Government Code governs only when
Q: Amorsolo, a Filipino citizen permanently residing in the parties to the dispute reside in the same city or
New York City, filed with the RTC of Lipa City a Complaint municipality, and if involving real property, as in this case,
for Rescission of Contract of Sale of Land against Brigido, the property must be situated also in the same city or
a resident of Barangay San Miguel, Sto. Tomas, municipality.
Batangas. The subject property, located in Barangay
Talisay, Lipa City, has an assessed value of P19, 700.00. Q: AB, as mother and in her capacity as legal guardian of
Appended to the complaint is Amorsolos verification her legitimate minor son, CD, brought action for support
and certification of non-forum shopping executed in against EF, as father of CD and ABs lawfully wedded
New York City, duly notarized by Mr. Joseph Brown, Esq., husband. EF filed his answer denying his paternity with
a notary public in the State of New York. Brigido filed a counterclaim for damages. Subsequently, AB filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint on the following manifestation in court that in view of the denial made by
grounds: EF, it would be futile to pursue the case against EF. AB
agreed to move for the dismissal of the complaint,
a. The court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the subject to the condition that EF will withdraw his
person of Amorsolo because he is not a resident of counterclaim for damages. AB and EF filed a joint motion
the Philippines; to dismiss. The court dismissed the case with prejudice.
Later on, minor son CD, represented by AB, filed another
A: The first ground raised lacks merit because jurisdiction complaint for support against EF. EF filed a motion to
over the person of a plaintiff is acquired by the court upon dismiss on the ground of res judicata. Is res judicata a
the filing of plaintiffs complaint therewith. Residency or valid ground for dismissal of the second complaint?
citizenship is not a requirement for filing a complaint, Explain your answer. (2000 Bar)
because plaintiff thereby submits to the jurisdiction of the
court. A: No, res judicata is not a defense in an action for support
even if the first case was dismissed with prejudice on a joint
b. The RTC does not have jurisdiction over the subject motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs mother agreed to the
matter of the action involving real property with an dismissal of the complaint for support in view of the
assessed value of P19,700.00; exclusive and original defendants answer denying his paternity with counterclaim
jurisdiction is with the Municipal Trial Court where for damages. This was in the nature of a compromise of the
the defendant resides; right to support which is prohibited by law (Art, 2035, NCC;
De Asis v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127578, February 15,
A: The second ground raised is also without merit because 1999).
the subject of the litigation, Rescission of Contract, is
incapable of pecuniary estimation the exclusive original Q: A, a resident of Lingayen, Pangasinan sued X, a
jurisdiction to which is vested by law in the Regional Trial resident of San Fernando La Union in the RTC of Quezon
Courts. The nature of the action renders the assessed value City for the collection of a debt of P1 million. X did not
of the land involved irrelevant. file a motion to dismiss for improper venue but filed his
answer raising therein improper venue as an affirmative
c. The verification and certification of non-forum defense. He also filed a counterclaim for P80,000 against
shopping are fatally defective because there is no A for attorneys fees and expenses for litigation. X moved
accompanying certification issued by the Philippine for a preliminary hearing on said affirmative defense.
Consulate in New York, authenticating that Mr. For his part, A filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim
Brown is duly authorized to notarize the document. for lack of jurisdiction.
(2009 Bar)
a. Rule on the affirmative defense of improper venue.
A: The third ground raised questioning the validity of the
verification and certification of non-forum shopping for lack A: There is improper venue. The case for a sum of money,
of certification from the Philippine Consulate in New York, which was filed in Quezon City, is a personal action. It must
authenticating that Mr. Brown is duly authorized to notarize be filed in the residence of either the plaintiff, which is in
the document, is likewise without merit. The required Pangasinan, or the defendant, which is in San Fernando, La
19
REMEDIAL LAW
Union. (Sec 2, Rule 4) The fact that it was not raised in a Complaint will only be proper if the Complaint failed to allege
motion to dismiss does not matter because the rule that if the residence of the complainant or the place where the
improper venue is not raised in a motion to dismiss it is libelous article was printed and first published (Nocum v.
deemed waived was removed from the 1997 Rules of Civil Tan, G.R. No. 145022, September 23, 2005).
Procedure. The new Rules provide that if no motion to
dismiss has been filed, any of the grounds for dismissal may Q: X was driving the dump truck of Y along Cattleya
be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer (Sec 6, Street in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. Due to his negligence, X hit
Rule 16). and injured V who was crossing the street. Lawyer L, who
witnessed the incident, offered his legal services to V. V,
b. Rule on the motion to dismiss the counterclaim on who suffered physical injuries including a fractured
the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject wrist bone, underwent surgery to screw a metal plate to
matter. (1998 Bar) his wrist bone. On complaint of V, a criminal case for
Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Serious Physical
A: The motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction Injuries was filed against X before the Municipal Trial
over the subject matter should be denied. The counterclaim Court (MTC) of Sta. Maria. Atty. L, the private prosecutor,
for attorneys fees and expenses of litigation is compulsory did not reserve the filing of a separate civil action. V
counterclaim because it necessary arouse out of and is subsequently filed a complaint for Damages against X
connected with the complaint. In an original action before and Y before the Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan in
the RTC, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory Urdaneta where he resides. In his "Certification Against
regardless of the amount (Sec. 7, Rule 6). Forum Shopping," V made no mention of the pendency of
the criminal case in Sta. Maria. (2010)
Q: Co Batong, a Taipan, filed a civil action for damages
with the Regional trial Court (RTC) of Paraaque City a. Is V guilty of forum shopping?
against Jose Penduko, a news reporter of the Philippines
Times, a newspaper of general circulation printed and A: No, V is not guilty of forum shopping because the case the
published in Paraaque City. The complaint alleged, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, is a criminal action filed in the name of
among others, that Jose Penduko wrote malicious and the People of the Philippines, where civil liability arising
defamatory imputations against Co Batong; that Co from the crime is deemed also instituted therewith; whereas
Batongs business address is in Makati City; and that the the case filed in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, is a civil action for
libelous article was first printed and published in quasi-delict in the name of V and against both X and Y for all
Paraaque City. The complaint prayed that Jose damages caused by X and Y to V, which may be beyond the
Penduko be held liable to pay P200, 000.00 as moral jurisdiction of MTC. Hence, the tests of forum shopping,
damages; P150,000.00, as exemplary damages; and which is res adjudicata or litis pendencia, do not obtain here.
P50,000.00, as attorneys fees. Jose Penduko filed a Moreover, substantive law (Art. 33, NCC) and Sec. 3, Rule 111,
Motion to Dismiss on the following grounds: expressly authorize the filing such action for damages
entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action.
The RTC is without jurisdiction because under the
Totality Rule, the claim for damages in the amount of b. Instead of filing an Answer, X and Y move to dismiss
P350, 000.00 fall within the exclusive original the complaint for damages on the ground of litis
jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of pendentia. Is the motion meritorious? Explain.
Paraaque City.
A: No, the motion to dismiss base on alleged litis pendencia
The venue is improperly laid because what the is without merit because there is no identity of parties and
complaint alleged is Co Batongs business address and subject matter in the two cases. Besides, Art. 33 of the Civil
not his residence address. Code and Rule 111, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure
authorize the separate civil action for damages arising from
Are the grounds invoked in the Motion to Dismiss physical injuries to proceed independently.
proper?
c. Suppose only X was named as defendant in the
a. The RTC is without jurisdiction because under the complaint for damages, may he move for the
Totality Rule, the claim for damages in the amount of dismissal of the complaint for failure of V to implead
P350, 000.00 fall within the exclusive original Y as an indispensable party?
jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of
Paraaque City. A: No, X may not move for dismissal of the civil action for
damages on the contention that Y is an indispensable party
A: No. The gorund invoked in the Motion to Dismiss is not who should be impleaded. Y is not an indispensable party but
proper. Under Article 360 of the RPC, the civil action for only a necessary party. Besides, nonjoinder and misjoinder
damages in cases of written defamation may be filed of parties is not a ground for dismissal of actions (Sec. 11,
separately in the Regional Trial Court where the libelous Rule 3).
article was printed and first published, regardless of the
amount of damages being claimed. d. X moved for the suspension of the proceedings in the
criminal case to await the decision in the civil case.
b. The venue is improperly laid because what the For his part, Y moved for the suspension of the civil
complaint alleged is Co Batongs business address case to await the decision in the criminal case. Which
and not his residence address. (2014 Bar) of them is correct? Explain.

A: The venue is properly laid. Under the law, the venue for A: Neither of them is correct. Both substantive law (Art. 33,
the civil action involving written defamation shall be the NCC) and procedural law (Sec. 3, Rule 111) provide for the
place where the defamatory article was printed and first two actions to proceed independently of each other,
published. (Art. 360, RPC). Since the defamatory article was therefore, no suspension of action is authorized.
printed and first published in Paraaque City, the venue of
the action is properly laid. Hence, the dismissal of the
UST BAR OPERATIONS 20
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
e. Atty. L offered in the criminal case his affidavit are conducted until the RTC renders a decision in
respecting what he witnessed during the incident. favor of Mr. Avenger, what will be the remedy/
Xs lawyer wanted to cross-examine Atty. L who, remedies of Ms. Bright? (2014 Bar)
however, objected on the ground of lawyer-client
privilege. Rule on the objection. (2010 Bar) A: Ms. Bright may avail of the following remedies before the
finality of the decision:
A: The objection should be overruled. Lawyer-client
privilege is not involved here. The subject on which the 1. A motion for reconsideration (Sec, 1, Rule 37);
counsel would be examined has been made public in the 2. A motion for new trial (Sec. 1, Rule 37); and
affidavit he offered and thus, no longer privileged, aside from 3. Appeal (Rules 40, 41, 42, 43 and 45).
the fact that it is in respect of what the counsel witnessed After the finality of the Decision, Ms. Bright can avail of the
during the incident and not to the communication made by following:
the client to him or the advice he gave thereon in his
professional capacity. 1. Petition for relief (Rule 38);
2. Annulment of Judgment (Rule 47); and
Remedies 3. Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65).

Q: Mr. Avenger filed with Regional Trial Court (RTC) a DISMISSAL OF ACTIONS
complaint against Ms. Bright for annulment of deed of
sale and other documents. Ms. Bright filed a motion to Q: Ben sold a parcel of land to Del with right to
dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of cause of repurchase within one (1) year. Ben remained in
action. Mr. Avenger filed an opposition to the motion to possession of the property. When Ben failed to
dismiss. State and discuss the appropriate remedy/ repurchase the same, title was consolidated in favor of
remedies under each of the following situations: Del. Despite demand, Ben refused to vacate the land,
constraining Del to file a complaint for unlawful
a. If the RTC grants Ms. Brights motion to dismiss and detainer. In his defense, Ben averred that the case
dismisses the complaint on the ground of lack of should be dismissed because Del had never been in
cause of action, what will be the remedy/ remedies possession of the property. Is Ben correct? (2008 Bar)
of Mr. Avenger?
A: No. Ben is not correct. In an action for unlawful detainer,
A: Mr. Avenger can choose any of the following remedies: it is not required that the plaintiff be in prior physical
possession of a land subject of the action. In this action by the
1. Mr. Avenger may file a Motion for Reconsideration. If vendee a retro against a vendor a retro who refused to vacate
denied, he could file an appeal to the Court of Appeals the property even after title has been consolidated in the
under Rule 41 since a dismissal based on lack of cause of vendee, the latter, in contemplation of law, steps into the
action (under Rule 33) is appealable. shoes of the vendor and succeeds to his rights and interest
2. Mr. Avenger may file a Motion for reconsideration. If the (Pharma Industries, Inc. v. Hon. Pajarillaga, G.R. No. L-53788,
same is denied, he could file a Petition for Certiorari October 17, 1980; Maninang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
under Rule 65 because a dismissal based on failure to 121719, September 16, 1999).
state a cause of action is considered without prejudice
and therefore an interlocutory order which cannot be a PRE-TRIAL
subject of an appeal under Rule 41.
3. Mr. Avenger may file a Motion for Reconsideration if the Q: Upon termination of the pre-trial, the judge dictated
same is denied, he can simply re-file the complaint the pre-trial order in the presence of the parties and
because an Order granting a Motion to Dismiss based on their counsel, reciting what had transpired and defining
failure to state a cause of action is without prejudice to three (3) issues to be tried.
the filing of another Complaint (Section 5, Rule 16).
4. Mr. Avenger may amend his Complaint, as a matter of a. If, immediately upon receipt of his copy of the pre-
right, since a Motion to Dismiss is not a responsive trial order, plaintiffs counsel should move for its
pleading. (Irene R. Marcos-Araneta v. Court of Appeals, amendment to include a fourth (4th) triable issue
G.R. No. 154096, August 22, 2008). which he allegedly inadvertently failed to mention
when the judge dictated the order. Should the
b. If the RTC denies Ms. Brights motion to dismiss, motion to amend be granted? Reasons.
what will be her remedy/ remedies?
A: Depending on the merit of the issue sought to be brought
A: in by the amendment, the motion to amend may be granted
upon due hearing. It is a policy of the Rules of Court that
1. Ms. Bright may file a Motion for Reconsideration. If the parties should be afforded reasonable opportunity to bring
same is denied, she could file a special civil action for about a complete determination of the controversy between
certiorari under Rule 65. An Order denying a Motion to them, consistent with substantial justice. With this end in
Dismiss is interlocutory because it does not finally view, the amendment before trial may be granted to prevent
dispose of the case, and, in effect, directs the case to manifest injustice. The matter is addressed to the sound and
proceed until final adjudication by the court. Hence, a judicious discretion of the trial court.
special civil action on certiorari is the appropriate
remedy. (Section 1, Rule 41; Marmo v. Anacay, G.R. No. b. Suppose trial had already commenced and after the
182585, November 27, 2009). plaintiffs second witness had testified, the
2. Ms. Bright may file an Answer within the balance of the defendants counsel moves for the amendment of the
period from the filing of his Motion to Dismiss but not pre-trial order to include a fifth (5th) triable issue
less than five (5) days, and raise affirmative defenses vital to his clients defense. Should the motion be
therein. (Section 4 and 6, Rule 16) granted over the objection of plaintiffs
counsel? Reasons. (2009 Bar)
c. If the RTC denies Ms. Brights motion to dismiss and,
further proceedings, including trial on the merits,
21
REMEDIAL LAW
A: The motion may be denied since trial had already specified in section 1 of Rule 23, any party shall file and
commenced and two witnesses for the plaintiff had already serve upon any adverse party written interrogatories
testified. Courts are required to issue pre-trial order after the regarding material and relevant facts to be answered by
pre-trial conference has been terminated and before trial the party served (Sec. 1, Rule 25).
begins, precisely because the reason for such order is to 3. Admission by adverse party. At any time after issues
define the course of the action during the trial. Where trial have been joined, a party may file and serve upon any
had already commenced, more so the adverse party had other party a written request for the admission by the
already presented witnesses, to allow an amendment would latter of the genuineness of any material and relevant
be unfair to the party who had already presented his document or of the truth of any material and relevant
witnesses. The amendment would simply render nugatory matter of fact (Sec. 1, Rule 26).
the reason for or purpose for the pre-trial order. Sec. 7, Rule 4. Production or inspection of documents or things.
18 on pre-trial in civil action is explicit in allowing a Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor,
modification of the pre-trial order before trial begins to a court may order any party to produce and permit the
prevent manifest injustice. inspection and copying or photographing of any
designated documents, etc. or order any party to permit
Distinction between pre-trial in civil case and pre-trial entry upon designated land or property for inspecting,
in criminal case measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or
any designated relevant object or operation thereon
Q: Give three distinctions between a pre-trial in a (Sec. 1, Rule 27).
criminal case and a pre-trial in a civil case. (1997 Bar) 5. Physical and mental examination of persons. In an
action in which the mental or physical condition of a
A: Three distinctions between a pre-trial in a criminal case party is in controversy, the court in which the action is
and a pre-trial in a civil case are as follows: pending may in its discretion order him to submit to a
physical or mental examination by a physician (Sec. 1,
1. The pre-trial in a criminal case is conducted only where Rule 28).
the accused and counsel agree" (Rule 118, Sec. 1): while
the pre-trial in a civil case is mandatory (Sec. 1 of former Written interrogatories to adverse party
Rule 20; Sec. 1 of new Rule 18).
2. The pre-trial in a criminal case does not consider the Q: An heir/oppositor in a probate proceeding filed a
possibility of a compromise, which is one important motion to remove the administrator on the grounds of
aspect of the pre-trial in a civil case (Sec. 1 of former Rule neglect of duties as administrator and absence from the
20; Sec. 2 of new Rule 18). country. On his part the heir/oppositor served written
3. In a criminal case, a pre-trial agreement is required to interrogatories to the administrator preparatory to
be reduced to writing and signed by the accused and his presenting the latter as a witness. The administrator
counsel (See: Rule 118, Sec. 4); while in a civil case, the objected, insisting that the modes of discovery apply
agreement may be contained in the pre-trial order (Sec. only to ordinary civil actions, not special proceedings.
4 of former Rule 20; See 7 of new Rule 78). Rule on the matter. (2008 Bar)

INTERVENTION A: The administrators contention that the modes of


discovery apply only to ordinary civil action and not to
Q: What are the requisites for an intervention by a non- special proceedings is not correct. Section 2, Rule 72 of the
party in an action pending in court? (2000 Bar) Rules of Court provides that: In the absence of special
provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary civil actions
A: The requisites for Intervention are: shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in special
proceedings. There is no provision to the contrary that
a. Legal interest in the matter in controversy; or would preclude the application of the modes of discovery,
b. Legal interest In the success of either of the parties; or specifically Interrogatories to Parties under Rule 25 of the
c. Legal interest against both; or Rules, to probate proceedings.
d. So situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution
or other disposition of property in the custody of the Q: A tugboat owned by Speedy Port Service, Inc. (SPS)
court or of an officer thereof. sank in Manila Bay while helping tow another vessel,
e. Intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the drowning five (5) of the crew in the resulting shipwreck.
adjudication of the rights of original parties; At the maritime board inquiry, the four (4) survivors
f. Intervenors rights may not be fully protected In a testified. SPS engaged Atty. Ely to defend it against
separate proceeding (Acenas II v. Court of Appeals, G.R. potential claims and to sue the company owning the
No. 107762, August 29, 1995; Sec. 1, Rule 19). other vessel for damages to the tug. Ely obtained signed
statements from the survivors. He also interviewed
MODES OF DISCOVERY other persons, in some instance making memoranda.
The heirs of the five (5) victims filed an action for
Q: Describe briefly at least five (5) modes of discovery damages against SPS. Plaintiffs' counsel sent written
under the Rules of Court. (2000 Bar) interrogatories to Ely, asking whether statements of
witnesses were obtained; if written, copies were to be
A: Five modes of discovery under the Rules of Court are: furnished; if oral, the exact provisions were to be set
forth in detail. Ely refused to comply, arguing that the
1. Deposition. By leave of court after jurisdiction has been documents and information asked are privileged
obtained over any defendant or over property which is communication. Is the contention tenable? Explain.
the subject of the action, or without such leave after an (2008 Bar)
answer has been served, the testimony of any person,
whether a party or not, may be taken, at the instance of A: Yes, the contention of counsel for SPS is tenable
any party, by deposition upon oral examination or considering that he was acting in his professional capacity in
written interrogatories (Sec. 1, Rule 23). bringing about the statement he obtained from witnesses
2. Interrogatories to parties. Under the same conditions and the memoranda he made. The notes, memoranda, and
UST BAR OPERATIONS 22
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
writings made by counsel in pursuance of his pursuance of to give deposition pending appeal, unless allowed by
his professional duty, form part of his private and the court for good cause shown and to prevent
confidential files in the cases handled by him; hence failure of justice. (Section 6, Rule 25, Rules of Court;
privileged (Air Philippines Corp. v. Pennswell, Inc., G.R. No. Spouses Vicente Afulugencia and Leticia Afulugencia,
172835, December 13, 2007). G.R. No. 185145, February 5, 2014)

Q: In an admiralty case filed by A against Y Shipping b. Procedure:


Lines (whose principal offices are in Manila) in the RTC,
Davao City, the court issued a subpoena duces tecum 1. At any time after issues have been joined, a party
directing Y, the president of the shipping company, to may file and serve upon any party a written request
appear and testify at the trial and to bring with him for the admission by the latter of the genuineness of
several documents. any material and relevant document described in
and exhibited with the request or of the truth of any
a. On what valid ground can Y refuse to comply with material and relevant matter of fact set forth in the
the subpoena duces tecum? request. Copies of the documents shall be delivered
with the request unless copies have already been
A: Y can refuse to comply with the subpoena duces tecum on furnished. (Section 1, Rule 26, Rules of Court)
the ground that he resides more than 50 (now 100) 2. Each of the matters of which an admission is
kilometres from the place where he is to testify, (Sec. 9 of requested shall be deemed admitted unless, within
former Rule 23; Sec. 10 of New Rule 21). The witness can also a period designated in the request, which shall not
refuse to comply with the subpoena duces tecum on the be less than fifteen (15) days after service thereof,
ground that the documents are not relevant and there was or within such further time as the court may allow
no tender of fees for one days attendance and the on motion, the party to whim the request directed
kilometrage allowed by the rules. files and serves upon the party requesting the
admission a sworn statement either denying
b. How can A take the testimony of Y and present the specifically the matters of which an admission is
documents as exhibits other than through the requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why
subpoena from the RTC? (1997 Bar) he cannot truthfylly either admit or deny those
matters.
A: A can take the testimony of Y and present the documents 3. Objections to any request for admission shall be
as exhibits by taking his deposition through oral examination submitted to the court by the party requested within
or written interrogatories (Rule 24; new Rule 23). He may the period for and prior to the filing of his sworn
also file a motion for the production or inspection of statement as contemplated in the preceding
documents (Rule 27). paragraph and his compliance therewith shall be
deferred until such obligations are resolved, which
Q: resolution shall be made as early as practicable.
(Section 2, Rule 26, Rules of Court)
a. Briefly explain the procedure in Interrogatories to 4. Any admission made by a party pursuant to such
Parties under Rule 25 and state the effect of failure request is for the purpose of the pending action only
to serven written interrogatories. and shall not constitute an admission by him for any
b. Briefly explain the procedure on Admission by other purpose nor may the same be used against
Adverse Party under Rule 26 and the effect of him in any other proceeding. (Section 3, Rule 26,
failure to file and serve the request. (2016 Bar) Rules of Court)
5. Unless otherwise allowed by the court for good
A: cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice a
party who fails to file and serve a request for
a. Procedure: admission on the adverse party of material and
relevant facts at issue which are or ought to be, within
1. Any party desiring to elicit material and relevant the personal knowledge of the latter, shall not be
facts from any adverse parties shall file and serve permitted to present evidence on such facts. (Section
upon the latter written interrogatories to be 5, Rule 26, Rules of Court)
answered by the party served or, if the party served
is a public or private corporation or a partnership or Production or inspection of documents or things
association, by any officer thereof competent to
testify in its behalf. (Section 1, Rule 25, Rules of Court) Q: Continental Chemical Corporation (CCC) filed a
2. The interrogatories shall be answered fully in complaint for a sum of money against Barstow Trading
writing and shall be signed and sworn to by the Corporation (BTC) for the latters failure to pay for its
person making them. The party upon whom the purchases of industrial chemicals. In its answer, BTC
interrogatories have been served shall file and serve contended that it refused to pay because CCC
a copy of the answers on the party submitting the misrepresented that the products it sold belonged to a
interrogatories within fifteen (15) days after service new line, when in fact they were identical with CCCs
thereof, unless the court on motion and for good existing products. To substantiate its defense, BTC filed
cause shown, extends or shortens the time. (Section a motion to compel CCC to give a detailed list of the
2, Rule 25, Rules of Court) products ingredients and chemical components, relying
3. Objections to any interrogatories may be presented on the right to avail of the modes of discovery allowed
to the court within ten (10) days after service under Rule 27. CCC objected, invoking confidentiality of
thereof, with notice as in case of a motion; and the information sought by BTC. Resolve BTCs motion
answers shall be deferred until the objections are with reasons. (2009 Bar)
resolved, which shall be at as early a time as is
practicable. (Sec. 3, Rule 25, Rules of Court) A: I will deny the motion. The ingredients and chemical
4. Should a party fail to file and serve written components of CCCs products are trade secrets within the
interrogatories on an adverse party, he cannot contemplation of the law. Trade secrets may not be the
compel the latter to give testimony in open court or subject of compulsory disclosure by reason of their
23
REMEDIAL LAW
confidential and privileged character. Otherwise, CCC would dump truck that happened while the bus was travelling
eventually be exposed to unwarranted business competition on EDSA towards Makati. The foregoing facts, among
with others who may imitate and market the same kinds of others, were duly established on evidence-in-chief by
products in violation of CCCs proprietary rights. Being the plaintiff TY, sole heir of AX, in TYs action against the
privileged, the detailed list of ingredients and chemical subject common carrier for breach of contract of
components may not be the subject of mode of discovery carriage. After TY had rested his case, the common
under Rule 27, Section 1 which expressly makes privileged carrier filed a demurrer to evidence, contending that
information an exception from its coverage (Air Philippines plaintiffs evidence is insufficient because it did not
Corporation v. Pennswell, Inc., G.R. No. 172835, December 13, show (1) that defendant was negligent and (2) that such
2007). negligence was the proximate cause of the collision.
Should the court grant or deny defendants demurrer to
Q: The plaintiff sued the defendant in the RTC to collect evidence? Reason briefly. (2004 Bar)
on a promissory note, the terms of which were stated in
the complaint and a photocopy attached to the A: No. The Court should not grant defendants demurrer to
complaint as an annex. Before answering, the defendant evidence because the case is for breach of contract of
filed a motion for an order directing the plaintiff to carriage. Proof that the defendant was negligent and that
produce the original of the note so that the defendant such negligence was the proximate cause of the collision is
could inspect it and verify his signature and the not required (Arts. 1170 and 2201, NCC; Mendoza v. Phil
handwritten entries of the dates and amounts. Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. L-3678, February 29, 1952; Batangas
Transportation Co. v. Caguimbal, G.R. No. L-22985, January 24,
a. Should the judge grant the defendants motion for 1968; Abeto v. PAL, G.R. No. L-28692, July 30, 1982).
production and inspection of the original of the
promissory note? Why? Waiver of right to present evidence

A: Yes, because upon motion of any party showing good Q: Carlos filed a complaint against Pedro in the RTC of
cause, the court in which the action is pending may order any Ozamis City for the recovery of the ownership of a car.
party to produce and permit the inspection of designated Pedro filed his answer within the reglementary period.
documents (Rule 27). The defendant has the right to inspect After the pre-trial and actual trial, and after Carlos has
and verify the original of the promissory note so that he completed the presentation of his evidence, Pedro
could intelligently prepare his answer. moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground
that under the facts proven and under the law applicable
b. Assuming that an order for production and to the case, Carlos is not entitled to the ownership of the
inspection was issued but the plaintiff failed to car. The RTC granted the motion for dismissal. Carlos
comply with it, how should the defendant plead to appealed the order of dismissal and the appellate court
the alleged execution of the note? (2002 Bar) reversed the order of the trial court. Thereafter, Pedro
filed a motion with the RTC asking the latter to allow him
A: The defendant may file a motion to dismiss the complaint to present his evidence. Carlos objected to the
because of the refusal of the plaintiff to obey the order of the presentation of evidence by Pedro. Should the RTC grant
court for the production and inspection of the promissory Pedros motion to present evidence his evidence? Why?
note (Sec. 3(c), Rule 29). (2001 Bar)

Physical and mental examination of persons A: No. Pedros motion should be denied. He can no longer
present evidence. The Rules provide that if the motion for
Q: Ernie filed a petition for guardianship over the person dismissal is granted by the trial court but on appeal the order
and properties of his father, Ernesto. Upon receipt of the of dismissal is reversed, he shall be deemed to have waived
notice of hearing, Ernesto filed an opposition to the the right to present evidence (Sec. 1, Rule 33).
petition. Ernie, before the hearing of the petition, filed a
motion to order Ernesto to submit himself for mental Demurrer to evidence in a civil case versus demurrer to
and physical examination which the court granted. evidence in a criminal case

After Ernie's lawyer completed the presentation of Q: Compare the effects of denial of demurrer to evidence
evidence in support of the petition and the court's ruling in a civil case with those of a denial of demurrer to
on the formal offer of evidence, Ernesto's lawyer filed a evidence in a criminal case. (2003 Bar)
demurrer to evidence. Ernie's lawyer objected on the
ground that a demurrer to evidence is not proper in a A: In a civil case, the defendant has the right to file a
special proceeding. demurrer to evidence without leave of court. If his demurrer
is denied, he has the right to present evidence. If his
If Ernesto defies the court's order directing him to demurrer is granted and on appeal by the plaintiff, the
submit to physical and mental examinations, can the appellate court reverses the order and renders judgment for
court order his arrest? (2015 Bar) the plaintiff, the defendant loses his right to present
evidence (Rule 33).
A: If the order for the conduct of physical and mental
examination is issued as a mode of discovery and Ernesto In a criminal case, the accused has to obtain leave of court to
defies the said order, the court cannot validly order his arrest file a demurrer to evidence. If he obtains leave of court and
(Sec. 3[d], Rule 29). his demurrer to evidence is denied, he has the right to
present evidence in his defense. If his demurrer to evidence
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE is granted, he is acquitted and the prosecution cannot
appeal. If the accused does not obtain leave of court and his
Q: AX, a Makati-bound paying passenger of PBU, a public demurrer to evidence is denied, he waives his right to
utility bus, died instantly on board the bus on account of present evidence and the case is decided on the basis of the
the fatal head wounds he sustained as a result of the evidence for the prosecution. The court may also dismiss the
strong impact of the collision between the bus and a action on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence on its
UST BAR OPERATIONS 24
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
own initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity the Supreme Court in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina,
to be heard (Sec. 23, Rule 119). G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997.

Q: Ernie filed a petition for guardianship over the person Q: In a complaint for recovery of real property, the
and properties of his father, Ernesto. Upon receipt of the plaintiff averred, among others, that he is the owner of
notice of hearing, Ernesto filed an opposition to the the said property by virtue of a deed of sale executed by
petition. Ernie, before the hearing of the petition, filed a the defendant in his favour. Copy of the deed of sale was
motion to order Ernesto to submit himself for mental appended to the complaint as Annex A thereof. In his
and physical examination which the court granted. unverified answer, the defendant denied the allegation
concerning the sale of the property in question, as well
After Ernie's lawyer completed the presentation of as the appended deed of sale, for lack of knowledge or
evidence in support of the petition and the court's ruling information sufficient to form a belied as to the truth
on the formal offer of evidence, Ernesto's lawyer filed a thereof. Is it proper for the court to render judgment
demurrer to evidence. Ernie's lawyer objected on the without trial? Explain (2005 Bar)
ground that a demurrer to evidence is not proper in a
special proceeding. Was Ernie's counsel's objection A: Defendant cannot deny the sale of the property for lack of
proper? (2015 Bar) knowledge or information sufficient to form a belied as to the
truth thereof. The answer amounts to an admission. The
A: No. The Rule on demurrer to evidence is applicable in defendant must aver or state positively how it is that he is
Special Proceedings (Matute v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. ignorant of the facts alleged (Phil. Advertising Counselors, Inc.
26751, January 31, 1969). v. Revilla, G.R. No. L-31869, August 8, 1973; Sec. 10, Rule 8).
Moreover, the genuineness and due execution of the deed of
Moreover, under Section 2, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court, in sale can only be denied by the defendant under oath and
the absence of special rules, the rules provided for in failure to do so is also an admission of the deed (Sec. 8, Rule
ordinary actions shall be applicable, as far as practicable, to 8). Hence, a judgment in the pleadings can be rendered by the
special proceedings. court without need of a trial.

JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDERS Q: Plaintiff files a request for admission and serves the
same on Defendant who fails, within the time prescribed
Q: What is the difference between a judgment and an by the rules, to answer the request. Suppose the request
opinion of the court? (2006 Bar) for admission asked for the admission of the entire
material allegations stated in the complaint, what
A: The judgment or fallo is the final disposition of the court should plaintiff do? (2012 Bar)
which is reflected in the dispositive portion of the decision,
while the opinion of the court is contained in the body of the A: The plaintiff should file a Motion for Judgment on the
decision that serves as a guide or enlightenment to Pleadings because the failure of the defendant to answer a
determine the ratio decidendi of the decision. request for admission results to an implied admission of all
the matters which an admission is requested. Hence, a
Judgment on the pleadings motion for judgment on the pleadings is the appropriate
remedy where the defendant is deemed to have admitted
Q: What are the grounds for judgment on the pleadings? matters contained in the request for admission by the
(1999 Bar) plaintiff (Rule 34 in connection with Sec. 2, Rule 26).

A: The grounds for judgment on the pleadings are: (a) where Q: Plaintiff sued defendant for collection of P 1 million
an answer fails to tender an issue, or (b) otherwise admits based on the latter's promissory note. The complaint
the material allegations of the adverse partys pleading (Sec. alleges, among others:
1, Rule 34).
1. Defendant borrowed lil 1 million from plaintiff as
Q: As answer admits the material allegations of Bs evidenced by a duly executed promissory note;
Complaint. May the court motu proprio render judgment 2. The promissory note reads:
on the pleadings? Explain. (1999 Bar)
"Makati, Philippines
A: No, a motion must be filed by the adverse party (Sec. 1, Dec. 30, 2014
Rule 34). The court cannot motu proprio render judgment on
the pleadings. For value received from plaintiff,
defendant promises to pay plaintiff Ill
Q: A brought an action against her husband B for million, twelve (12) months from the
annulment of their marriage on the ground of above indicated date without necessity of
psychological incapacity, B filed his Answer to the demand.
Complaint admitting all the allegations therein
contained. May A move for judgment on the pleadings? Signed
Explain. (1999 Bar)
Defendant
A: No, because even if Bs answer to As complaint annulment
of their marriage admits all the allegations therein contained, A copy of the promissory note is attached as Annex A.
the material facts alleged in the complaint must always be
proved (Sec. 1, Rule 34). The court shall order the prosecutor Defendant, in his verified answer, alleged among others:
to investigate whether or not a collusion between the parties
exists, and if there is no collusion, to intervene for the State 1. Defendant specifically denies the allegation in
in order to see to it that the evidence submitted is not paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint, the truth being
fabricated (Sec. 3[e], Rule 9). Evidence must have to be defendant did not execute any promissory note in
presented in accordance with the requirements set down by favor of plaintiff, or

25
REMEDIAL LAW
2. Defendant has paid the Ill million claimed in the (PN) signed by Ervin. Jude signed a Surety Agreement
promissory note (Annex "A" of the Complaint) as binding herself as surety for the loan. Royal made a final
evidenced by an "Acknowledgment Receipt" duly demand on February 14, 2015 for Ervin and Jude
executed by plaintiff on January 30, 2015 in Manila (defendants) to pay, but the latter failed to pay. Royal
with his spouse signing as witness. prayed that defendants Ervin and Jude be ordered to pay
the amount of P1 million plus interests.
A copy of the "Acknowledgment Receipt" is attached as
Annex "1" hereof. In their answer, Ervin admitted that he obtained the loan
from Royal and signed the PN. Jude also admitted that
Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on she signed the Surety Agreement. Defendants pointed
the ground that defendant's answer failed to tender an out that the PN did not provide the due date for payment,
issue as the allegations therein on his defenses are sham and that the loan has not yet matured as the maturity
for being inconsistent; hence, no defense at all. date was left blank to be agreed upon by the parties at a
Defendant filed an opposition claiming his answer later date. Defendants filed a Motion for a Judgment on
tendered an issue. the Pleadings on the ground that there is no genuine
issue presented by the parties submissions. Royal
a. Is judgment on the pleadings proper? (2015 Bar) opposed the motion on the ground that the PNs maturity
is an issue that must be threshed out during trial.
A: No, the judgment on the pleadings is not proper. Judgment
on the pleading is proper only when the answer fails to a. Resolve the motion with reasons.
tender an issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations b. Distinguish Summary Judgment and Judgment on
of the adverse partys pleading (Sec. 1, Rule 34). the Pleadings.

When it appears, however, that not all the material A:


allegations of the complaint were admitted in the answer,
because some of them were either denied or disputed, and a. The motion for judgment on the pleadings should be
the defendant has set up certain special defenses which, if denied.
proven, would have the effect of nullifying plaintiffs main
cause of action, judgment on the pleadings cannot be First, judgment on the pleadings is available to the
rendered (Philippine National bank v. Aznar, G.R. No. 17105, plaintiff and not to the defendant.
May 30, 2011).
Second, judgment on the pleadings is proper only when
Clearly, since the defendants verified Answer specifically the Answer fails to tender any issue, that is, if it does not
denied the execution of the promissory note, or raised the deny the material allegations in the complaint or admits
affirmative of payment, judgment on the pleading is not said material allegations of the adverse partys pleadings
proper. by admitting the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to
deal with them at all.
Q: Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on
the ground that there are no longer any triable genuine Here, while the defendants Answer to the Complaint
issues of facts. Should the court grant defendant's practically admitted all the material allegations therein,
motion for summary judgment? (2015 Bar) it nevertheless asserts the affirmative defences that the
laon is not yet due. As issues obviuously arise from these
A: No, the court should not grant the motion for summary affirmative defences, a judgment on the pleadings is
judgment because the defense of payment is a genuine issue clearly improper in this case.
as to material fact that must be resolved by the court upon
presentation of evidence. Besides, it should be emphasized that judgement on the
pleadings is based exclusively upon the allegations
For a summary judgment to be proper, the movant must appearing in the pleadings of the parties and the
establish two requisites: (a) there must be no genuine issue annexes, if any, without consideration of any evidence
as to any material fact, except for the amount of damages; aliunde. Henceforth, when it appears that not all the
and (b) the party presenting the motion for summary material allegations of the complaint were admitted in
judgment must be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. the answer for some of them were either denied or
A genuine issue is an issue of fact which requires the disputed, and the defendant has set up certain special
presentation of evidence as distinguished from an issue defences which, if proven, would have the effect of
which is sham, fictitious, contrived or false claim. nullifyinf plaintiffs main cause of action, judgment on
the pleadings cannot be rendered. (Philippine National
Relative thereto, when the facts pleaded by the parties are Bank v. Merelo B. Aznar, G.R. No. 171805, May 30, 2011)
disputed or contested, proceedings for a summary judgment
cannot take place of a trial. The evidence on record must be b. What distinguishes a judgment on the pleadings from a
viewed in light most favourable to the party opposing the summary judgment is the presence of issues in the
motion who must be given the benefit of all favourable Answer to the Complaint. When the Answer failes to
inferences as can reasonably be drawn from the evidence tender any issue, that is, if it does not deny the material
(Smart Communications v. Aldecoa, G.R. No. 166330, allegations in the complaint or admits said material
September 11, 2013). allegations of the adverse partys pleading by admitting
the truthfulness thereof and/or omitting to deal with
Summary judgment v. Judgment on the Pleadings them at all, a judgement on the pleadings is appropriate.
On the other hand, when the Answer specifically denies
Q: Royal Bank (Royal) filed a complaint for a sum of the material averments of the complaint or asserts
money against Ervin and Jude before the RTC of Manila. affirmative defenses, or in other words raises an issue, a
The initiatory pleading averred that on February 14, summary judgment is proper provided that the issue
2010, Ervin obtained a loan from Royal in the amount of raised is not genuine. A genuine issue means an issue of
P1 million, as evidenced by Promissory Note No. 007 fac which calls for the presentation of evidence, as
UST BAR OPERATIONS 26
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
distinguished from an issue which is fictitious or Q: What are the modes of appeal to the Supreme Court?
contrived or which does not constitute a genuine issue (2002 Bar)
for trial. (Eugenio Basbas v. Beata Sayson and Roberto
Sayson Jr., G.R. No. 172660, August 24, 2011) A: The modes of appeal to the Supreme Court are: (a)
appeal by certiorari on pure questions of law under
POST-JUDGMENT REMEDIES Rule 45 through a petition for review on certiorari;
and (b) ordinary appeal in criminal cases through a
Motion for new trial or reconsideration notice of appeal from convictions imposing reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment or where a lesser penalty
Q: The RTC rendered judgment against ST, a copy of is involved but for offenses committed on the same
which was received by his counsel on February 28, 2000. occasion or which arose out of the same occurrence
On March 10, 2000, ST, through counsel, filed a motion that gave rise to the more serious offense (Sec. 3, Rule
for reconsideration of the decision with notice to the 122). Convictions imposing the death penalty are
Clerk of Court submitting the motion for the elevated through automatic review.
consideration of the court. On March 15, 2000, realizing
that the Motion lacked a notice of hearing, STs counsel Q: Distinguish the two (2) modes of appeal from the
filed a supplemental pleading. Was the Motion for judgment of the Regional Trial Court to the Court of
Reconsideration filed within the reglementary period? Appeals. (2009 Bar)
Explain. (2000 Bar)
A: In cases decided by the Regional Trial Courts in the
A: Yes, because the last day of filing a motion for exercise of their original jurisdiction, appeals to the Court of
reconsideration was March 15 if February had 28 days or Appeals shall be ordinary appeal by filing written notice of
March 16 if February had 29 days. Although the original appeal indicating the parties to the appeal; specifying the
motion for reconsideration was defective because it lacked a judgment/final order or part thereof appealed from;
notice of hearing, the defect was cured on time by its filing on specifying the court to which the appeal is being taken; and
March 15 of a supplemental hearing, provided that motion stating the material dates showing the timeliness of the
was set for hearing and served on the adverse party at least appeal. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the RTC
three (3) days before the date of hearing (Sec. 4, Rule 15). which rendered the judgment appealed from and copy
thereof shall be served upon the adverse party within 15
Matters not appealable days from notice of judgment or final order appealed from.
But if the case admits of multiple appeals or is a special
Q: What is an interlocutory order? (2006 Bar) proceeding, a record on appeal is required aside from the
written notice of appeal to perfect the appeal, in which case
A: An interlocutory order is an order which decides some the period for appeal and notice upon the adverse party is
point or matter between the commencement and end of the not only 15 days but 30 days from notice of judgment or
suit but it is not the final decision on the whole controversy. final order appealed from. The full amount of the appellate
It leaves something to be done by the court before the case court docket fee and other lawful fees required must also be
is finally decided on the merits (Metropolitan Bank &. Trust paid within the period for taking an appeal, to the clerk of
Co. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110147, April 17, 2001; the court which rendered the judgment or final order
Gallardo v. People, G.R. No. 142030, April 21, 2005). appealed from (Secs. 4 and 5, Rule 41). The periods of 15 or
30 days above-stated are non-extendible.
Q: After defendant has served and filed his answer to
plaintiffs complaint for damages before the proper RTC, In cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise
plaintiff served and filed a motion (with supporting of its appellate jurisdiction, appeal to the Court of Appeals
affidavits) for a summary judgment in his favour upon shall be by filing a verified petition for review with the Court
all of his claims. Defendant served and filed his of Appeals and furnishing the RTC and the adverse party
opposition (with supporting affidavits) to the motion. with copy thereof, within 15 days from notice of judgment
After due hearing, the court issued an order (1) stating or final order appealed from. Within the same period for
that the court has found no genuine issue as to any appeal, the docket fee and other lawful fees required with
material fact and thus concluded that plaintiff is entitled the deposit for cost should be paid. The 15-day period
to judgment in his favour as a matter of law except as to maybe extended for 15 days and another 15 days for
the amount of damages recoverable, and (2) accordingly compelling reasons.
ordering that plaintiff shall have judgment summarily
against defendant for such amount as may be found due Period of appeal
plaintiff for damages, to be ascertained by trial on
October 7, 2004, at 8:30 oclock in the morning. May Q: Defendant X received an adverse Decision of the RTC
defendant properly take an appeal from said order? Or, in an ordinary civil case on 02 January 2003. He filed a
may defendant properly challenge said order thru a Notice of Appeal on 10 January 2003. On the other hand,
special civil action for certiorari? Reason. (2004 Bar) plaintiff A received the same Decision on 06 January
2003 and, on 19 January 2003, filed a Motion for
A: No, plaintiff may not properly take an appeal from said Reconsideration of the Decision. On 13 January 2003,
order because PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENTS are defendant X filed a Motion withdrawing his notice of
interlocutory orders. There is still something to be done, appeal in order to file a Motion for New Trial which he
which is the trial for the adjudication of damages (Province attached. On January 2003, the court denied As Motion
of Pangasinan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104266, March 31, to Withdraw Notice of Appeal. Plaintiff A received the
1993; Guevarra v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-49017 and L- Order denying his Motion for Reconsideration on 03
49024, August 30, 1983). But the defendant may properly February 2003 and filed his Notice of Appeal on 05
challenge said order thru a special civil action for certiorari February 2003. The court denied due course to As
(Sec. 1 [c] and last par. Rule 41). Notice of Appeal on the ground that the period to appeal
already lapsed.
Modes of Appeal
a. Is the courts denial of Xs Motion to Withdraw Notice
of Appeal proper?
27
REMEDIAL LAW

A: No, the courts denial of Xs Motion to Withdraw Notice of a. An order of execution issued by the RTC.
Appeal is not proper, because the period of appeal of X has
not yet expired. From January 2, 2003 when X received a A: A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of
copy of the adverse decision up to January 13, 2003 when he Appeals.
filed his withdrawal of appeal and Motion for New Trial, only
ten (10) days had elapsed and he had fifteen (15) days to do b. Judgment of RTC denying a petition for Writ of
so. Amparo.

b. Is the courts denial of due course to As appeal A: Any party may appeal from the final judgment or order to
correct? (2003 Bar) the Supreme Court by way of a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The period of
A: No, the courts denial of due course to As appeal is not appeal shall be five (5) working days from the date of notice
correct because the appeal was taken on time. From January of the adverse judgment, and the appeal may raise questions
6, 2003 when A received a copy of the decision up to January of fact or law or both (Sec.19, Rule on the Writ of Amparo, A.M.
19, 2003 when he filed a Motion for Reconsideration, only No. 07-9-12-SC, September 25, 2007).
twelve (12) days had lapsed. Consequently, he had three (3)
days from receipt on February 2003 of the Order denying his c. Judgment of MTC on a land registration case based
Motion for Reconsideration within which to appeal. He filed on its delegated jurisdiction.
his notice of appeal February 5, 2003, or only two (2) days
later. A: The appeal should be filed with the Court of Appeals by
filing a Notice of Appeal within 15 days from notice of
NOTE: To standardized the appeal periods provided in the judgment or final order appealed from (Sec. 34, Batas
Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their Pambansa Blg. 129, or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of
cases, the Court deems it practical to allow a Fresh Period of 1980, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, March 25, 1994)
15 days within which to file the notice of appeal in the RTC,
counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a d. A decision of the Court of Tax Appeal's First Division.
new trial or motion for reconsideration (Neypes et.al. v. Court (2012 Bar)
of Appeals, G.R. No. 121524, September 14, 2005).
A: The decision of the Court of Tax Appeals Division may be
Q: XXX received a copy of the RTC decision on June 9, appealed to the CTA en banc. The decisions of the Court of
1999; YYY received it on the next day, June 10, 1999. XXX Tax Appeals are no longer appealable to the Court of Appeals.
filed a Notice of Appeal on June 15, 1999. The parties Under the modified appeal procedure, the decision of a
entered into a compromise on June 16, 1999. On June 13, division of the CTA may be appealed to the CTA en banc. The
1999, YYY, who did not appeal, filed with the RTC a decision of the CTA en banc may in turn be directly appealed
motion for approval of the Compromise Agreement. XXX to the Supreme Court by way of a petition for review on
changed his mind and opposed the motion on the ground certiorari under Rule 45 on questions of law (Section 11, R.A.
that the RTC has no more jurisdiction. Rule on the 9282, March 30, 2004).
motion assuming that the records have not yet been
forwarded to the CA. (1999 Bar) Q: After receiving the adverse decision rendered against
his client, the defendant, Atty. Sikat duly filed a notice of
A: The contention of XXX that the RTC has no more appeal. For his part, the plaintiff timely filed a motion for
jurisdiction over the case is not correct because at the time partial new trial to seek an increase in the monetary
that the motion to approve the compromise had been filed, damages awarded. The RTC instead rendered an
the period of appeal of YYY had not yet expired, the records amended decision further reducing the monetary
of the case had not yet been forwarded to the Court of awards. Is it necessary for Atty. Sikat to file a second
Appeals. The rules provide that in appeals by notice of notice of appeal after receiving the amended decision?
appeal, the court loses jurisdiction over the case upon the (2008 Bar)
perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration
of the time to appeal of the other parties (Sec. 9, third par., A: Yes, it is necessary for Atty. Sikat to file a second notice of
Rule 41). The rules also provide that prior to the transmittal appeal to the amended decision because a substantial change
of the record, the court may, among others, approve was made to the original decision when the monetary
compromises (Sec. 9, fifth par., Rule 41). awards were reduced in the amended decision and in effect
the amended decision superseded the original decision. A
Perfection of appeal new notice of appeal is required to comply with the required
contents thereof in respect of the amended decision (Pacific
Q: When is an appeal from the RTC to the Court of Life Assurance Corporation v. Sison, G.R. No.
Appeals deemed perfected? (1999 Bar) 122839, November 20, 1998; Magdalena Estates, Inc. v.
Caluag, G.R. No. L-16250, June 30, 1964).
A: An appeal from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of
Appeals is deemed perfected as to the appellant upon the Q: On July 15, 2009, Atty. Manananggol was served
filing of a notice of appeal in the Regional Trial Court in due copies of numerous unfavorable judgments and
time or within the reglementary period of appeal. An appeal orders. On July 29, 2009, he filed motions for
by record on appeal is deemed perfected as to the appellant reconsideration which were denied. He received the
with respect to the subject matter thereof upon the approval notices of denial of the motions for reconsideration on
of the record on appeal filed in due time (Sec. 9, Rule 4). October 2, 2009, a Friday. He immediately informed his
clients who, in turn, uniformly instructed him to
Appeal from judgments or final orders of the MTC; appeal. How, when and where should he pursue the
Appeal from judgments or final orders of the RTC; appropriate remedy for each of the following:
Appeal from judgments or final orders of the CTA

Q: Where and how will you appeal the following:


UST BAR OPERATIONS 28
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
a. Judgment of a Municipal Trial Court (MTC) pursuant
to its delegated jurisdiction dismissing his clients A: No, the Court of Appeals is not correct. The dismissal of
application for land registration? the appeal is wrong, because the execution of the RTC
judgment is only in respect of the eviction of the defendant
A: By notice of appeal, within 15 days from notice of from the leased premises. Such execution pending appeal
judgment or final order appealed from, to the Court of has no effect on the merits of the ejectment suit which still
Appeals. has to be resolved in the pending appeal. Sec. 21, Rule 70 of
the Rules provides that the RTC judgment against the
b. Judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) denying defendant shall be immediately executory, without
his clients petition for a Writ of Habeas Data? prejudice to a further appeal that may be taken therefrom
(Uy v. Santiago, G.R. No. 131237, July 31, 2000).
A: By verified petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45,
with the modification that appellant may raise questions of Q: Having obtained favorable judgment in his suit for a
fact or law or both, within 5 work days from date of notice of sum of money against Patricio, Orencio sought the
the judgment or final order to the Supreme Court (Sec. 19, issuance of a writ of execution. When the writ was
A.M. No. 08-1-16SC). issued, the sheriff levied upon a parcel of land that
Patricio owns, and a date was set for the execution sale.
c. Order of a Family Court denying his clients petition
for Habeas Corpus in relation to custody of a minor a. How may Patricio prevent the sale of the property on
child? execution?

A: By notice of appeal, within 48 hours from notice of A: Patricio may file a Petition for Relief with preliminary
judgment or final order to the Court of Appeals (Sec. 14, R.A. injunction (Rule 38), posting a bond equivalent to the value
No. 8369 in relation to Sec 3, Rule 41). of the property levied upon; or assail the levy as invalid if
ground exists. Patricio may also simply pay the amount
d. Order of the RTC denying his clients Petition for required by the writ and the costs incurred therewith.
Certiorari questioning the Metropolitan Trial
Courts (MeTCs) denial of a motion to suspend b. If Orencio is the purchaser of the property at the
criminal proceedings? execution sale, how much does he have to
pay? Explain.
A: By notice of appeal, within 15 days from notice of the final
Order, to the Court of Appeals (Magestrado v. People, G.R. No. A: Orencio, the judgment creditor should pay only the excess
148072, July 7, 2007). amount of the bid over the amount of the judgment, if the bid
exceeds the amount of the judgment.
e. Judgment of the First Division of the Court of Tax
Appeals (CTA) affirming the RTC decision convicting c. If the property is sold to a third party at the
his client for violation of the National Internal execution sale, what can Patricio do to recover the
Revenue Code? (2009 Bar) property? Explain. (2009 Bar)

A: By petition for review filed with the Court of Tax Appeals A: Patricio can exercise his right of legal redemption within
(CTA) en banc, within 30 days from receipt of the decision or 1 year from date of registration of the certificate of sale by
ruling in question (Sec. 9[b], Rule 9, Revised Rules of Court of paying the amount of the purchase price with interest of 1%
Tax Appeals). monthly, plus assessment and taxes paid by the purchaser,
with interest thereon, at the same rate.
Relief from judgments, orders and other proceedings
Preliminary injunction pending proceedings Q: A default judgment was rendered by the RTC ordering
D to pay P a sum of money. The judgment became final,
Q: Mike was renting an apartment unit in the building but D filed a petition for relief and obtained a writ of
owned by Jonathan. When Mike failed to pay six months preliminary injunction staying the enforcement of the
rent, Jonathan filed an ejectment suit. The Municipal judgment. After hearing, the RTC dismissed Ds petition,
Trial Court (MTC) rendered judgment in favor of whereupon P immediately moved for the execution of
Jonathan, who then filed a motion for the issuance of a the judgment in his favour. Should Ps motion be
writ of execution. The MTC issued the writ. granted? Why? (2002 Bar)

a. How can Mike stay the execution of the MTC A: Ps immediate motion for execution of the judgment in his
judgment? Explain. favor should be granted because the dismissal of Ds petition
for relief also dissolves the writ of preliminary injunction
A: Writ of Execution shall be issue if immediately upon staying the enforcement of the judgment, even if the
motion, unless Mike (a) perfects his appeal to the RTC, (b) dismissal is not yet final (Golez v. Leonidas, G.R. No. L-56587
files a sufficient supersedeas bond to pay the rents, damages August 31, 1981).
and costs accruing up to the time of the judgment appealed
from, and (c) deposits monthly with the RTC during the Q: After his properties were attached, defendant Porfirio
pendency of the appeal the amount of rent due from time to filed a sufficient counterbond. The trial court discharged
time (Sec. 19, Rule 70). the attachment. Nonetheless, Porfirio suffered
substantial prejudice due to the unwarranted
b. Mike appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), attachment. In the end, the trial court rendered a
which affirmed the MTC decision. Mike then filed a judgment in Porfirio's favor by ordering the plaintiff to
petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA). pay damages because the plaintiff was not entitled to the
The CA dismissed the petition on the ground that the attachment. Porfirio moved to charge the plaintiff's
sheriff had already executed the MTC decision and attachment bond. The plaintiff and his sureties opposed
had ejected Mike from the premises, thus rendering the motion, claiming that the filing of the counterbond
the appeal moot and academic. Is the CA had relieved the plaintiff's attachment bond from all
correct? Reasons. (2009 Bar)
29
REMEDIAL LAW
liability for the damages. Rule on Porfirio's motion. process (Leticia Diona v. Romeo Balange, G.R. No. 173589,
(2008 Bar) January 7, 2013). An action for annulment of judgment is a
remedy in law independent of the case where the judgment
A: Porfirios motion to charge plaintiffs attachment bond is sought to be annulled was rendered. The purpose of such
proper and can be granted. It is not correct to contend that action is to have the final and executory judgment set aside
Porfirios filing of a counterbond constitutes a waiver of his so that there will be a renewal of litigation. It is resorted to
right to proceed against the attachment bond for the in cases where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal,
damages he suffered from the unwarranted attachment. It is petition for relief from judgment, or other appropriate
a condition inter alia of the applicants attachment bond that remedies are no longer available through no fault of the
he will pay all the costs which may be adjudged to the appellant and is base on the grounds of extrinsic fraud, and
adverse party and all damages which the latter may sustain lack of jurisdiction (Aleban v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
by reason of the attachment, if the court shall finally adjudge 156021, September 23, 2005). Relative thereto, the act of Tom
that the applicant was not entitled thereto (Sec. 4, Rule 57; Wallis in deliberately keeping Debi Wallis away from the
D.M. Wenceslao and Associates, Inc. v. Readycon Trading and Court, by intentionally alleging a wrong address in the
Construction Corp., G.R. No. 154106, June 29, 2004). complaint constitutes extrinsic fraud. Moreover, the failure
Time to file the petition of the Court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
respondent, being an indispensable party, necessitates the
Q: May an order denying the probate of a will still be annulment of judgment of the Regional Trial Court. Likewise,
overturned after the period to appeal therefrom has there is denial of the right to due process when Debi Wallis
lapsed? Why? (2002 Bar) was not given an opportunity to be heard in the case. Hence,
the judgment rendered by the RTC may be annulled by the
A: Yes, an order denying the probate of a will may be Court of Appeals under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.
overturned after the period to appeal therefrom has lapsed. Moreover, it is evident that the ordinary remedies of new
A PETITION FOR RELIEF may be filed on the grounds of trial, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no
fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence within a longer available through no fault of Debi Wallis because she
period of sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the was able to obtain a copy of the Decision only three (3) years
judgment or final order and not more than six (6) months after the same was rendered by the Trial Court. At any rate,
after such judgment or final order was entered (Secs. 1 and 3, the Court erred in declaring the defendant in default because
Rule 38; Soriano v. Asi, G.R. No. L-9633, January 29, 1957). there is no default in a Petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage (Sec. 3, Rule 9). Thus, a Petition for Certiorari under
An ACTION FOR ANNULMENT may also be filed on the Rule 65 of the Rules of Court could have been an appropriate
ground of extrinsic fraud within four (4) years from its remedy within the reglementary period allowed by the
discovery, and if based on lack of jurisdiction, before it is Rules.
barred by laches or estoppel (Secs. 2 and 3, Rule 47 ).
EXECUTION, SATISFACTION AND EFFECT OF
Annulment of judgments or final orders and resolutions JUDGMENTS
Grounds of annulment
Q:
Q: What are the grounds for the annulment of a judgment
of the RTC? (1998 Bar) a. The writ of execution was returned unsatisfied. The
judgment obligee subsequently received
A: The grounds for annulment of judgment of the Regional information that a bank holds a substantial deposit
Trial Court are extrinsic fraud and lack of juris diction (Sec. belonging to the judgment obligor. If you are the
2, Rule 47). counsel of the judgment obligee, what steps would
you take to reach the deposit to satisfy the
Q: Tom Wallis filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a judgment?
petition for Declaration of Nullity of his marriage with
Debi Wallis on the ground of psychological incapacity of A: Since a writ of execution is valid for five years from its
the latter. Before filing the petition, Tom Wallis had told issuance, the sheriff should be informed and requested to
Debi Wallis that he wanted the annulment of their garnish or levy on execution the bank deposits belonging to
marriage because he was already fed up with her the judgment obligor (Sec. 9[c], Rule 39). Then the judgment
irrational and eccentric behaviour. However, in the creditor move for a court order directing the application of
petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, the such bank deposit to the satisfaction of the judgment (Sec.
correct residential address of Debi Wallis was 40, Rule 39).
deliberately not alleged and instead, the resident
address of their married son was stated. Summons was b. If the bank denies holding the deposit in the name of
served by served by substituted service at the address the judgment obligor but your client's informant is
stated in the petition. For failure to file an answer, Debi certain that the deposit belongs to the judgment
Wallis was declared in default and Tom Wallis presented obligor under an assumed name, what is your
evidence ex-parte. The RTC rendered judgment remedy to reach the deposit? (2008 Bar)
declaring the marriage null and void on the ground of
psychological incapacity of Debi Wallis. Three (3) years A: To reach the bank deposit belonging to the judgment
after the RTC judgment was rendered, Debi Wallis got obligor but under an assumed name, a motion may be filed
hold of a copy thereof and wanted to have the RTC for a court order requiring the proper bank officer to appear
judgment reversed and set aside. If you are the lawyer of in court for examination under oath as to such bank deposit,
Debi Wallis, what judicial remedy or remedies will you and subsequently move for a court order authorizing the
take? Discuss and specify the ground or grounds for said filing of an action against such bank for the recovery of the
remedy or remedies. (2014 Bar) judgment obligors deposit/interest therein and to forbid a
transfer or other disposition of such deposit/interest within
A: Debi Wallis may file a Petition for Annulment of Judgment 120 days from notice of the order (Secs. 37 and 43, Rule 39).
under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, on the grounds of lack of
jurisdiction, extrinsic fraud and denial of the right to due
UST BAR OPERATIONS 30
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
Q: A, a resident of Dagupan City, secured a favorable a. Should the court grant Neil's Motion to Dismiss?
judgment in an ejectment case against X, a resident of (2015 Bar)
Quezon City, from the MTC of Manila. The judgment,
entered on 15 June 1991, had not as yet been executed. A: No. The motion to dismiss should be denied because the
certification against forum shopping is only required in a
a. In July 1996, A decided to enforce the judgment of complaint or other initiatory pleading (Sec. 5, Rule 7; Arquiza
the MTC of Manila. What is the procedure to be v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160479, June 8, 2005). Since a
followed by A in enforcing the judgment? petition for the issuance of the writ of execution is not an
initiatory pleading, it does not require a certification against
A: A can enforce the Judgment by another action reviving the forum shopping.
judgment because it can no longer be enforced by motion as
the five-year period within which a judgment may be Q: Despite the issuance of the writ of execution directing
enforced by motion has already expired (Sec. 6, Rule 39). Neil to execute the deed of sale in favor of Aldrin, the
former obstinately refused to execute the deed. What is
b. With what court should A institute the proceedings? Aldrin's remedy? (2015 Bar)
(1997 Bar)
A: Aldrin may move for the issuance of a court order
A: A may institute the proceedings in the Regional Trial directing the execution of the Deed of Sale by some other
Court in accordance with the rules of venue because the person appointed by it.
enforcement of the judgment is a personal action incapable
of pecuniary estimation. Under Section 10, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, if a judgment
directs a party to execute a conveyance of land or personal
Q: The trial court rendered judgment ordering the property, or to deliver deeds, other documents, or to
defendant to pay the plaintiff moral and exemplary perform, any other specific act in connection therewith, and
damages. The judgment was served on the plaintiff on the party fails to comply within the time specified, the court
October 1, 2001 and on the defendant on October 5, may direct the act to be done at the cost of the disobedient
2001. On October 8, 2001, the defendant filed a notice of party by some other person appointed by the court and the
appeal from the judgment, but the following day, act when so done shall have like effect as if done by the party.
October 9, 2001, the plaintiff moved for the execution of If real or personal property is situated within the Philippines,
the judgment pending appeal. The trial court granted the the court in lieu of directing a conveyance thereof may by an
motion upon the posting by the plaintiff of a bond to order divest the title of any party and vest it in others, which
indemnify the defendant for damages it may suffer as a shall have the force and effect of a conveyance executed in
result of the execution. The court gave as a special due form of law.
reason for its order the imminent insolvency of the
defendant. Is the order of execution pending appeal The phrase some other person appointed by the court may
correct? Why? (2002 Bar) refer to the branch clerk of court, sheriff or even the Register
of Deeds, and their acts when done under such authority
A: No, because awards for moral and exemplary damages shall have the effect of having been done by Neil himself.
cannot be the subject of execution pending appeal. The
execution of any award for moral and exemplary damages is Examination of judgment obligor when judgment is
dependent on the outcome of the main case. Liabilities for unsatisfied
moral and exemplary damages, as well as the exact amounts
remain uncertain and indefinite pending resolution by the Q: The plaintiff, a Manila resident, sued the defendant, a
Court of Appeals or Supreme Court (RCPI v. Lantin, G.R. No. L- resident of Malolos Bulacan, in the RTC Manila for a
59311, January 31, 1985; International School, Inc. v. Court of sum of money. When the sheriff tried to serve the
Appeals, G.R. No. 131109, June 29, 1999). summons with a copy of the complaint on the defendant
at his Bulacan residence, the sheriff was told that the
Q: Aldrin entered into a contract to sell with Neil over a defendant had gone to Manila for business and would
parcel of land. The contract stipulated a P500,000.00 not be back until the evening of that day. So, the sheriff
down payment upon signing and the balance payable in served the summons, together with a copy of the
twelve (12) monthly installments of Pl00,000.00. Aldrin complaint, on the defendants 18 year-old daughter, who
paid the down payment and had paid three (3) monthly was a college student. For the defendants failure to
installments when he found out that Neil had sold the answer the complaint within the reglementary period,
same property to Yuri for Pl.5 million paid in cash. the trial court, on motion of the plaintiff, declared the
Aldrin sued Neil for specific performance with damages defendant in default. A month later, the trial court
with the RTC. Yuri, with leave of court, filed an answer- rendered judgment holding the defendant liable for the
in-intervention as he had already obtained a TCT in his entire amount prayed for in the complaint.
name. After trial, the court rendered judgment ordering
Aldrin to pay all the instalments due, the cancellation of a. After the judgment had become final, a writ of
Yuri's title, and Neil to execute a deed of sale in favor of execution was issued by the court. As the writ was
Aldrin. When the judgment became final and executory, returned unsatisfied, the plaintiff filed a motion for
Aldrin paid Neil all the installments but the latter an order requiring the defendant to appear before it
refused to execute the deed of sale in favor of the former. and to be examined regarding his property and
Aldrin filed a "Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of income. How should the court resolve the motion?
Execution" with proper notice of hearing. The petition
alleged, among others, that the decision had become A: The RTC-Manila should deny the motion because it is in
final and executory and he is entitled to the issuance of violation of the rule that no judgment obligor shall be
the writ of execution as a matter of right. Neil filed a required to appear before a court, for the purpose of
motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that it examination concerning his property and income, outside
lacked the required certification against forum the province or city in which such obligor resides. In this
shopping. case the judgment obligor resides in Bulacan (Sec. 36, Rule
39).

31
REMEDIAL LAW
b. Seven years after the entry of judgment, the plaintiff
filed an action for its revival. Can the defendant A: Yes, damages may be claimed by a party prejudiced by a
successfully oppose the revival of the judgment by wrongful attachment even if the judgment is adverse to him.
contending that it is null and void because the RTC- This is authorized by the Rules. A claim for damages may be
Manila did not acquire jurisdiction over his person? made on account of improper, irregular or excessive
Why? (2002 Bar) attachment, which shall be heard with notice to the adverse
party and his surety or sureties (Sec. 20, Rule 57; Javellana v.
A: Yes, because the sheriff did not exert sufficient effort to D. O. Plaza Enterprises Inc., G.R. No. L-28297, March 30, 1970).
serve summons personally on the defendant within a
reasonable time and hence the RTC-Manila did not acquire Q: May a writ of preliminary attachment be issued ex
jurisdiction over his person (Secs. 6 and 7, Rule 14; De parte? Briefly state the reason(s) for your answer. (2001
Guzman v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120941, April 18, 1997). Bar)

Enforcement and effect of foreign judgments or final A: YES, an order of attachment may be issued ex parte or
orders upon motion with notice and hearing (Sec. 2, Rule 57). The
reason why the order may be issued ex parte is that requiring
Q: Under Article 1144 of the New Civil Code, an action notice to the adverse party and a hearing would defeat the
upon a judgment must be brought within 10 years from purpose of the provisional remedy and enable the adverse
the time the right of action accrues. Is this provision party to abscond or dispose of his property before a writ of
applicable to an action filed in the Philippines to enforce attachment issues (Mindanao Savings and Loan Association,
a foreign judgment? Explain. (2005 Bar) Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 84481, April 18, 1989).

A: No. Article 1144 of the Civil Code which requires that an Q: May a preliminary injunction be issued ex parte?
action upon a judgment (though without distinction) must be Why? (2001 Bar)
brought within 10 years from the time the right of action
accrues, does not apply to an action filed in the Philippines to A: No, a writ of preliminary injunction may not be issued ex
enforce a foreign judgment. While we can say that where the parte. As provided in the Rules, no preliminary injunction
law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish, still the shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to the
law does not evidently contemplate the inclusion of foreign party or person sought to be enjoined (Sec. 5, Rule 58). The
judgments. A local judgment may be enforced by motion reason is that a preliminary injunction may cause grave and
within five years and by action within the next five years irreparable injury to the party enjoined.
(Rule 39). That is not the case with respect to foreign
judgments which cannot be enforced by mere motion. Q: Katy filed an action against Tyrone for collection of
the sum of P1 million in the RTC, with an ex-parte
PROVISIONAL REMEDIES application for a writ of preliminary attachment. Upon
posting of an attachment bond, the court granted the
Preliminary attachment application and issued a writ of preliminary attachment.
Apprehensive that Tyrone might withdraw his savings
Q: The plaintiff obtained a writ of preliminary deposit with the bank, the sheriff immediately served a
attachment upon a bond of P1 million. The writ was notice of garnishment on the bank to implement the writ
levied on the defendants property, but it was discharged of preliminary attachment. The following day, the sheriff
upon the posting by the defendant of a counterbond in proceeded to Tyrones house and served him the
the same amount of P1 million. After trial, the court summons, with copies of the complaint containing the
rendered judgment finding that the plaintiff had no application for writ of attachment, Katys affidavit, order
cause of action against the defendant and that he had of attachment, writ of preliminary attachment and
sued out the writ of attachment maliciously. attachment bond. Within fifteen (15) days from service
Accordingly, the court dismissed the complaint and of the summons, Tyrone filed a motion to dismiss and to
ordered the plaintiff and its surety to pay jointly to the dissolve the writ of preliminary attachment on the
defendant P1.5 million as actual damages, P0.5 million following grounds: (i) the court did not acquire
as moral damages and P0.5 million as exemplary jurisdiction over his person because the writ was served
damages. Evaluate the soundness of the judgment from ahead of the summons; (ii) the writ was improperly
the point of view of procedure. (2002 Bar) implemented; and (iii) said writ was improvidently
issued because the obligation in question was already
A: The judgment against the surety is not sound if due notice fully paid. Resolve the motion with reasons. (2005 Bar)
was not given to him of the applicant for damages (Sec 20,
Rule 57). Moreover, the judgment against the surety cannot A: The motion to dismiss and to dissolve the writ of
exceed the amount of its counterbond of P1 million. preliminary attachment should be denied.

Q: In a case, the property of an incompetent under 1. The fact that the writ of attachment was served ahead of
guardianship was in custodia legis. Can it be attached? the summons did not affect the jurisdiction of the court
Explain. (1999 Bar) over his person. It makes the writ, unenforceable. (Sec. 5,
Rule 57) However, all that is needed to be done is to re-
A: Although the property of an incompetent under serve the writ (Onate v. Abrogar, G.R. No. 197393,
guardianship is in custodia legis, it may be attached as in fact February 23, 1985).
it is provided that in such case, a copy of the writ of 2. The writ was improperly implemented. Serving a notice
attachment shall be filed with the proper court and notice of of garnishment, particularly before the summons is
the attachment served upon the custodian of such property served, is not proper. It should be a copy of the writ of
(Sec. 7, last par., Rule 57). attachment that should be served on the defendant, and
a notice that the bank deposits are attached pursuant to
Q: May damages be claimed by a party prejudiced by a the writ (Sec. 7[d], Rule 57).
wrongful attachment even if the judgment is adverse to 3. The writ was improvidently issued if indeed it can be
him? Explain. (1999 Bar) shown that the obligation was already fully paid. The
UST BAR OPERATIONS 32
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
writ is only ancillary to the main action (Sec. 13, Rule 57). filed, the application shall only be made in the court where
The alleged payment of the account cannot serve as a the criminal action is pending.
ground for resolving the improvident issuance of the
writ, because this matter delves into the merits of the Warrant of distraint and levy is remedy available to local
case, and requires full-blown trial. Payment, however, governments and the BIR in tax cases to satisfy deficiencies
serves as a ground for a motion to dismiss. or delinquencies in inheritance and estate taxes, and real
estate taxes. Distraint is the seizure of personal property to
Q: Distinguish attachment from garnishment. (1999 be sold in an authorized auction sale. Levy is the issuance of
Bar) a certification by the proper officer showing the name of the
taxpayer and the tax, fee, charge or penalty due him. Levy is
A: Attachment and garnishment are distinguished from each made by writing upon said certificate the description of the
other as follows: Attachment is a provisional remedy that property upon which levy is made.
effects a levy on property of a party as security for the
satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered, while Q: A sues B for collection of a sum of money. Alleging
garnishment is a levy on debts due the judgment obligor or fraud in the contracting of the loan, A applies for
defendant and other credits, including bank deposits, preliminary attachment with the court. The Court issues
royalties and other personal property not capable of manual the preliminary attachment after A files a bond. While
delivery under a writ of execution or a writ of attachment. summons on B was yet unserved, the sheriff attached B's
properties. Afterwards, summons was duly served on B.
Q: Briefly discuss/differentiate the following kinds of B moves to lift the attachment. Rule on this. (2012 Bar)
Attachment: preliminary attachment, garnishment, levy
on execution, warrant of seizure and warrant of A: I will grant the motion since no levy on attachment
distraint and levy. (2012 Bar) pursuant to the writ shall be enforced unless it is preceded
or contemporaneously accompanied by service of summons.
A: Preliminary attachment is a provisional remedy under There must the prior or contemporaneous service of
Rule 57 of the Rules of Court. It may be sought at the summons with the writ of attachment (Sec. 5, Rule 57).
commencement of an action or at any time before entry of
judgment where property of an adverse party may be Q: Bayani, an overseas worker based in Dubai, issued in
attached as security for satisfaction of any judgment, where favor of Agente, a special power of attorney to sell his
this adverse party is about to depart from the Philippines, house and lot. Agente was able to sell the property but
where he has intent to defraud or has committed fraud, or is failed to remit the proceeds to Bayani, as agreed upon.
not found in the Philippines. An affidavit and a bond is On his return to the Philippines, Bayani, by way of a
required before the preliminary attachment issues. It is demand letter duly received by Agente sought to recover
discharged upon payment of a counter bond. the amount due him. Agente failed to return the amount
as he had used it for the construction of his own house.
Garnishment is a manner of satisfying or executing judgment Thus, Bayani filed an action against Agente for sum of
where the sheriff may levy debts, credits, royalties, money with damages. Bayani subsequently filed an ex-
commissions, bank deposits and other personal property not parte motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
capable of manual delivery that are in the control or attachment duly supported by an affidavit. The court
possession of third persons and are due the judgment granted the ex-parte motion and issued a writ of
obligor. Notice shall be served on third parties. The third preliminary attachment upon Bayanis posting of the
party garnishee must make a written report on whether or required bond. Bayani prayed that the courts sheriff be
not the judgment obligor has sufficient funds or credits to deputized to serve and implement the writ of
satisfy the amount of the judgment. If not, the report shall attachment. On November 19, 2013, the Sheriff served
state how much funds or credits the garnishee holds for the upon Agente the writ of attachment and Agente levied on
judgment obligor (Section 9[c], Rule 39). the latters house and lot. On November 20, 2013, the
Sheriff served upon Agente summons and a copy of the
Levy on execution is a manner of satisfying or executing complaint. On November 22, 2013, Agente filed an
judgment where the sheriff may sell property of the Answer with Motion to Discharge the Writ if Attachment
judgment obligor if he is unable to pay all or part of the alleging that at the time the writ of preliminary
obligation in cash, certified bank check or any other manner attachment was issued, he has not been served with
acceptable to the obligee. If the obligor does not chose which summons and, therefore, it was improperly issued.
among his property may be sold, the sheriff shall sell (2014)
personal property first and then real property second. He
must sell only so much of the personal or real property as is a. Is Agente correct?
sufficient to satisfy judgment and other lawful fees (Sec. 9 [b],
Rule 39). A: No. Agente is not correct. Section 2, Rule 57 provides that
a writ of attachment may be issued ex parte or upon motion
Warrant of seizure is normally applied for with a search with notice and hearing by the Court in which the action is
warrant, in criminal cases. The warrant of seizure must pending. Under the Rules, the applicant of the writ is only
particularly describe the things to be seized. While it is true required to (i) submit an affidavit and (ii) post a bond before
that the property to be seized under a warrant must be the court can validly issue the writ of attachment. The Rules
particularly described therein and no other property can be do not require prior service of summons for the proper
taken thereunder, yet the description is required to be issuance of a writ of attachment. (Sofia Torres v. Nicanor
specific only insofar as the circumstances will ordinarily Satsatin, G.R. No. 166759, November 25, 2009). Accordingly,
allow. An application for search and seizure warrant shall be the issuance of the writ of attachment is valid
filed with the following: (a) Any court within whose notwithstanding the absence of a prior service of summons
territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed; (b) For to Agnete.
compelling reasons stated in the application, any court
within the judicial region where the crime was committed if b. Was the writ of preliminary attachment properly
the place of the commission of the crime is known, or any executed? (2014 Bar)
court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be
enforced. However, if the criminal action has already been
33
REMEDIAL LAW
A: No. The writ of preliminary attachment was not properly A: The filing of an appropriate criminal action cognizable by
executed. Although a writ of attachment may issue even the RTC against Dina and the filing in said criminal action a
before summons is served upon the defendant, the same, Motion for the issuance of a Hold Departure Order; (2)
however, may not bind and affect the defendant until thereafter, a written request with the Commissioner of the
jurisdiction over his person is obtained (Davao Light and Bureau of Immigration for a Watch List Order pending the
Power Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93262 December issuance of the Hold Departure Order should be filed; (3)
29, 1991). Thus, the writ of preliminary attachment must then, the airline company should be requested to cancel the
only be served simultaneous or at least after the service of ticket issued to Dina.
summons to the defendant (Sofia Torres v, Nicanor Satsatin,
G.R. No. 166759, November 25, 2009). b. Suppose an Information is filed against Dina on
Preliminary Injunction August 12, 2008 and she is immediately arrested.
What pieces of electronic evidence will Dante have
Q: Define a temporary restraining order (TRO). to secure in order to prove the fraudulent online
Differentiate a TRO from a status quo order. (2006 Bar) transaction? (2010 Bar)

A: A temporary restraining order is issued upon application A: He will have to present (a) his report to the bank that he
of a party and upon the posting of the required bond. On the lost his credit card; (b) that the ticket was purchased after
other hand, a status quo order maybe issued motu proprio on the report of the lost add; and (c) the purchase of one-way
equitable considerations, and does not require the posting of ticket.
a bond. Unlike a temporary restraining order or a
preliminary injunction, a status quo order is more in the Dante should bring an original (or an equivalent copy)
nature of a cease and desist order, since it neither directs the printout of: 1)the online ticket purchase using his credit
doing or undoing of acts as in the case of prohibitory or card; 2) the phone call log to show that he already alerted the
mandatory injunctive relief (Garcia v. Mojica, G.R. No. credit card company of his loss; and 3) his credit card billing
139043. September 10, 1999). statement-bearing the online ticket transaction.

Q: What are the requisites for the issuance of (a) a writ Q: Can a suit for injunction be aptly filed with the
of preliminary injunction; and (b) a final writ of Supreme Court to stop the president of the Philippines
injunction? (2006 Bar) from entering into a peace agreement with the National
Democratic Front? (2003 Bar)
A: A: The requisites for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction are: (1) a right in esse or a clear and unmistakable A: A suit for injunction cannot aptly be filed with the
right to be protected; (2) a violation of that right; (3) that Supreme Court to stop the President of the Philippines from
there is an urgent and permanent act and urgent necessity entering into a peace agreement with the National
for the writ to prevent serious damage (Tayag v. Lacson, G.R. Democratic Front, which is a purely political question
No. 134971, March 25, 2004). (Madarang v. Santamaria, G.R. No. L-13316, December 11,
1917). The President of the Philippines is immune from suit.
A final writ of injunction may be granted if after trial of the
action, it appears that the applicant is entitled to have the Q: May the RTC issue injunction without bond? (2006
act or acts complained of permanently enjoined (Sec. 9, Rule Bar)
58).
A: Yes, if the injunction issued is a final injunction. Generally,
Q: Distinguish between injunction as an ancillary however, a preliminary injunction may not be issued
remedy and injunction as a main action. (2006 Bar) without the posting of a bond, unless exempted by the trial
court (Sec. 4 [b], Rule 58) or otherwise provided for by law.
A: Injunction as an ancillary remedy presupposes the
existence of a principal or a main action (Vallangca v. Court Q: An application for a writ of preliminary injunction
of Appeals, G.R. No. 55336, May 4, 1989). Its main function is with a prayer for a temporary restraining order is
to preserve the status quo until the merits can be heard and included in a complaint and filed in a multi-sala RTC
resolved (Urbanes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117964, March consisting of Branches 1, 2, 3 and 4. Being urgent in
28, 2001). nature, the Executive Judge, who was sitting in Branch 1,
upon the filing of the aforesaid application immediately
On the other hand, an injunction as the main action is raffled the case in the presence of the judges of Branches
brought specifically to obtain a judgment perpetually 2, 3 and 4. The case was raffled to Branch 4 and judge
restraining or commanding the performance of an act after thereof immediately issued a temporary restraining
trial (Del Mar v. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 138298, November 29, order. Is the temporary restraining order valid? Why?
2000). (2001, 2006 Bar)

Q: While window-shopping at the mall on August 4, A: No. It is only the Executive Judge who can issue
2008, Dante lost his organizer including his credit card immediately a temporary restraining order effective only for
and billing statement. Two days later, upon reporting seventy-two (72) hours from issuance. No other Judge has
the matter to the credit card company, he learned that a the right or power to issue a temporary restraining order ex
one-way airplane ticket was purchased online using his parte. The Judge to whom the case is assigned will then
credit card for a flight to Milan in mid- August 2008. conduct a summary hearing to determine whether the
Upon extensive inquiry with the airline company, Dante temporary restraining order shall be extended, but in no case
discovered that the plane ticket was under the name of beyond 20 days, including the original 72-hour period (Sec.
one Dina Meril. Dante approaches you for legal advice. 5, Rule 58).

a. What is the proper procedure to prevent Dina from Q: May a justice of a Division of the Court of Appeals issue
leaving the Philippines? a TRO? (2006 Bar)

A: Yes, a Justice of a Division of the Court of Appeals may


UST BAR OPERATIONS 34
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
issue a TRO, as authorized under Rule 58 and by Section 5, Q: Distinguish error of jurisdiction from error of
Rule VI of the Internal Rules of Court of Appeals which judgment. (2012 Bar)
additionally requires that the action shall be submitted on
the next working day to the absent members of the division A: An error of judgment is one which the court may commit
for their ratification, modification or recall (Heirs of the late in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Such an error does not
Justice Jose B.L. Reyes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 135180-81; deprive the court of jurisdiction and is correctible only by
135425-26, August 16, 2000). appeal; whereas an error of jurisdiction is one which the
court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction. Such an
Receivership error renders an order or judgment void or voidable and is
correctible by the special civil action of certiorari (Dela Cruz
Q: Joaquin filed a complaint against Jose for the v. Moir, G.R. No. L-12256, February 6, 1917; Cochingyan v.
foreclosure of a mortgage of a furniture factory with a Cloribel, G.R. No. 27070-71, April 22, 1977; Fortich v. Corona,
large number of machinery and equipment. During the G.R. No. 131457, April 24, 1998; Artistica Ceramica, Inc. v.
pendency of the foreclosure suit, Joaquin learned from Ciudad Del Carmen Homeowner's Association, Inc., G.R. Nos.
reliable sources that Jose was quietly and gradually 167583-84, June 16, 2010).
disposing of some of his machinery and equipment to a
businessman friend who was also engaged in furniture Q: Compare the certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme
manufacturing such that from confirmed reports Court under the Constitution with that under Rule 65 of
Joaquin gathered, the machinery and equipment left the Rules of Civil Procedure. (2008 Bar)
with Jose were no longer sufficient to answer for the
latters mortgage indebtedness. In the meantime, A: Under the Constitution, the certiorari jurisdiction of the
judgment was rendered by the court in favor of Joaquin Supreme Court provides for its expanded jurisdiction power
but the same is not yet final. Knowing what Jose has been of judicial power over [governs] all branches or
doing. If you were Joaquins lawyer, what action would instrumentalities of the government where there is a grave
you take to preserve whatever remaining machinery abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
and equipment are left with Jose? Why? (2001 Bar) jurisdiction, as [agencies and instrumentalities] provided in
Section 1, second par., Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
A: To preserve whatever remaining machinery and The petition is filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, and
equipment are left with Jose, Joaquin's lawyer should file a the writ is directed not only to tribunal, board or officer
verified application for the appointment by the court of one exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions and the period
or more receivers. The Rules provide that receivership is fixed for availing of the remedy is within 30 days from
proper in an action by the mortgagee for the foreclosure of a receipt of the copy of the decision, order ruling in question
mortgage when it appears that the property is in danger of (Sec. 7, Art. IX, 1987 Constitution).
being wasted or dissipated or materially injured and that its
value is probably insufficient to discharge the mortgage debt But under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the certiorari
(Sec. 1 [b], Rule 59). jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is limited to acts done
without or in excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
Replevin discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, by a
tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
Q: What is replevin? (1999 Bar) functions only. And the period fixed for availing of the
remedy is not later than 60 days from notice of judgment;
A: Replevin or delivery of personal property consists in the order or resolution in question (Secs. 1 and 4, Rule 65).
delivery, by order of the court, of personal property by the
defendant to the plaintiff, upon the filing of a bond (Calo v. Q: AB mortgaged his property to CD. AB failed to pay his
Roldan, G.R. No. L-252, March 30, 1946). obligation and CD filed an action for foreclosure of
mortgage. After trial, the court issued an Order granting
Support pendente lite CDs prayer for foreclosure of mortgage and ordering AB
to pay CD the full amount of the mortgage debt including
Q: Before the RTC, A was charged with rape of his 16- interest and other charges not later than 120 days from
year old daughter. During the pendency of the case, the date of receipt of the Order. AB received the Order on
daughter gave birth to a child allegedly as a consequence August 10, 1999. No other proceeding took place
of the rape. Thereafter, she asked the accused to support thereafter. On December 20, 1999, AB tendered the full
the child, and when he refused, the former filed a amount adjudged by the court to CD but the latter
petition for support pendente lite. The accused, refused to accept it on the ground that the money was
however, insists that he cannot be made to give such tendered beyond the 120-day period granted by the
support arguing that there is as yet no finding as to his court. AB filed a motion in the same court praying that
guilt. Would you agree with the trial court if it denied the CD be directed to receive the amount tendered by him on
application for support pendent lite? Explain. (1999, the ground that the Order does not comply with the
2001) provisions of Section 2, Rule 68 of the Rules of Court
which give AB 120 day from entry of judgment, and not
A: No. The provisional remedy of support pendente lite may from date of receipt of the Order. The court denied his
be granted by the RTC in the criminal action for rape. In motion on the ground that Order had already become
criminal actions where the civil liability includes support for final and can no longer be amended to conform with
the offspring as a consequence of the crine and the civil Section 2, Rule 68. Aggrieved, AB files a petition for
aspect thereof has not been waived, reserved or instituted certiorari against the Court and CD. Will the petition for
prior to its filing, the accused may be ordered to provide certiorari prosper? Explain. (2000 Bar)
support pendente lite to the child born to the offended party
allegedly because of the crime. (Sec. 6, Rule 61, Rules of Court) A: Yes. The court erred in issuing an Order granting CDs
prayer for foreclosure of mortgage and ordering AB to pay
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS CD the full amount of the mortgage and ordering AB to pay
CD the full amount of the mortgage debt including interest
Certiorari, prohibition and mandamus and other charges not later than 120 days from receipt of the
Order. The court should have rendered a judgment which is
35
REMEDIAL LAW
appealable. Since no appeal was taken, the judgment became Appeals to the Supreme Court against any tribunal, board or
final on August 25, 1999, which is the date of entry of officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions raising
judgment (Sec. 2, Rule 36). Hence, AB had up to December 24, the issue of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
1999 within which to pay the amount due (Sec. 2, Rule 68). discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, there
The court gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or being no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy
excess of jurisdiction in denying ABs motion praying that CD in the ordinary course of law.
be directed to receive the amount tendered.
c. As a mode of review of the decisions of the National
Q: The defendant was declared in default in the RTC for Labor Relations Commission and the Constitutional
his failure to file an answer to a complaint for a sum of Commissions. (2006 Bar)
money. On the basis of the plaintiffs ex parte
presentation of evidence, judgment by default was A: The mode of review of the decision of the NLRC is via a
rendered against the defendant. The default judgment special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, but pursuant
was served on the defendant on October 1, 2001. On to the hierarchy of the courts enunciated in the case of St.
October 10, 2001, he files a verified motion to lift the Martins Funeral Homes v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866, September
order of default and to set aside the judgment. In his 16, 1998, the same should be filed in the Court of Appeals.
motion, the defendant alleged that, immediately upon
receipt of the summons, he saw the plaintiff and The mode of review of the decisions of two Constitutional
confronted him with his receipt evidencing his payment Commissions, the Commission on Elections and the
and the at the plaintiff assured him that he would Commission on Audit, as provided under Rule 64 is a special
instruct his lawyer to withdraw the complaint. The trial civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. Decisions of the Civil
court denied the defendants motion because it was not Service Commission, however, are reviewable by petition
accompanied by an affidavit of merit. The defendant for review to be filed with the Court of Appeals under Rule
filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 43.
challenging the denial order.
Q: Differentiate certiorari as an original action from
a. Is certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy? certiorari as a mode of appeal. (1998, 1999 Bar)
Why?
A: Certiorari as an original action and certiorari as a mode
A: YES. The petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed by the of appeal may be distinguished as follows:
defendant is the proper remedy because appeal is not a plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. a. The first is a special civil action under Rule 65, while the
In appeal, the defendant in default can only question the second is an appeal to the Supreme Court from the
decision in the light of the evidence of the plaintiff. The Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and the Regional Trial
defendant cannot invoke the receipt to prove payment of his Court under Rule 45.
obligation to the plaintiff. b. The first can be filed only on the grounds of lack or
excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion
b. Did the trial court abuse its discretion or act without tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction, while the
or in excess of its jurisdiction in denying the second is based on the errors of law of the lower court.
defendants motion to lift the order of default c. The first should be filed within sixty (60) days from
judgement? Why? (2002 Bar) notice of the judgment, order or resolution sought to be
assailed (Sec. 4, Rule 65). while the second should be
A: Yes, the trial court gravely abused its discretion or acted filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the
without or in excess of jurisdiction in denying the judgment or final order or resolution appealed from, or
defendants motion because it was not accompanied by a of the denial of the petitioners motion for new trial or
separate affidavit of merit. In his verified motion to lift the reconsideration filed in due time after notice of the
order of default and to set aside the judgment, the defendant judgment (Sec. 2, Rule 45).
alleged that immediately upon the receipt of the summons, d. The first cannot generally be availed of as a substitute
he saw the plaintiff and confronted him with his receipt for a lost appeal under Rules 40. 41, 42, 43 and 45.
showing payment and that the plaintiff assured him that he e. Under the first, the lower court is impleaded as a party
would instruct his lawyer to withdraw the complaint. Since respondent (Sec. 5, Rule 65), while under the second, the
the good defense of the defendant was already incorporated lower court is not impleaded (Sec. 4, Rule of 45).
in the verified motion, there was no need for a separate
affidavit of merit (Capuz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112795, Q: May the aggrieved party file a petition for certiorari in
June 27, 1994; Mago v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. the Supreme Court under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of
115624, February 25, 1999). Civil Procedure, instead of filing a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 thereof for the nullification of a
Q: Explain each mode of Certiorari: decision of the Court of Appeals in the exercise either of
its original or appellate jurisdiction? Explain. (1999,
a. As a mode of appeal from the Regional Trial Court or 2005 Bar)
the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.
A: To NULLIFY A DECISION of the Court of Appeals the
A: A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is a mode aggrieved party should file a PETITION FOR REVIEW ON
of appeal on pure questions law from a judgment or final CERTIORARI in the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the
order or resolution of the Regional Court or the Court of Rules of Court instead of filing a petition for certiorari under
Appeals to the Supreme Court. Rule 65 except under very exceptional circumstances. A long
line of Supreme Court decisions, too numerous to mention,
b. As special civil action from the Regional Trial Court holds that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. It
or the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. should be noted, however, when the Court of Appeals
imposes the death penalty, or a lesser penalty for offenses
A: A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, is an committed on such occasion, appeal by petition for review or
original action from the Regional Trial Court or the Court of ordinary appeal. In cases when the Court of Appeals imposes
UST BAR OPERATIONS 36
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser penalty, 2015 while the private prosecutor received his copy on
appeal is by notice of appeal filed with the Court of Appeals. October 26, 2015.

Q: After an information for rape was filed in the RTC, the a. What is the remedy available to the prosecution
DOJ Secretary, acting on the accused's petition for from the court's order granting Jaime's motion for
review, reversed the investigating prosecutor's finding new trial?
of probable cause. Upon order of the DOJ Secretary, the
trial prosecutor filed a Motion to Withdraw Information A: The remedy of the prosecution is to file a petition for
which the judge granted. The order of the judge stated certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, because the
only the following: denial of a motion for reconsideration is merely an
interlocutory order and there is no plain, speedy and
"Based on the review by the DOJ Secretary of adequate remedy under the course of law.
the findings of the investigating prosecutor
during the preliminary investigation, the Be that as it may, it may be argued that appeal is the
Court agrees that there is no sufficient appropriate remedy from an order denying a motion for
evidence against the accused to sustain the reconsideration of an order granting a motion for new trial
allegation in the information. The motion to because an order denying a motion for reconsideration was
withdraw Information is, therefore, granted." already removed in the enumeration of matters that cannot
be a subject of an appeal under Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules
If you were the private prosecutor, what should you do? of Court.
Explain. (2003, 2012 Bar)
b. In what court and within what period should a
A: If I were the private prosecutor, I would file a petition for remedy be availed of?
certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (Cerezo v.
People, GR No.185230, June 1, 2011). It is well-settled that A: Following the principle of judicial hierarchy, the petition
when the trial court is confronted with a motion to withdraw for certiorari should be filed before the Court of Appeals
an Information (on the ground of lack of probable cause to within sixty (60) days from receipt of the copy of the order
hold the accused for trial based on a resolution of the DOJ of denial of the public prosecutors motion for
Secretary), the trial court has the duty to make an reconsideration, or on October 20, 2015.
independent assessment of the merits of the motion. It may
either agree or disagree with the recommendation of the c. Who should pursue the remedy? (2015 Bar)
Secretary. Reliance alone on the resolution of the Secretary
would be an abdication of the trial courts duty and A: The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) should pursue the
jurisdiction to determine a prima facie case. The court must remedy. In criminal proceedings on appeal in the Court of
itself be convinced that there is indeed no sufficient evidence Appeals or in the Supreme Court, the authority to represent
against the accused. Otherwise, the judge acted with grave the people is vested solely in the Solicitor General. Under
abuse of discretion if he grants the Motion to Withdraw Presidential decree No. 4478 among the specific powers and
Information by the trial prosecutor (Harold Tamargo v. functions of the OSG is to represent the government in the
Romulo Awingan et. al. G.R. No. 177727, January 19, 2010). Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal
proceedings. This provision has been carried over to the
Q: After plaintiff in an ordinary civil action before the Revised Administrative Code particularly in Book IV, Title III,
RTC, ZZ has completed presentation of his evidence, Chapter 12 thereof. Without doubt, the OSG is the appellate
defendant without prior leave of court moved for counsel of the People of the Philippines in all criminal cases
dismissal of plaintiffs complaint for insufficiency of (Cario v. de Castro, G.R. No. 176084, April 30, 2008).
plaintiffs evidence. After due hearing of the motion and
the opposition thereto, the court issued an order, Q: The Ombudsman found probable cause to charge with
reading as follows: The Court hereby grants defendants plunder the provincial governor, vice governor,
motion to dismiss and accordingly orders the dismissal treasurer, budget officer, and accountant. An
of plaintiffs complaint, with the costs taxed against him. Information for plunder was filed with the
It is so ordered. Is the order of dismissal valid? May Sandiganbayan against the provincial officials except for
plaintiff properly take an appeal? Reason. (2004 Bar) the treasurer who was granted immunity when he
agreed to cooperate with the Ombudsman in the
A: The order or decision is void because it does not state prosecution of the case. Immediately, the governor filed
findings of fact and of law, as required by Section 14, Article with the Sandiganbayan a petition for certiorari against
VIII of the Constitution and Sec. 1, Rule 36. Being void, appeal the Ombudsman claiming there was grave abuse of
is not available. The proper remedy is certiorari under Rule discretion in excluding the treasurer from the
65. Information.

Q: Jaime was convicted for murder by the Regional Trial a. Was the remedy taken by the governor correct?
Court of Davao City in a decision promulgated on
September 30, 2015. On October 5, 2015, Jaime filed a A: No, the remedy taken by the Governor is not correct. The
Motion for New Trial on the ground that errors of law petition for certiorari is a remedy that is only available when
and irregularities prejudicial to his rights were there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy under the
committed during his trial. On October 7, 2015, the ordinary course of law; hence, the Governor should have
private prosecutor, with the conformity of the public filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
prosecutor, filed an Opposition to Jaime's motion. On
October 9, 2015, the court granted Jaime's motion. On Besides, there is no showing that the Ombudsman
October 12, 2015, the public prosecutor filed a motion committed grave abuse of discretion in granting immunity to
for reconsideration. The court issued an Order dated the treasurer who agreed to cooperate in the prosecution of
October 16, 2015 denying the public prosecutor's the case.
motion for reconsideration. The public prosecutor
received his copy of the order of denial on October 20,

37
REMEDIAL LAW
b. Will the writ of mandamus lie to compel the
Ombudsman to include the treasurer in the A: No, the petition for mandamus is not an appropriate
Information? (2015 Bar) remedy because it is not available to enforce a contractual
obligation. Mandamus is directed only to ministerial acts,
A: No, Mandamus will not lie to compel the Ombudsman to directing or commanding a person to do a legal duty
include the treasurer in the Information. In matters involving (COMELEC v. Quijano-Padilla, G.R. No. 152992, September 18,
exercise of judgment and discretion, mandamus may only be 2002; Sec. 3, Rule 65).
resorted to in order to compel respondent tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or person to take action, but it Q: A files a Complaint against B for recovery of title and
cannot be used to direct the manner or particular way possession of land situated in Makati with the RTC of
discretion is to be exercised, or to compel the retraction or Pasig. B files a Motion to Dismiss for improper venue.
reversal of an action already taken in the exercise of The RTC Pasig Judge denies B's Motion to Dismiss, which
judgment or discretion (Ampatuan, Jr. v. Secretary De Lima, obviously was incorrect. Alleging that the RTC Judge
G.R. No. 197291, April 3, 2013). "unlawfully neglected the performance of an act which
the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an
Evidently, the Ombudsmans act of granting the treasurer office," A files a Petition for Mandamus against the judge.
immunity from prosecution under such terms and Will Mandamus lie? Reasons. (2012 Bar)
conditions as it may determine (Sec. 17, R.A. 6770) is a
discretionary duty that may not be compelled by the A: No, mandamus will not lie. The proper remedy is a
extraordinary writ of mandamus. petition for prohibition (Serena v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No.
162059, January 22, 2008). The dismissal of the case based on
Mandamus improper venue is not a ministerial duty. Mandamus does not
lie to compel the performance of a discretionary duty (Nilo
Q: Petitioner Fabian was appointed Election Registrar of Paloma v. Danilo Mora, G.R. No. 157783, September 23, 2005).
the Municipality of Sevilla supposedly to replace the Quo Warranto
respondent Election Registrar Pablo who was
transferred to another municipality without his consent Q: A group of businessmen formed an association in
and who refused to accept his aforesaid transfer, much Cebu City calling itself Cars C to distribute/ sell cars in
less to vacate his position in Bogo Town as election said city. It did not incorporate itself under the law nor
registrar, as in fact he continued to occupy his aforesaid did it have any government permit or license to conduct
position and exercise his functions thereto. Petitioner its business as such. The Solicitor General filed before a
Fabian then filed a petition for mandamus against Pablo RTC in Manila a verified petition for quo warranto
but the trial court dismissed Fabians petition questioning and seeking to stop the operations of Cars
contending that quo warranto is the proper remedy. Is Co. The latter filed a motion to dismiss the petition on
the court correct in its ruling? Why? (2001 Bar) the ground of improper venue claiming that its main
office and operation are in Cebu City and not in Manila.
A: Yes, the court is correct in its ruling. Mandamus will not Is the contention of Cars Co. correct? Why? (2001 Bar)
lie. This remedy applies only where petitioners right is
founded clearly in law, not when it is doubtful. Pablo was A: No. As expressly provided in the Rules, when the Solicitor
transferred without his consent which is tantamount to General commences the action for quo warranto, it may be
removal without cause, contrary to the fundamental brought in a RTC in the city of Manila, as in this case, in the
guarantee on non-removal except for cause. Considering that Court of Appeals or in the Supreme Court (Sec. 7, Rule 66).
Pedro continued to occupy the disputed position and
exercised his functions therein, the proper remedy is quo Expropriation
warranto, not mandamus (Garces v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
114795, July 17, 1996). Q: May Congress enact a law providing that a 5,000
square meter lot, a part of the UST compound in
Q: In 1996, Congress passed Republic Act No. 8189, Sampaloc Manila, be expropriated for the construction
otherwise known as the Voters Registration Act of 1996, of a park in honor of former City Mayor Arsenio Lacson?
providing for computerization of elections. Pursuant As compensation to UST, the City of Manila shall deliver
thereto, the COMELEC approved the Voters Registration its 5-hectare lot in Sta. Rosa, Laguna originally intended
and Identification System (VRIS) Project. It issued as a residential subdivision for the Manila City Hall
invitations to pre-qualify and bid for the project. After employees. Explain (2006 Bar)
the public bidding, Fotokina was declared the winning
bidder with a bid of P6 billion and was issued a Notice of A: Yes, Congress may enact a law expropriating property
Award. But COMELEC Chairman Gener Go objected to the provided that it is for public use and with just compensation.
award on the ground that under the appropriations Act, In this case, the construction of a park is for public use (See:
the budget for the COMELECs modernization is only P1 Sena v. Manila Railroad Co, G.R. No. 15915, September 7, 1921;
billion. He announced to the public that the VRIS project Reyes v. NHA, G.R. No. 147511, March 24, 2003). The planned
has been set aside. Two Commissioners sided with compensation, however, is not legally tenable as the
Chairman Go, but the majority voted to uphold the determination of just compensation is a judicial function. No
contract. Meanwhile, Fotokina filed with the RTC a statute, decree or executive order can mandate that the
petition for mandamus to compel the COMELEC to determination of just compensation by the executive or
implement the contract. The Office of the Solicitor legislative departments can prevail over the courts findings
General (OSG), representing Chairman Go, opposed the (Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay, G.R. No. L-59603,
petition on the ground that mandamus does not lie to April 29, 1987; Secs. 5 to 8 Rule 67). In addition, compensation
enforce contractual obligations. During the proceedings, must be paid in money (Esteban v. Onorio, AM No. 00-4-166-
the majority Commissioners filed a manifestation that RTC, June 29, 2001).
Chairman Go was not authorized by the COMELEC En
Banc to oppose the petition. Is a petition for mandamus Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage
an appropriate remedy to enforce contractual
obligations? (1999, 2006 Bar) Q:
UST BAR OPERATIONS 38
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
Velasquez, G.R. No. 203949, Apr. 6, 2016) Ergo, it is a
a. Is the buyer in the auction sale arising from an extra- ministerial duty of the court to issue a writ of possession
judicial foreclosure entitled to a writ of possession in favour of the transferee of the auction buyer.
even before the expiration of the redemption
period? If so, what is the action to be taken? Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
b. After the period of redemption has lapsed and the
title to the lot is consolidated in the name of the Q: A borrowed from the Development Bank of the
auction buyer, is he entitled to the writ of possession Philippines (DBP) the amount of P1 million secured by
as a matter of right? If so, what is the action to be the titled land of his friend B who, however, did not
take? assume personal liability for the loan. A defaulted and
c. Suppose that after the title to the lot has been DBP filed an action for judicial foreclosure of the real
consolidated in the name of the acution buyer, said estate mortgage impleading A and B as defendants. In
buyer sold the lot to a third party without first due course, the court rendered judgment directing A to
getting a writ of possession. Can the transferee pay the outstanding account of P1.5 million (principal
exercise the right of the auction buyer and claim that plus interest) to the bank. No appeal was taken by A on
it is a ministerial duty of the court to issue a writ of the Decision within the reglementary period. A failed to
possession in his favour? Briefly explain. (2016 Bar) pay the judgment debt within the period specified in the
decision. Consequently, the court ordered the
A: foreclosure sale of the mortgaged land. In that
foreclosure sale, the land was sold to the DPB for P1.2
a. Yes, the buyer in the auction sale is entitled to a writ of million. The sale was subsequently confirmed by the
possession even before the expiration of the redemption court, and the confirmation of the sale was registered
period upon the filing of the ex parte petition for with the Registry of Deeds on 05 January 2002. On 10
issuance of a writ of possession and posting of the January 2003, the bank filed an ex parte motion with the
appropriate bond. Under section 7 of Act No. 3135, as court for the issuance of a writ of possession to oust B
amended, the writ of possession may be issued to the from the land. It also filed a deficiency claim for P800,
purchaser in a foreclosure sale either within the one- 000.00 against A and B. The deficiency claim was
year redemption period upon the filing of a bond, or opposed by A and B.
after the lapse of the redemption period, without need of
a bond. (LZK Holdings and Development Corporation v. a. Resolve the motion for the issuance of a writ of
Planters Development Bank, G.R. No. 167998, April 27, possession.
2007) Stated otherwise, Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as
amended, also refers to a situation wherein the A: In judicial foreclosure of banks such as DBP, the
purchaser seeks possession of the foreclosed property mortgagor of debtor whose real property has been sold on
during the 12-month period for redemption. Hence, foreclosure has the right to redeem the property sold within
upon the purchasers filing of the ex parte petition and one year after the date (or registration of the sale). However,
posting of the appropriate bond, the RTC shall, as a the purchaser at the auction sale has the right to obtain a writ
matter of course, order the issuance of the writ of of possession after the finality of the order confirming the
possession in favour of the purchaser. (Spouses Nicasio sale (Sec. 3, Rule 68; Sec. 47, RA 8791 The General Banking
C. Marquez and Anita J. Marquez v. Spouses Carlito Law of 2000). The motion for writ of possession, however,
Alindog and Carmen Alindog, G.R. No. 184045, January 22, cannot be filed ex parte. There must be a notice of hearing.
2014; Spouses Jose Gatuslao and Ermila Gatuslao v. Leo
Ray Yanson, G.R. No. 191540, January 21, 2015) b. Resolve the deficiency claim of the bank. (2003 Bar)
b. Yes, the auction buyer is entitled to a writ of possession
as a matter of right. It is settled that the buyer in a A: The deficiency claim of the bank may be enforced against
foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the the mortgage debtor A, but it cannot be enforced against B,
property purchased if it is not redeemed within a period the owner of the mortgaged property, who did not assume
of one year after the registration of the certificate of sale. personal liability for the loan.
He is, therefore, entitled to the possession of the
property and can demand it at any time following the Ejectment
consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuane
to him of a new transfer certificate of title. In such a case, Q: On 10 January 1990, X leased the warehouse of A
the bond required in Section 7 of Act No. 3135 is no under a lease contract with a period of 5 years. On 08
longer necessary. Possession of the land then becomes June 1996, A filed an unlawful detainer case against X
an absolute right of the purchases as confirmed owner. without a prior demand for X to vacate the premises.
Upon proper application and proof of title, the issuance
of the writ of possession becomes a ministerial duty of a. Can X contest his ejectment on the ground that there
the court. (LZK Holdings and Development Corporation v. was no prior demand for him to vacate the
Planters Development Bank, G.R. No. 167998, April 27, premises?
2007; Sps. Marquez v. Sps. Alindog, G.R. No. 184045,
January 22, 2014; Sps. Gatuslao v. Leo Ray Yanson, G.R. No. A: Yes. X can contest his ejectment on the ground that there
191540, January 21, 2015) was no prior demand to vacate the premise (Sec. 2, Rule 70;
c. Yes, the transferee can exercise the right of the auction Casilan v. Tomassi, G.R. No. L-16574, February 28, 1964;
buyer. A transferee or successor-in-interest of the Lesaca v. Cuevas, G.R. No. L-48419, October 27, 1983).
auction buyer by virtue of the contract of sale between
them, is considered to have stepped into the shoes of the b. In case the Municipal Trial Court renders judgment
auction buyer. As such, the transferee is necessarily in favor of A, is the judgment immediately
entitled to avail of the provisions of Sec. 7 of Act 3135, as executory? (1997 Bar)
amended, as if he is the auction buyer. (Sps. Gatuslao v.
Yanson, ibid.) When the lot purchased at a foreclosure A: Yes, because the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court
slae is in turn sold or transferred, the right to the against the defendant X is immediately executory upon
possession thereof, along with all other rights of motion unless an appeal has been perfected, a supersedeas
ownership, transfers to its new owner. (Sps. Gallent v. bond has been filed and the periodic deposits of current
39
REMEDIAL LAW
rentals, if any, as determined by the judgment will be made the defendant deprived him of such possession by means of
with the appellate court (Sec 19 ,Rule 70). force, intimidation, threats, strategy, or stealth.

Unlawful Detainer However, before instituting the said action, I will first
endeavor to amicably settle the controversy with the
Q: In an action for unlawful detainer in the Municipal informal settlers before the appropriate Lupon or Barangay
Trial Court (MTC), defendant X raised in his Answer the Chairman. If there is no agreement reached after mediation
defense that plaintiff A is not the real owner of the house and conciliation under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law,
subject of the suit. X filed a counterclaim against A for I will secure a certificate to file action and file the complaint
the collection of a debt of P80, 000 plus accrued interest for ejectment before the MTC of Tagaytay City where the
of P15,000 and attorneys fees of P20,000. property is located since ejectment suit is a real action
regardless of the value of the property to be recovered or
a. Is Xs defense tenable claim for unpaid rentals (BP 129 and Sec. 1, Rule 4).

A: NO. Xs defense is not tenable if the action is filed by a In the aforementioned complaint, I will allege that Spouses
lessor against a lessee. However, if the right of possession of Juan had prior physical possession and that the
the plaintiff depends on his ownership then the defense is dispossession was due to force, intimidation and stealth. The
tenable. complaint will likewise show that the action was commenced
within a period of one (1) year from unlawful deprivation of
b. Does the MTC have jurisdiction over the possession, and that Spouses Juan is entitled to restitution of
counterclaim? (1998 Bar) possession together with damages and costs.

A: The counterclaim is within the jurisdiction of the Q: BB files a complaint for ejectment in the MTC on the
Municipal Trial Court which does not exceed P100,000, ground of non-payment of rentals against JJ. After two
because the principal demand is P80,000, exclusive of days, JJ files in the RTC a complaint against BB for
interest and attorneys fees (Sec 33, B.P. Blg. 129, as specific performance to enforce the option to purchases
amended). However, inasmuch as all actions of forcible entry the land subject of the ejectment case. What is the effect
and unlawful detainer are subject to summary procedure of JJs action on BBs complaint? Explain. (2000 Bar)
and since the counterclaim is only permissive, it cannot be
entertained by the Municipal Trial Court (Sec. 1, Revised Rule A: There is no effect. The ejectment case involves possession
on Summary Procedure). de facto only. The action to enforce the option to purchase
will not suspend the action of ejectment for non-payment or
Q: The spouses Juan reside in Quezon City. With their rentals (Willmon Auto Supply Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
lottery winnings, they purchased a parcel of land in No. 97637, April 10, 1992).
Tagaytay City for P100, 000.00. In a recent trip to their
Tagaytay property, they were surprised to see hastily Q: Landlord, a resident of Quezon City, entered into a
assembled shelters of light materials occupied by lease contract with Tenant, a resident of Marikina City,
several families of informal settlers who were not there over a residential house in Las Pinas City. The lease
when they last visited the property three (3) months contract provided, among others, for a monthly rental of
ago. P25, 000.00, plus ten percent (10%) interest rate in case
of non-payment on its due date. Subsequently, Landlord
To rid the spouses Tagaytay property of these informal migrated to the United States of America (USA) but
settlers, briefly discuss the legal remedy you, as their granted in favor of his sister Maria, a special power of
counsel, would use; the steps you would take; the court attorney to manage the property and file and defend
where you would file your remedy if the need arises; and suits over the property rented out to Tenant. Tenant
the reason/s for your actions. (2013 Bar) failed to pay the rentals due for five (5) months. Maria
asks your legal advice on how she can expeditiously
A: As counsel of spouses Juan, I will file a special civil action collect from Tenant the unpaid rentals plus interests
for Forcible Entry. The Rules of Court provides that a person due.
deprived of the possession of any land or building by force,
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth may at any time a. What judicial remedy would you recommend to
within (one) 1 year after such withholding of possession Maria?
bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court where the
property is located. This action which is summary in nature A: I will advise Maria to immediately send a letter to the
seeks to recover the possession of the property from the tenant demanding the immediate payment of the unpaid
defendant which was illegally withheld by the latter (Sec. 1, rentals plus interests due. If the tenant refuses, Maria can
Rule 70). avail any of the following remedies:

An ejectment case is designed to restore, through summary 1. A complaint under A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC or the Rules of
proceedings, the physical possession of any land or building Procedure for Small claims cases. Maria should
to one who has been illegally deprived of such possession, nonetheless waive the amount in excess of P100,000 in
without prejudice to the settlement of the parties opposing order for her to avail of the remedy under the said Rules.
claims of juridical possession in appropriate proceedings 2. A complaint for collection of sum of money under the
(Heirs of Agapatio T. Olarte and Angela A. Olarte et al. v. Office Rules on Summary Procedure, since Maria is only
of the President of the Philippines et al., G.R. No. 177995, June claiming the unpaid rentals and interest due from
15, 2011). tenant.
3. If the tenant refuses or is unable to pay the rentals within
In Abad v. Farrales, G.R. No. 178635, April 11, 2011, the 1 year from the last demand to vacate and pay, I would
Supreme Court held that two allegations are indispensable in advise Maria to file an action for Unlawful Detainer.
actions for forcible entry to enable first level courts to
acquire jurisdiction over them: first, that the plaintiff had b. Where is the proper venue of the judicial remedy
prior physical possession of the property; and, second, that which you recommended?
UST BAR OPERATIONS 40
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
Q: Roxanne, a widow, filed a petition for habeas corpus
A: with the Court of Appeals against Major Amor who is
allegedly detaining her 18 year old son Bong without
1. If Maria decides to file a complaint for collection of sum authority of law. After Amor had filed a return alleging
of money under the Rules of Summary Procedure or the cause of detention of Bong, the Court of Appeals
Small Claims, the venue is the residence of the plaintiff promulgated a resolution remanding the case to the RTC
or defendant, at the election if the plaintiff (Sec. 2, Rule for a full blown trial due to the conflicting facts
4). Hence it may be in Quezon City or Marikina City, at presented by the parties in their pleadings. In directing
the option of Maria. the remand, the Court of Appeals relied on Sec. 9(1) in
2. If Maria files an action for Unlawful detainer, the same relation to Sec. 21 of BP 129 conferring upon said Court
shall be commenced and tried in the Municipal Trial the authority to try and decide habeas corpus cases
Court of the municipality or city wherein the real concurrently with the RTCs. Did the Court of Appeals act
property involved, or a portion thereof is situated (Sec. correctly in remanding the petition to the RTC? Why?
1, Rule 4). Therefore, the venue is Las Pinas City. (1993 Bar)

c. If Maria insists on filing an ejectment suit against A: No, because while the CA has original jurisdiction over
Tenant, when do you reckon the one (1)-year period habeas corpus concurrent with the RTCs, it has no authority
within which to file the action? (2014 Bar) for remanding to the latter original actions filed with the
former. On the contrary, the CA is specifically given the
A: The reckoning point for determining the one-year period power to receive evidence and perform any and all acts
within which to file the action is the receipt if the last demand necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling
to vacate and pay (Sec. 2, Rule 70). within its original jurisdiction.

Q: Mr. Sheriff attempts to enforce a Writ of Execution When not proper/ applicable
against X, a tenant in a condominium unit, who lost in an
ejectment case. X does not want to budge and refuses to Q: A was arrested on the strength of a warrant of arrest
leave. Y, the winning party, moves that X be declared in issued by the RTC in connection with an Information for
contempt and after hearing, the court held X guilty of Homicide. W, the live-in partner of A filed a petition for
indirect contempt. If you were Xs lawyer, what would habeas corpus against As jailer and police investigators
you do? Why? (2012 Bar) with the Court of Appeals.

A: If I were Xs lawyer, I would file a petition for certiorari a. Does W have the personality to file the petition for
under Rule 65. The judge should not have acted on Ys habeas corpus?
motion to declare X in contempt. The charge of indirect
contempt is intiated through a verified petition (Sec. 4, Rule A: YES. W, the live in partner of A, has the personality to file
71). The writ was not directed to X but to the sheriff which the petition for habeas corpus because it may be filed by
was directed to deliver the property to Y. As the writ did not some person in his behalf (Sec 3, Rule 102).
command the judgment debtor to do anything, he cannot be
guilty of the facts described in Rule 71 which is b. Is the petition tenable? (1998 Bar)
disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process,
order, judgment, or command of any court. The proper A: No, the petition is not tenable because the warrant of
procedure is for the sheriff to oust X availing of the assistance arrest was issued by a court which had jurisdiction to issue
of peace officers pursuant to Section 10(c) of Rule 39 (Lipa v. it (Sec. 4 Rule 102).
Tutaan, L-16643, September 29, 1983; Medina v. Garces, L-
25923, July 15, 1980; Pascua v. Heirs of Segundo Simeon, G.R. Q: Widow A and her two children, both girls, aged 8 and
No. L-47717, May 2, 1988; Patagan et. al. v. Panis, G.R. No. 12 years old, reside in Angeles City, Pampanga. A leaves
55630, April 8, 1988). her two daughters in their house at night because she
works in a brothel as a prostitute. Realizing the danger
Contempt to the morals of these two girls, B the father of the
deceased husband of A, files a petition for habeas corpus
Q: A filed a complaint for the recovery of ownership of against A for the custody of the girls in the Family Court
land against B who was represented by her counsel X. in in Angeles City. In said petition, B alleges that he is
the course of the trial, B died. However, X failed to notify entitled to the custody of the two girls in the Family
the court of Bs death. The court proceeded to hear the Court in Angeles City. In said petition, B alleges that he is
case and rendered judgment against B. After the entitled to the custody of the two girls because their
Judgment became final, a writ of execution was issued mother is living a disgraceful life. The court issues the
against C, who being Bs sole heir, acquired the property. writ of habeas corpus. When A learns of the petition and
Did the failure of counsel X to inform the court of Bs the writ, she brings her two children to Cebu City. At the
death constitute direct contempt? (1998 Bar) expense of B the sheriff of the said Family Court goes to
Cebu City and serves the writ on A. A files her comment
A: No. It is not direct contempt under Sec. 1 of Rule 71, but it on the petition raising the following defenses:
is an indirect contempt within the purview of Sec. 3 of Rule
71. The lawyer can also be subject of disciplinary action (Sec. a. The enforcement of the writ of habeas corpus in Cebu
16, Rule 3). City is illegal; and

A: The writ of habeas corpus issued by the Family Court in


SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS Angeles City may not be legally enforced in Cebu City,
because the writ is enforceable only within the judicial
region to which the Family Court belongs, unlike the writ
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS granted by the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals which is
enforceable anywhere in the Philippines (Sec. 20 of Rule of
Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to

41
REMEDIAL LAW
Custody of Minors [AM No. 03-04-04-SC]; see also: Sec 4 Rule no longer locate her son. In his comment, Carlo alleged
102, Rules of Court). that the petition was erroneously filed in the Court of
Appeals as the same should have been filed in the Family
b. B has no personality to institute the petition. Resolve Court of Baguio City which, under Republic Act No. 8369,
the petition in the light of the above defenses of A. has exclusive jurisdiction, over the petition. Marietta
(2003 Bar) replied that under Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, as
amended, the petition may be filed in the Court of
A: B, the father of the deceased husband of A, has the Appeals and if granted, the writ of habeas corpus shall be
personality to institute the petition for habeas corpus of the enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. Whose
two minor girls, because the grandparent has the right of contention is correct? Explain. (2005 Bar)
custody as against the mother A who is a prostitute (Sec. 2
and 13, Id). A: Marietta's contention is correct. The Court of Appeals has
concurrent jurisdiction with the family courts and the
Q: Hercules was walking near a police station when a Supreme Court in petitions for habeas corpus where the
police officer signalled for him to approach. As soon as custody of minors is at issue, notwithstanding the provision
Hercules came near, the police officer frisked him but in the Family Courts Act (RA 8369) that family courts have
the latter found no contraband. The police officer told exclusive jurisdiction in such cases (Thornton v. Thornton,
Hercules to get inside the police station. Inside the police G.R. No. 154598, August 16, 2004).
station, Hercules asked the police officer, "Sir, may
problema po ba?" Instead of replying, the police officer Sec. 20, par. 6 of SC AM No. 03-04-04 [2003] provides: "the
locked up Hercules inside the police station jail. What is petition may likewise be filed with the Supreme Court, Court
the remedy available to Hercules to secure his of Appeals, or with any of its members and, if so granted; the
immediate release from detention? (2015 Bar) writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. The
writ may be made returnable to a Family Court or to any
A: The remedy available to Hercules is to file a petition for regular court within the region where the petitioner resides
habeas corpus questioning the illegality of his warrantless or where the minor may be found for hearing and decision
arrest. The writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of on the merits."
illegal confinement or detention by which any person is
deprived of liberty (Sec. 1, Rule 102). WRIT OF AMPARO
(A.M. NO. 07-9-12-SC)
Distinguish from writ of amparo and habeas data
Q: Marinella is a junior officer of the Armed Forces of the
Q: What is the writ of amparo? How is it distinguished Philippines who claims to have personally witnessed the
from the writ of habeas corpus? (2009 Bar) malversation of funds given by US authorities in
connection with the Balikatan exercises. Marinella
A: The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to alleges that as a result of her expos, there are
any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated operatives within the military who are out to kill her.
or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission She files a petition for the issuance of a writ of amparo
of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or against, among others, the Chief of Staff but without
entity. The writ shall cover extra-legal killings and enforced alleging that the latter ordered that she be killed. Atty.
disappearances or threats thereof. Daro, counsel for the Chief of Staff, moves for the
dismissal of the Petition for failure to allege that his
The writ of amparo differs from a writ of habeas corpus in client issued any order to kill or harm Marinella. Rule on
that the latter writ is availed of as a remedy against cases of Atty. Daros motion. Explain. (2010 Bar)
unlawful confinement or detention by which any person is
deprived of his liberty, or cases by which rightful custody of A: The motion to dismiss must be denied on the ground that
any person is withheld from another who is lawfully entitled it is a prohibited pleading under Section 11(a) of the Rule on
thereto (Sec 1, Rule 102). the Writ of Amparo. Moreover, said Rule does not require the
petition therefor to allege a complete detail of the actual or
Q: What is the writ of habeas data? (2009 Bar) threatened violation of the victims rights. It is sufficient that
there be an allegation of real threat against petitioners life,
A: The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any liberty and/or security (Gen. A. Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis, G.R. No.
person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is 182498, December 03, 2009).
violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity Q: The residents of Mt. Ahohoy, headed by Masigasig,
engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or formed a nongovernmental organization - Alyansa
information regarding the person, family, home and Laban sa Minahan sa Ahohoy (ALMA) to protest the
correspondence of the aggrieved party. mining operations of Oro Negro Mining in the mountain.
ALMA members picketed daily at the entrance of the
Rules on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in mining site blocking the ingress and egress of trucks and
relation to Custody of Minors (A.M. No. 03-04-04-SC) equipment of Oro Negro, hampering its operations.
Masigasig had an altercation with Mapusok arising from
Q: While Marietta was in her place of work in Makati City, the complaint of the mining engineer of Oro Negro that
her estranged husband Carlo barged into her house in one of their trucks was destroyed by ALMA members.
Paranaque City, abducted their six-year old son, Mapusok is the leader of the Association of Peace
Percival, and brought the child to his hometown in Keepers of Ahohoy (APKA), a civilian volunteer
Baguio City. Despite Mariettas pleas, Carlo refused to organization serving as auxiliary force of the local police
return their child. Marietta, through counsel, filed a to maintain peace and order in the area. Subsequently,
petition for habeas corpus against Carlo in the Court of Masigasig disappeared. Mayumi, the wife of Masigasig,
Appeals in Manila to compel him to produce their son, and the members of ALMA searched for Masigasig, but all
before the court and for her to regain custody. She their efforts proved futile. Mapagmatyag, a member of
alleged in the petition that despite her efforts, she could ALMA, learned from Maingay, a member of APKA, during
UST BAR OPERATIONS 42
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
their binge drinking that Masigasig was abducted by from transferring her on the ground that the companys
other members of APKA, on order of Mapusok. Mayumi refusal to provide her with a copy of the investigation
and ALMA sought the assistance of the local police to results compromises her right to life, liberty and
search for Masigasig, but they refused to extend their privacy. Resolve the petition. Explain. (2010 Bar)
cooperation. Immediately, Mayumi filed with the RTC, a
petition for the issuance of the writ of amparo against A: Azenith petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data
Mapusok and APKA. ALMA also filed a petition for the must be dismissed as there is no showing that her right to
issuance of the writ of amparo with the Court of Appeals privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by
against Mapusok and APKA. Respondents Mapusok and an unlawful act or omission. Neither was the company
APKA, in their Return filed with the RTC, raised among shown to be engaged in the gathering, collecting nor, storing
their defenses that they are not agents of the State; of data or information regarding the person, family, home
hence, cannot be impleaded as respondents in an and correspondence of the aggrieved party (Sec. 1, Rule on
amparo petition. the Writ of Habeas Data).

a. Is their defense tenable?


CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
A: No. The defense is not tenable. The writ of amparo is a
remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty
and security has been violated or is threatened with violation GENERAL MATTERS
by an unlawful act or omission of a public officer or employee
or of a private individual or entity. The writ covers extra- Q: A was charge before the Sandiganbayan with a crime
legal killings, enforced disappearances or threats thereof of plunder, a non-bailable offense, where the court had
(Sec. 1, The Rule on the Writ of Amparo, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC). already issued a warrant for his arrest. Without A being
arrested, his lawyer filed a Motion to Quash Arrest
Moreover, the rules do not require that the respondents Warrant and to Fix Bail, arguing that the allegations in
should be agents of the State in order to be impleaded as the information did not charge the crime of plunder but
respondents in an amparo petition (Secretary of National a crime of malversation, a bailable offense. The court
Defense v. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, October 7, 2008). denied the motion on the ground that it had not yet
acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused and
b. Respondents Mapusok and APKA, in their Return that the accused should be under the custody of the court
filed with the Court of Appeals, raised as their since the crime charged was non-bailable. The accuseds
defense that the petition should be dismissed on the lawyer counter- argued that the court can rule on the
ground that ALMA cannot file the petition because of motion even if the accused was at-large because it had
the earlier petition filed by Mayumi with the RTC. jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case.
Are respondents correct in raising their defense? According to said lawyer, there was no need for the
accused to be under the custody of the court because
A: Yes. The respondents are correct in raising the defense. what was filed was a Motion to Quash Arrest and to Fix
Under section 2(c) of the Rules on the Writ of Amparo, the Bail not a Petition for Bail.
filing of a petition by Mayumi who is an immediate member
of the family of the aggrieved party already suspends the a. If you are the Sandiganbayan, how will you rule on
right of all other authorized parties to file similar petitions. the motion?
Hence, ALMA cannot file the petition because of earlier
petition by Mayumi with the RTC. A: I will grant the Motion to quash the warrant of arrest but
I will deny the Motion to fix bail. A motion to fix bail is
c. Mayumi later filed separate criminal and civil essentially an application for bail (People v. Bucalon, G.R. No.
actions against Mapusok. How will the cases affect 176933, October 2, 2009). Relative thereto, bail is the security
the amparo petition she earlier filed? (2015 Bar) for the release of the person in the custody of the law (Sec. 1,
Rule 114). The Rules use the word custody to signify that
A: When a criminal action and separate civil action are filed bail is only available for someone who is under the custody
subsequent to a petition for a writ of amparo, the latter shall of the law (Peter Paul Dimatulac v. Hon. Sesinando Villon, G.R.
be consolidated with the criminal action. After consolidation, No. 127107, October 12, 1998). Hence, A cannot seek any
the procedure under Rules shall continue to apply to the judicial relief if he does not submit his person to the
disposition of the reliefs in the petition (Sec. 1, Id.). jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

WRIT OF HABEAS DATA On the other hand, the Sandiganbayan may grant the Motion
(A.M. NO. 08-1-16-SC) to quash the warrant of arrest. It is well settled that
adjudication of a motion to quash a warrant of arrest
Q: Azenith, the cashier of Temptation Investments, Inc. requires neither jurisdiction over the person of the accused
(Temptation, Inc.) with principal offices in Cebu City, is nor custody of law over the body of the accused. Otherwise
equally hated and loved by her co-employees because stated, an accused can invoke the processes of the court even
she extends cash advances or "sales" to her colleagues custody of the law (Jose C. Miranda v. Virgilio M. Tuliao, G.R.
whom she likes. One morning, Azenith discovers an No. 158763, March 31, 2006). Thus, Sandiganbayan may grant
anonymous letter inserted under the door of her office the Motion to quash the warrant of arrest.
threatening to kill her. Azenith promptly reports the
matter to her superior Joshua, who thereupon conducts b. If the Sandiganbayan denies the motion, what
an internal investigation to verify the said threat. judicial remedy should the accused undertake?
Claiming that the threat is real, Temptation, Inc. opts to (2014 Bar)
transfer Azenith to its Palawan Office, a move she resists
in view of the companys refusal to disclose the results of A: The accused may file a Motion for Reconsideration. If the
its investigation. Decrying the move as a virtual same is denied, the accused may resort to a Petition for
deprivation of her employment, Azenith files a petition Certiorari under Rule 65 directly to the Supreme Court.
for the issuance of a writ of habeas data before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) to enjoin Temptation, Inc.
43
REMEDIAL LAW
Q: Governor Pedro Mario of Tarlac was charged with Finality of a judgment cannot operate to divest a court of its
indirect bribery before the Sandiganbayan for accepting jurisdiction. The court retains an interest in seeing the
a car in exchange of the award of a series of contracts for proper execution and implementation of its judgments, and
medical supplies. The Sandiganbayan, after going over to that extent, may issue such orders necessary and
the information, found the same to be valid and ordered appropriate for these purposes (Echegaray v. Secretary of
the suspension of Mario. The latter contested the Justice, G.R. No. 13205, January 19, 1999).
suspension claiming that under the law (Sec. 13 of RA
3019) his suspension is not automatic upon filing the b. What remedy/remedies should the counsel of
information and his suspension under Sec. 13 of RA 3019 Mariano take to secure his proper and most
is in conflict with Sec. 5 of the Decentralization Act of expeditious release from the National Penitentiary?
1967 (RA 5185). The Sandiganbayan overruled Marios Explain. (2005 Bar)
contention stating that Marios suspension under the
circumstances is mandatory. Is the courts ruling A: To secure the proper and most expeditious release of
correct? Why? (2001 Bar) Mariano from the National Penitentiary, his counsel should
file: (a) a petition for habeas corpus for the illegal
A: Yes. Marios suspension is mandatory although not confinement of Mariano (Rule 102), or (b) a motion in court
automatic (Sec. 13 of RA No 3019 in relation to Sec. 5 of which convicted him, to nullify the execution of his sentence
Decentralization Act of 1967 or RA No. 5185). It is mandatory or the order of his commitment on the ground that a
after the determination of the validity of the information in a supervening development had occurred (Melo v People, G.R.
pre-suspension hearing (Segovia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. No. L-3580, March 22, 1950) despite the finality of the
124067, March 27, 1998). The purpose of suspension is to judgment.
prevent the accused public officer from frustrating or
hampering his prosecution by intimidating or influencing When injunction may be issued to restrain criminal
witnesses or tampering with evidence or from committing prosecution
further acts if malfeasance while in office.
Q: Will the injunction lie to restrain the commencement
JURISDICTION OF CRIMINAL COURTS of a criminal action? Explain. (1999 Bar)

Q: Jose, Alberto and Romeo were charged with murder. A: As a general rule, injunction will not lie to restrain a
Upon filing of the information, the RTC judge issued the criminal prosecution except:
warrants for their arrest. Learning of the issuance of the
warrants, the three accused jointly filed a motion for 1. To afford adequate protection to the constitutional
reinvestigation and for the recall of the warrants of rights of the accused;
arrest. On the date set for hearing of their motion, none 2. When necessary for the orderly administration of
of the accused showed up in court for fear of being justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions;
arrested. The RTC judge denied their motion because the 3. When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the 4. Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated
movants. Did the RTC rule correctly? (2008 Bar) by the lust for vengeance; and
5. Where there is clearly no prima facie case against the
A: No, the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been
accused when they filed the aforesaid motion and invoked denied (See: cases cited in Roberts, Jr., v. Court of Appeals,
the courts authority over the case, without raising the issue G.R. No. 113930, March 5, 1996 and Brocka v. Ponce
of jurisdiction over their person. Their filing the motion is Enrile, G.R. No. 69863-65, December 10, 1990).
tantamount to voluntary submission to the courts
jurisdiction and contributes voluntary appearance (Miranda PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
v. Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763, March 31, 2006).
Q: Distinguish a Complaint from Information (1999 Bar)
Q: In complex crimes, how is the jurisdiction of a court
determined? (2003 Bar) A: In criminal procedure, a complaint is a sworn written
statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by
A: In a complex crime, jurisdiction over the whole complex the offended party, any peace officer or other peace officer
crime must be lodged with the trial court having jurisdiction charged with the enforcement of the law violated (Sec. 3,
to impose the maximum and most serious penalty imposable Rule 110, 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure); while an
on an offense forming part of the complex crime (Cuyos v. information is an accusation in writing charging a person
Garcia, G.R. No. L-46934 April 15, 1988). with an offense subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with
the court (Sec. 4, Id.).
Q: Mariano was convicted by the RTC for raping Victoria
and meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua. While Q: While in his Nissan Patrol and hurrying home to
serving sentence at the National Penitentiary, Mariano Quezon City from his work in Makati, Gary figured in a
and Victoria were married. Mariano filed a motion in vehicular mishap along that portion of EDSA within the
said court for his release from the penitentiary on his City of Mandaluyong. He was bumped from behind by a
claim that under Republic Act No. 8353, his marriage to Ford Expedition SUV driven by Horace who was
Victoria extinguished the criminal action against him for observed using his cellular phone at the time of the
rape, as well as the penalty imposed on him. However, collision. Both vehicles - more than 5 years old no
the court denied the motion on the ground that it had longer carried insurance other than the compulsory
lost jurisdiction over the case after its decision had third party liability insurance. Gary suffered physical
become final and executory. injuries while his Nissan Patrol sustained damage in
excess of Php500, 000.
a. Is the filing of the court correct? Explain.
a. As counsel for Gary, describe the process you need
A: NO. The court can never lose jurisdiction so long as its to undertake starting from the point of the incident
decision has not yet been fully implement and satisfied.
UST BAR OPERATIONS 44
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
if Gary would proceed criminally against Horace, and the malefactor was later charged with the separate
and identify the court with jurisdiction over the case. crimes of robbery and illegal possession of firearm.

A: As counsel for Gary, I will first make him medically a. Where should Police Inspector Masigasig bring the
examined in order to ascertain the gravity and extent of the felon for criminal processing? To Silang, Cavite
injuries he sustained from the accident. Second, I will secure where he is bound; to Makati where the bus actually
a police report relative to the mishap. Third, I will ask him to was when the felonies took place; or back to
execute his Sinumpaang Salaysay. Thereafter, I will use his Valenzuela where he is stationed? Which court has
Sinumpaang Salaysay or prepare a complaint affidavit and jurisdiction over the criminal cases? (2013 Bar)
file the same in the Office of the City Prosecutor and later on
to the appropriate MTC of Mandaluyong City for the crime of A: Police Inspector Masigasig should bring the felon to the
Reckless Imprudence resulting to physical injuries and nearest police station or jailn in Makati City where the bus
damage to property (Sec. 1 and 15, Rule 110). actually was when the felonies took place.

b. If Gary chooses to file an independent civil action for Moreover, where an offense is committed in a public vehicle
damages, explain briefly this type of action: its legal while in the course of its trip, the criminal action shall be
basis; the different approaches in pursuing this type instituted and tried in the court of any Municipality or
of action; the evidence you would need; and types of territory where such vehicle passed during its trip, including
defenses you could expect. (2013 Bar the place of its departure and arrival (Sec. 15[b], Rule 110).
Consequently, the criminal case for robbery and illegal
A: An independent civil action is an action which is entirely possession of firearms can be filed in Regional Trial Court of
distinct and separate from the criminal action. Such civil Makati City or on any of the places of departure or arrival of
action shall proceed independently of the criminal the bus.
prosecution and shall require only a preponderance of
evidence. Section 3 of Rule 111 allows the filing of an Q: Yvonne, a young and lonely OFW, had an intimate
independent civil action by the offended party based on relationship abroad with a friend, Percy. Although
Article 33 and 2176 of the New Civil Code. Yvonne comes home to Manila every six months, her
foreign posting still left her husband Dario lonely so that
The different approaches that the plaintiff can pursue in this he also engaged in his own extramarital activities. In one
type of action are, as follows: particularly exhilarating session with his girlfriend,
Dario died. Within 180 days from Darios death, Yvonne
1. File the independent civil action and prosecute the gives birth in Manila to a baby boy. Irate relatives of
criminal case separately. Dario contemplate criminally charging Yvonne for
2. File the independent civil action without filing the adultery and they hire your law firm to handle the case.
criminal case.
3. File the criminal case without need of reserving the a. Is the contemplated criminal action a viable option
independent civil action. to bring?

Aside from the testimony of Gary, the pieces of evidence that A: No. Section 5 of Rule 110 provides that the crimes of
would be required in an independent civil action are the adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except
medical report and certificate regarding the injuries upon complaint by the offended spouse. Since the offended
sustained by Gary, hospital and medical bills including party is already dead, then the criminal action for adultery as
receipt of payments made, police report and proof of the contemplated by offended partys relatives is no longer
extent of damage sustained by his car, and the affidavit of viable.
witnesses who saw Horace using his cellular phone at the
time the incident happened. b. Is a civil action to impugn the paternity of the baby
boy feasible, and if so, in what proceeding may such
I will also present proof of employment of Gary such as his issue be determined? (2013 Bar)
pay slip in order to prove that he was gainfully employed at
the time of the mishap, and as a result of the injuries he A: Yes, under Article 171 of the Family Code, the heirs of the
suffered, he was not able to earn his usual income thereof. I husband may impugn the filiation of the child in the
will also present the attending Doctor of Gary to corroborate following cases:
and authenticate the contents of the medical report and
abstract thereof. The evidence required to hold defendant 1. If the husband should die before the expiration of the
Horace liable is only preponderance of evidence. period fixed for bringing his action;
2. If he should die after the filing of the complaint, without
The types of defenses that may be raised against this action having desisted therefrom; or
are fortuitous event, force majeure or acts of God. The 3. If the child was born after the death of the husband.
defendant can also invoke contributory negligence as partial
defense. Moreover, the defendant can raise the usual Since Dario is already dead when the baby boy was born, his
defenses that the: (a) plaintiff will be entitled to double heirs have the right to impugn the filiation of the child.
compensation or recovery, and (b) defendant will be
constrained to litigate twice and therefore suffer the cost of Consequently, the heirs may impugn the filiation either by a
litigation twice. direct action to impugn such filiation or raise the same in a
special proceeding for settlement of the estate of the
Q: On his way to the PNP Academy in Silang, Cavite on decedent. In the said proceeding, the Probate court has the
board a public transport bus as a passenger, Police power to determine questions as to who are the heirs of the
Inspector Masigasig of the Valenzuela Police witnessed decedent (Reyes v. Ysip, et al., G.R. No. L-7516, May 12, 1955;
an on-going armed robbery while the bus was traversing Jimenez v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 75773, April
Makati. His alertness and training enabled him to foil the 17, 1990).
robbery and to subdue the malefactor. He disarmed the
felon and while frisking him, discovered another
handgun tucked in his waist. He seized both handguns
45
REMEDIAL LAW
Incidentally, the heirs can also submit the baby boy for DNA a. D and E were charged with homicide in one
testing (Rules on DNA Evidence, A.M. No. 6-11-5-SC) or even Information. Before they could be arraigned, the
blood-test in order to determine paternity and filiation. prosecution moved to amend the information to
exclude E therefrom. Can the court grant the motion
In Jao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-49162, July 28, 1987, the to amend? Why? (2001, 2002 Bar)
Supreme Court held that blood grouping tests are conclusive
as to non-paternity, although inconclusive as to paternity. A: Yes, provided notice is given to the offended party and the
The fact that the blood type of the child is a possible product court states its reasons for granting the same (Sec. 14, Rule
of the mother and alleged father does not conclusively prove 110).
that the child is born by such parents; but, if the blood type
of the child is not the possible blood type when the blood of b. On the facts above stated, suppose the prosecution,
the mother and that of the alleged father are cross matched, instead of filing a motion to amend, moved to
then the child cannot possibly be that of the alleged father. withdraw the information altogether and its motion
was granted. Can the prosecution re-file the
Q: Your friend YY, an orphan, 16 years old, seeks your information although this time for murder? Explain.
legal advice. She tells you that ZZ, her uncle, subjected
her to acts of lasciviousness; that when she told her A: Yes, the prosecution can re-file the information for
grandparents, they told her to just keep quiet and not to murder in substitution of the information for homicide
file charges against ZZ, their son. Feeling very much because no double jeopardy has a yet attached (Galvez v.
aggrieved, she asks you how her uncle ZZ can be made to Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114046 October 24, 1994).
answer for his crime.
Q: A was accused of homicide for the killing of B. During
a. What would your advice be? Explain. the trial, the public prosecutor received a copy of the
marriage certificate of A and B.
A: I would advise the minor, an orphan of 16 years of age, to
file the complaint herself Independently of her grandparents, a. Can the public prosecutor move for the amendment
because she Is not Incompetent or Incapable of doing so of the information to charge A with the crime of
upon grounds other than her minority (Sec. 5, Rule 110). parricide?

b. Suppose the crime committed against YY by her A: No. The information cannot be amended to change the
uncle ZZ is rape, witnessed by your mutual friend XX. offense charged from homicide to parricide. Firstly, the
But this time, YY was prevailed upon by her marriage is not a supervening fact arising from the act
grandparents not to file charges. XX asks you if she constituting the charge of homicide (Sec. 8, Rule 110).
can initiate the complaint against ZZ. Would your
answer be the same? Explain. (2000 Bar) b. Suppose instead of moving for the amendment of the
information, the public prosecutor presented in
A: Since rape is now classified as a Crime Against Persons evidence the marriage certificate without objection
under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (RA 8353), I would advise on the part of the defense, could A be convicted of
XX to initiate the complaint against ZZ. parricide? (1997 Bar)

Q: X was arrested, in flagrante, for robbing a bank. After A: No. A can be convicted only of homicide not of parricide
an investigation, he was brought before the office of the which is a graver offense. The accused has the constitutional
prosecutor for inquest, but unfortunately no inquest rights of due process and to be informed of the nature and
prosecutor was available. May the bank directly file the the cause of the accusation against him (Sec. 1, 14[1] and [2]
complaint with the proper court? If in the affirmative, Art. III, 1987 Constitution).
what document should be filed? (2012 Bar)
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
A: Yes, the bank may directly file the complaint with the
proper court. In the absence or unavailability of an inquest Q: While cruising on a highway, a taxicab driven by Mans
prosecutor, the complaint may be filed by the offended party hit an electric post. As a result thereof, its passenger,
or a peace officer directly with the proper court on the basis Jovy, suffered serious injuries. Mans was subsequently
of the affidavit of the offended party or arresting officer or charged before the Municipal Trial Court with reckless
person (Sec. 6, Rule 12). imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries.
Thereafter, Jovy filed a civil action against Lourdes, the
Designation of offense owner of the taxicab, for breach of contract, and Mans for
quasi-delict. Lourdes and Mans filed a motion to dismiss
Q: The prosecution filed an information against Jose for the civil action on the ground of litis pendentia, that is,
slight physical injuries alleging the acts constituting the the pendency of the civil action impliedly instituted in
offense but without any more alleging that it was the criminal action for reckless imprudence resulting in
committed after Joses unlawful enter in the serious physical injuries. Resolve the motion with
complainants abode. Was the information correctly reasons. (2005 Bar)
prepared by the prosecution? Why? (2001 Bar)
A: The motion to dismiss should be denied. The action for
A: No. The aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry in the breach of contract against the taxicab owner cannot be
complainants abode has to be specified in the information; barred by the criminal action against the taxicab driver,
otherwise, it cannot be considered as aggravating (Sec. 8, although the taxicab owner can be held subsidiarily liable in
Rule 110). the criminal case, if the driver is insolvent. On the other hand,
the civil action for quasi-delict against the driver is an
Amendment or substitution of complaint or information independent civil action under Article 33 of the Civil Code
and Sec. 3, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, which can be filed
Q: separately and can proceed independently of the criminal

UST BAR OPERATIONS 46


QUAMTO (1997-2016)
action and regardless of the result of the latter (Samson v. Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila sometime in 2011.
Daway, G.R. Nos. 160054-55, July 21, 2004). Meanwhile, Solomon filed a petition for declaration of
nullity of his first marriage with Faith in 2012, while the
Q: Name two instances where the trial court can hold the case for bigamy before the RTC of Manila is ongoing.
accused civilly liable even if he is acquitted. (2002, 2010 Subsequently, Solomon filed a motion to suspend the
Bar) proceedings in the bigamy case on the ground of
prejudicial question. He asserts that the proceedings in
A: The instances where the civil, liability is not extinguished the criminal case should be suspended because if his
despite acquittal of the accused are: first marriage with Faith will be declared null and void,
it will have the effect of exculpating him from the crime
1. Where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt; of bigamy. Decide. (2014 Bar)
2. Where the court expressly declares that the liability of
the accused is not criminal but only civil in nature; and A: The motion filed by Solomon should be denied. The
3. Where the civil liability is not derived from or based on elements of prejudicial question are: (1) the previous
the criminal act of which the accused is acquitted instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately
(Remedios Nota Sapiera v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. related to the issue determines the subsequent criminal
128927, September 14, 1999). action; and (2) the resolution of such issue determines
whether or not the criminal action may proceed. In order for
Q: In an action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, a prejudicial question to exist, the civil action must precede
the court granted the accuseds demurrer to evidence the filing of the criminal action (Dreamwork Construction,
which he filed without leave of court. Although he was Inc. v. Janiola, G.R. No. 184861, June 30, 2009). Since the
acquitted of the crime charged, he, however, was criminal case for bigamy was filed ahead of the civil action
required by the court to pay the private complainant the for declaration of nullity of marriage, there is no prejudicial
face value of the check. The accused filed a Motion of question. At any rate, the outcome of the civil case for
Reconsideration regarding the order to pay the face annulment has no bearing upon the determination of the
value of the check on the following grounds: guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case for
bigamy because the accused has already committed the
a. the demurrer to evidence applied only to the crime of bigamy when he contracted the second marriage
criminal aspect of the case (2001 Bar); and without the first marriage having being declared null and
void. Otherwise stated, he who contracts marriage during the
A: The Motion for Reconsideration should be denied. The subsistence of a previously contracted marriage runs the risk
ground that the demurrer to evidence applied only to the of being prosecuted for bigamy.
criminal aspect of the case was not correct because the
criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
included the corresponding civil action (Sec. 1[b], Rule 111).
Q: Regional Director AG of the Department of Public
b. at the very least, he was entitled to adduce Works and Highways was charged with violation of
controverting evidence on the civil liability. Resolve Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 in the Office of the
the Motion for Reconsideration (2003 Bar) Ombudsman. An administrative charge for gross
misconduct arising from the transaction subject matter
A: The accused was not entitled to adduce controverting of said criminal case was filed against him in the same
evidence on the civil liability, because he filed his demurrer office. The Ombudsman assigned a team composed of
to evidence without leave of court (Sec. 23, Rule 119). investigators from the office of the Special Prosecutor
and from the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the
Prejudicial question Military to conduct a joint investigation of the criminal
case and the administrative case. The team of
Q: A allegedly sold to B a parcel of land which A later also investigators recommended to the Ombudsman that AG
sold to X. B brought a civil action for nullification of the be preventively suspended for a period not exceeding
second sale and asked that the sale made by A in his six months on its finding that the evidence of guilt is
favour be declared valid. A theorized that he never sold strong. The Ombudsman issued the said order as
the property to B and his purported signatures recommend by the investigators. AG moved to
appearing in the first deed of sale were forgeries. reconsider the order on the following grounds: a) The
Thereafter, an Information for estafa was filed against A office of the Special Prosecutor had exclusive authority
based on the same double sale that was the subject of the to conduct a preliminary investigation of the criminal
civil action. A filed a Motion for suspension of Action in case; b) The order for his preventive suspension was
the criminal case, contending that the resolution of the premature because he has yet to file his answer to the
issue in civil case would necessarily be determinative of administrative complaint and submit countervailing
his guilt or innocence. Is the suspension of the criminal evidence; and c) he was career executive service officer
action in order? Explain. (1999, 2000 Bar) and under Presidential Decree No. 807 (Civil Service
Law), his preventive suspension shall be for a maximum
A: Yes. The suspension of the criminal action is in order period of three months. Resolve with reasons the motion
because the defense of A in civil action, that he never sold the of respondent AG. (2005 Bar)
property to B and that his purported signatures in the first
deed of sale were forgeries, is a prejudicial question the A: The motion should be denied for the following reasons:
resolution of which is determinative of his guilt or innocence.
If the first sale is null and void, there would be no double sale 1. The office of the Special Prosecutor does not have
and A would be innocent of the offense of estafa (Ras v. Rasul, exclusive authority to conduct a preliminary
G.R. Nos. L-50441-42 September 18, 1980). investigation of the criminal case but it participated in
the investigation together with the Deputy Ombudsman
Q: Solomon and Faith got married in 2005. In 2010, for the Military who can handle cases of civilians and is
Solomon contracted a second marriage with Hope. When not limited to the military.
Faith found out about the second marriage of Solomon 2. The order of preventive suspension need not wait for the
and Hope, she filed a criminal case for bigamy before the answer to the administrative complaint and the
47
REMEDIAL LAW
submission of countervailing evidence (Garcia v. Mojica the warrant of arrest in the Court where the case is pending
G.R. No. 13903, September 10, 1999). with an additional prayer to suspend the arraignment.

Q: X, an undersecretary of DENR, was charged before the Under Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, after filing of
Sandiganbayan for malversation of public funds the complaint or information in court without a preliminary
allegedly committed when he was still the Mayor of a investigation, the accused may within five days from the time
town in Rizal. After arraignment, the prosecution moved he learns of its filing ask for a preliminary investigation with
that X be preventively suspended. X opposed the motion the same right to adduce evidence in his defense.
arguing that he was now occupying a position different
from that which the Information charged him and Moreover, Section 26, Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal
therefore, there is no more possibility that he can Procedure provides that an application for or admission to
intimidate witnesses and hamper the prosecution. bail shall not bar the accused from challenging the validity of
Decide. Suppose X files a Motion to Quash challenging his arrest or the legality of the warrant issued therefor, or
the validity of the Information and the Sandiganbayan from assailing the regularity or questioning the absence of a
denies the same, will there still be a need to conduct a preliminary investigation of the charge against him,
pre-suspension hearing? Explain. (2012 Bar) provided that he raises them before entering his plea. The
court shall resolve the matter as early as practicable as but
A: There is no necessity for the court to conduct pre- not later than the start of the trial of the case.
suspension hearing. Under Section 13 of RA No. 3019, an
incumbent public officer against whom any criminal b. What "during-trial" remedy can you use to allow an
prosecution under a valid information for graft-related crime early evaluation of the prosecution evidence
such as malversation is pending in court, shall be suspended without the need of presenting defense evidence;
from office. The word office, from which the public officer when and how can you avail of this remedy? (2013
charged shall be preventively suspended, could apply to any Bar)
office, which he might currently be holding and not
necessarily the particular office under which he was charged. A: I will file first a motion for leave to file a demurrer within
Thus, the DENR undersecretary can be preventively five (5) days from the time the prosecution rested its case. If
suspended even though he was a mayor, when he allegedly the same is granted, then I will now file a demurrer to
committed malversation. evidence within ten (10) days (Sec. 23, Rule 119). This
remedy would allow the evaluation of the sufficiency of
Settled is the rule that where the accused files a motion to prosecutions evidence without the need of presenting
quash the information or challenges the validity thereof, a defense evidence. It may be done through the courts
show-cause order of the trial court would no longer be initiative or upon motion of the accused and after the
necessary. What is indispensable is that the trial court duly prosecution rested its case (Sec. 23, Rule 119).
hear the parties at a hearing held for determining the validity
of the information, and thereafter hand down its ruling, Q: On his way to the PNP Academy in Silang, Cavite on
issuing the corresponding order of suspension should it board a public transport bus as a passenger, Police
uphold the validity of the information (Luciano v. Mariano, Inspector Masigasig of the Valenzuela Police witnessed
G.R. No. L-32950, July 30, 1971). Since a pre-suspension an on-going armed robbery while the bus was traversing
hearing is basically a due process requirement, when an Makati. His alertness and training enabled him to foil the
accused public official is given an adequate opportunity to be robbery and to subdue the malefactor. He disarmed the
heard on his possible defenses against the mandatory felon and while frisking him, discovered another
suspension under R.A. No. 3019, then an accused would have handgun tucked in his waist. He seized both handguns
no reason to complain that no actual hearing was conducted and the malefactor was later charged with the separate
(Miguel v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 172035, crimes of robbery and illegal possession of firearm. May
July 04, 2012). In the facts given, the DENR Undersecretary the charges of robbery and illegal prosecution of firearm
was already given opportunity to question the validity of the be filed directly by the investigating prosecutor with the
Information for malversation by filing a motion to quash, and appropriate court without a preliminary inestigation?
yet, the Sandiganbayan sustained its validity. There is no (2013 Bar)
necessity for the court to conduct pre-suspension hearing to
determine for the second time the validity of the information A: Yes. Since the offender was arrested in flagrante delicto
for purpose of preventively suspending the accused. without a warrant of arrest; an inquest proceeding should be
conducted and thereafter a case may be filed in court even
Q: You are the defense counsel of Angela Bituin who has without the requisite preliminary investigation.
been charged under RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act) before the Sandiganbayan. While Angela Under Section 7, Rule 112, when a person is lawfully arrested
has posted bail, she has yet to be arraigned. Angela without a warrant involving an offense which requires
revealed to you that she has not been investigated for preliminary investigation, the complaint or information may
any offense and that it was only when police officers be filed by a prosecutorwithout the need of such
showed up at her residence with a warrant of arrest that investigation provided an inquest has been conducted in
she learned of the pending case against her. She wonders accordance with existing rules. In the absence or
why she has been charged before the Sandiganbayan unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may
when she is not in government service. be filed by the offended party or a peace officer directly with
the proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended
a. What "before-trial" remedy would you invoke in party or arresting officer or person.
Angelas behalf to address the fact that she had not
been investigated at all, and how would you avail of ARREST
this remedy?
Q: As Cicero was walking down a dark alley one
A: I will file a motion for the conduct of preliminary midnight, he saw an "owner-type jeepney" approaching
investigation or reinvestigation and the quashal or recall of him. Sensing that the occupants of the vehicle were up to
no good, he darted into a corner and ran. The occupants
UST BAR OPERATIONS 48
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
of the vehicle elements from the Western Police happened (Go v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101837, February
District gave chase and apprehended him. The police 11, 1992).
apprehended Cicero, frisked him and found a sachet of
0.09 gram of shabu tucked in his waist and a Swiss knife c. Under the circumstances, can B be convicted of
in his secret pocket, and detained him thereafter. Is the homicide? (1997 Bar)
arrest and body-search legal? (2010 Bar)
A: Yes. The gun is not indispensable in the conviction of A
A: No. The arrest and the body-search were not legal. because the court may rely on testimonial or other evidence.
Ciceros act of running does not show any reasonable ground
to believe that a crime has been committed or is about to be Q: In a buy-bust operation, the police operatives
committed for the police officers to apprehend him and arrested the accused and seized from him a sachet of
conduct body search. Hence, the arrest was illegal as it does shabu and an unlicensed firearm. The accused was
not fall under any of the circumstances for a valid charged in two Informations, one for violation of the
warrantless arrest provided in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Dangerous Drug Act, as amended, and another for
Rules of Criminal Procedure. illegal possession of firearms. The accused filed an
action for recovery of the firearm in another court
Q: AX swindled RY in the amount P10,000 sometime in against the police officers with an application for the
mid-2003. On the strength of the sworn statement given issuance of a writ of replevin. He alleged in his complaint
by RY personally to SPO1 Juan Ramos sometime in mid- that he was a military informer who had been issued a
2004, and without securing a warrant, the police officer written authority to carry said firearm. The police
arrested AX. Forthwith the police officer filed with the officers moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground
City Prosecutor of Manila a complaint for estafa that the subject firearm was in custodia legis. The court
supported by RYs sworn statement and other denied the motion and instead issued the writ of
documentary evidence. After due inquest, the replevin.
prosecutor filed the requisite information with the MM
RTC. No preliminary investigation was conducted either a. Was the seizure of the firearm valid?
before or after the filing of the information and the
accused at no time asked for such an investigation. A: Yes. The seizure of the firearm was valid because it was
However, before arraignment, the accused moved to seized in the course of a valid arrest in a buy-bust operation
quash the information on the ground that the prosecutor (Secs. 12 and 13, Rule 126). A search warrant was not
suffered from a want of authority to file the information necessary (People v. Salazar, G.R. No. 98060, January 27,
because of his failure to conduct a preliminary 1997).
investigation before filing the information, as required
by the Rules of Court. b. Was the denial of the motion to dismiss proper?
(2003 Bar)
a. Is the warrantless arrest of AX valid?
A: NO. The denial of the motion to dismiss was not proper.
A: No. The warrantless arrest is not valid because the alleged The court had no authority to issue the writ of replevin
offense has not just been committed. The crime was allegedly whether the firearm was in custodia legis or not. The motion
committed one year before the arrest (Sec. 5 (b), Rule 113). to recover the firearm should be filed in the court where the
criminal action is pending.
b. Is he entitled to a preliminary investigation before
the filing of the information? Explain. (2004 Bar) Q: FG was arrested without a warrant by policemen
while he was walking in a busy street. After the
A: Yes, he is entitled to a preliminary investigation because preliminary investigation, he was charged with rape and
he was not lawfully arrested without a warrant (See: Sec. 7, the corresponding information was filed in the RTC. On
Rule 112). He can move for a reinvestigation. arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits
ensued. The court rendered judgment convicting him.
Q: A was killed by B during a quarrel over a hostess in a On appeal, FG claims that the judgment is void because
nightclub. Two days after the incident, and upon he was illegally arrested. If you were the Solicitor
complaint of the widow of A, the police arrested B General, counsel, for the People of the Philippines, how
without a warrant of arrest and searched his house would you refute said claim? (2000 Bar)
without a search warrant.
A: Any objection to the illegality of the arrest of the accused
a. Can the gun used by B in shooting A, which was without a warrant is deemed waived when he pleaded not
seized during the search of the house of B, be guilty at the arraignment without raising the question. It is
admitted in evidence? too late to complain about a warrantless arrest after trial is
commenced and completed and a judgment of conviction
A: No. The gun seized during the search of the house of B rendered against the accused (People v. Cabiles, G.R. No.
without a search warrant is not admissible in evidence (Sec. 112035, January 16, 1998).
2 and 3[2], Art. III, 1987 Constitution). Moreover, the search
was not an incident to a lawful arrest of a person under Sec. Q: Under Section 5, Rule 113, a warrantless arrest is
13, Rule 126. allowed when an offense has just been committed and
the peace officer has probable cause to believe, based on
b. Is the arrest of B legal? his personal knowledge of facts and circumstances, that
the person to be arrested has committed it. A policeman
A: No. A warrantless arrest requires that the crime has in fact approaches your for advice and asks you how he will
just been committed and the police arresting has personal execute a warrantless arrest against a murderer who
knowledge of facts that the person to be arrested has escaped after killing a person. The policeman arrived
committed it (Sec. 5, Rule 113). Here, the crime has not just two (2) hours after the killing and a certain Max was
been committed since a period of two days had already allegedly the killer per information given by a witness.
lapsed, and the police arresting has no such personal He asks you to clarify the following:
knowledge because he was not present when the incident
49
REMEDIAL LAW
a. How long after the commission of the crime can he suspicion, based on actual facts. (Joey M. Pestilos v.
still exeute the warrantless arrest? Moreno Generoso, G.R. No. 182601, November 10, 2014)
b. What does personal knowledge of the facts and
circumstances that the person to be arrested Determination of probable cause and issuance of
committed it mean? (2016 Bar) warrant of arrest

A: Q: An information for murder was filed against Rapido.


The RTC judge, after personally evaluating the
a. In executing a warrantless arrest under Section 5, Rule prosecutor's resolution, documents and parties'
113, the Supreme Court held that the requirement that affidavits submitted by the prosecutor, found probable
an offense has just been committed means that there cause and issued a warrant of arrest. Rapido's lawyer
must be a large measure of immediacy between the time examined the rollo of the case and found that it only
the offense was committed and the time of the arrest. contained the copy of the information, the submissions
(Joey M. Pestilos v. Moreno Generoso, G.R. No. 182601, of the prosecutor and a copy of the warrant of arrest.
November 10, 2014) If there was an appreciable lapse of Immediately, Rapido's counsel filed a motion to quash
time between the arrest and the commission of the the arrest warrant for being void, citing as grounds:
crime, a warrant of arrest must be secured. In any case,
personal knowledge by the arresting officer is an 1. The judge before issuing the warrant did not
indispensable requirement to the validity of a vaid personally conduct a searching examination of the
warrantless arrest. prosecution witnesses in violation of his client's
constitutionally-mandated rights;
The exact period varies on a case to case basis. In People 2. There was no prior order finding probable cause
v. Gerente, G.R. No. 95847-48, March 10, 1993), the before the judge issued the arrest warrant.
Supreme Court ruled that a warrantless arrest was
validly executed upon the accused three (3) hours after May the warrant of arrest be quashed on the grounds
the commission of the crime. In Peoplev v. Tonog, Jr., G.R. cited by Rapido's counsel? State your reason for each
No. 94533, February 4, 1992, the Supreme Court likewise ground. (2015 Bar)
upheld the valid warrantless arrest which was executed
on the same day as the commission of the crime. A: No, the warrant of arrest may not be quashed based on the
However, in People v. Del Rosario, 365 Phil. 292 (1999), grounds cited by Rapidos counsel. In the issuance of warrant
the Supreme Court held that the warrantless arrest of arrest, the mandate of the Constitution is for the judge to
effected a day after the commission of the crime is personally determine the existence of probable cause. The
invalid. In Go v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101837, words personal determination, was interpreted by the
February 11, 1992, the Supreme Court also declared Supreme Court in Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R. No. 82585,
invalid a warrantless arrest effected six (6) days after November 14, 1988, as the exclusive and personal
the commission of the crime. responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself as to the
existence of probable cause.
b. The phrase personal knowledge of the facts and
circumstances that the person to be arrested committed What the law requires as personal determination on the part
it means that matters in relation to the supposed of a judge is that he should not rely solely on the report of the
commission of the crime were within the actual investigating prosecutor. Thus, personal examination of the
perception, personal evaluation or observation of the complainant and his witnesses is, thus, not mandatory and
police officer at the scene of the crime. Thus, even though indispensable in the determination of probable cause for the
the police officer has not seen someone actually, fleeing, issuance of a warrant of arrest (People v. Joseph Jojo Grey,
he could still make a warrantless arrest if, based on his G.R. No. 10109, July 26, 2010).
personal evaluation of the circumstances at the scene of
the crime, he could determine the existence of probable At any rate, there is no law or rule that requires the Judge to
cause that the person sought to be arrested has issue a prior Order finding probable cause before the
committed the crime; however, the determination of issuance of a warrant of arrest.
probable cause and the gathering of facts or
circumstances should be made immediately after the BAIL
commission of the crime in order to comply with the
element of immediacy. Q: After Alma had started serving her sentence for
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), she filed a
The arresting officers determination of probable cause petition for writ of habeas corpus, citing Vaca v. CA
under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of where the sentence of imprisonment of a party found
Criminal Procedure is based on his personal knowledge guilty of violation of BP 22 was reduced to a fine equal to
of the facts or circumstances that the person sought to be double the amount of the check involved. She prayed
arrested has committed the crime. These facts or that her sentence be similarly modified and that she be
circumstances pertain to actual facts or raw evidence, immediately released from detention. In the alternative,
i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in she prayed that pending determination on whether the
themselves to create the probable cause of guilt on the Vaca ruling applies to her, she be allowed to post bail
person to be arrested. A reasonable suspicion therefore pursuant to Rule 102, Sec.14, which provides that if a
must be founded on probable cause, coupled with good person is lawfully imprisoned or restrained on a charge
faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest. of having committed an offense not punishable by death,
The probable cause to justify warrantless arrest he may be admitted to bail in the discretion of the court.
ordinarily signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion Accordingly, the trial court allowed Alma to post bail and
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in then ordered her release. In your opinion, is the order of
themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the the trial court correct?
person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is
charged, or an actual belief or reasonable groun of a. Under Rule 102?

UST BAR OPERATIONS 50


QUAMTO (1997-2016)
A: No. Section 4, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court (Habeas that it had already ruled that: (i) the evidence of guilt is
Courpus) does not authorize a court to discharge by writ of strong; (ii) the resolution for the Petition for Bail is
habeas corpus a person charged with or convicted of an solely based on the evidence presented by the
offense in the Philippines, or of a person suffering prosecution; and (iii) no Motion for Reconsideration was
imprisonment under lawful judgment. filed from the denial of the Petition for Bail.

b. Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure? (2008 Bar) a. If you are the Judge, how will you resolve the
incident?
A: No. The trial courts order releasing Alma on bail even
after judgment against her has become final and in fact she A: If I were the Judge, I would grant the second Petition for
has started serving sentence, is a brazen disregard of the Bail. Under Section 7, Rule 114, Rules of Court, no person
mandate in Section 24, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure charge with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by
that: In no case shall bail be allowed after the accused has reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to
commenced to serve sentence (People v. Fitzgerald, G.R. No. bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage
149723, October 27, 2006). of the criminal prosecution. In this case, the evidence of guilt
for the crime of murder is not strong, as shown by the
Q: When is bail a matter of right and when is it a matter prosecutions failure to prove the circumstance that will
of discretion? (1999, 2006 Bar) qualify the crime to, and consequently convict the accused of,
murder. Accordingly, the accused should be allowed to post
A: Bail is a matter of right: (a) before or after conviction by bail because the evidence of his guilt is no strong (Sec. 13, Art.
the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, III, 1987 Constitution). Besides, it is settled that an Order
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial granting bail is merely interlocutory which cannot attain
Court; (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of finality (Pobre v. People, G. R. No. 141805, July 8, 2015).
an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or
life imprisonment (Sec. 4, Rule 114); and (c) if the charge b. Suppose the accused is convicted of the crime of
involves a capital offense and the evidence of guilt is not homicide and the accused filed a Notice of Appeal, is
strong (Sec. 7, Rule 114). he entitled to bail? (2014 Bar)

Bail is a matter of discretion upon conviction by the Regional A: Yes. The accused is entitled to bail subject to the
Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion discretion of the Court. Under Section 5, Rule 114, Rules of
perpetua, or life imprisonment (Sec. 5, Rule 114). Court, the appellate Court may allow him to post bail because
the Trial Court in convicting him, changed the nature of the
Q: When the accused is entitled as a matter of right to offense from non-bailable to bailable. Be that as it may, the
bail, may the court refuse to grant him bail on the ground denial of bail pending appeal is a matter of wise discretion
that there exists a high degree of probability the he will since after conviction by the trial court, the presumption of
abscond or escape? Explain. (1999 Bar) innocence terminates and, accordingly, the constitutional
right to bail ends. (Jose Antonio Leviste v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
A: If bail is a matter of right, it cannot be denied on the No. 189122, March 17, 2010).
ground that there exists a high degree of probability that the
accused will abscond or escape. What the court can do is to Hearing application for bail in capital offenses
increase the amount of the bail. One of the guidelines that
the judge may use in fixing a reasonable amount of bail is the Q: D was charged with murder, a capital offense. After
probability of the accused appearing in trial (Sec 9[g], Rule arraignment, he applied for bail. The trial court ordered
114, as amended by Circular No. 12-94.) the prosecution to present its evidence in full on the
ground that only on the basis of such presentation could
Q: At the Public Attorney's Office station in Taguig where it determine whether the evidence of Ds guilt was strong
you are assigned, your work requires you to act as public for purposes of bail. Is the ruling correct? Why? (2002
defender at the local Regional Trial Court and to handle Bar)
cases involving indigents. In one other case, an indigent
mother seeks assistance for her 14-year old son who has A: No, the prosecution is only required to present as much
been arrested and detained for malicious mischief. evidence as is necessary to determine whether the evidence
Would an application for bail be the appropriate remedy of Ds guilt is strong for purposes of bail (Sec. 8, Rule 114).
or is there another remedy available? Justify your Q: In an information charging them of Murder,
chosen remedy and outline the appropriate steps to policemen A, B and C were convicted of Homicide. A
take. (2013 Bar) appealed from the decision but was denied. Finally, the
Court of Appeals rendered a decision acquitting A on the
A: Yes. An application for bail is an appropriate remedy to ground that the evidence pointed to the NPA as the
secure provisional remedy of the 14-year old boy. Under the killers of the victim.
Rules, bail is a matter of right before or even after conviction
before the MTC which has jurisdiction over the crime of a. Was the Court of Appeals denial of As application
malicious mischief (Sec. 4, Rule 114). Consequently, bail can for bail proper?
be posted as a matter of right.
A: YES, the Court of Appeals properly denied As application
Q: A was charged with murder in the lower court. His for bail. The court had the discretion to do so. Although A was
Petition for Bail was denied after a summary hearing on convicted of homicide only, since he was charged with a
the ground that the prosecution had established a strong capital offense, on appeal he could be convicted of the capital
evidence of guilt. No Motion for Reconsideration was offense (Obosa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114350, January
filed from the denial of the Petition for Bail. During the 16, 1997).
reception of the evidence of the accused, the accused
reiterated his petition for bail on the ground that the b. Can B and C be benefited by the decision of the Court
witnesses so far presented by the accused had shown of Appeals? (1998 Bar)
that no qualifying aggravating circumstance attended
the killing. The court denied the petition on the grounds
51
REMEDIAL LAW
A: B, who did not appeal, can be benefited by the decision of appearance. The rules provide that when the court is
the Court of appeals which is favourable and applicable to satisfied, upon proof or oath, that a material witness will not
him (Sec. 11[a], Rule 122). The benefit will also apply to C testify when required, it may, upon motion of either party,
even if his appeal is dismissed because of his escape. order the witness to post bail in such sum as may be deemed
proper. Upon refusal to post bail, the court shall commit him
Q: If an information was filed in the RTC-Manila charging to prison until he complies or is legally discharged after his
D with homicide and he was arrested in Quezon City, in testimony is taken (Sec. 6, Rule 119).
what court or courts may he apply for bail? Explain.
(2002 Bar) Q: A was charged with a non-bailable offense. At the time
when the warrant of arrest was issued, he was confined
A: D may apply for bail in the RTC-Manila where the in the hospital and could not obtain a valid clearance to
information was filed or in the RTC-Quezon City where he leave the hospital. He filed a petition for bail saying
was arrested, or if no judge, thereof is available, with any therein that he be considered as having placed himself
metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge or municipal under the jurisdiction of the court. May the court
circuit trial judge therein (Sec. 17, Rule 114). entertain his petition? Why or why not? (2012 Bar)

Q: In what forms may bail be given? (1999 Bar) A: Yes, a person is deemed to be under the custody of the law
either when he has been arrested or has surrendered himself
A: Bail may be given by a corporate surety, or through a to the jurisdiction of the court. The accused who is confined
property bond, cash deposit or recognizance (Sec. 1, Rule in a hospital may be deemed to be in the custody of the law if
114). he clearly communicates his submission to the court while
he is confined in a hospital (Paderanga v. Court of Appeals,
Q: RP and State XX have a subsisting Extradition Treaty. G.R. No. 115407, August 28, 1995).
Pursuant thereto RPs Secretary of Justice (SOJ) filed a
Petition for Extradition before the MM RTC alleging that Q: Paz was awakened by a commotion coming from a
Juan Kwan is the subject of an arrest warrant duly issued condo unit next to hers. Alarmed, she called up the
by the proper criminal court of State XX in connection nearby police station. PO1 Remus and P02 Romulus
with a criminal case for tax evasion and fraud before his proceeded to the condo unit identified by Paz. PO 1
return to RP as a balikbayan. Petitioner prays that Juan Remus knocked at the door and when a man opened the
be extradited and delivered to the proper authorities of door, PO1 Remus and his companions introduced
State XX for trial, and that to prevent Juans flight in the themselves as police officers. The man readily identified
interim, a warrant for his immediate arrest be issued. himself as Oasis Jung and gestured to them to come in.
Before the RTC could act on the petition for extradition, Inside, the police officers saw a young lady with her nose
Juan filed before it an urgent motion, in sum praying (1) bleeding and face swollen. Asked by P02 Romulus what
that SoJs application for an arrest warrant be set for happened, the lady responded that she was beaten up by
hearing and (2) that Juan be allowed to post bail in the Oasis Jung. The police officers arrested Oasis Jung and
event the court would issue an arrest warrant. Should brought him and the young lady back to the police
the court grant or deny Juans prayer? Reason. (2004 station. PO1 Remus took the young lady's statement who
Bar) identified herself as AA. She narrated that she is a
sixteen-year-old high school student; that previous to
A: In this case, the Court reviewed what was held the incident, she had sexual intercourse with Oasis Jung
in Government of United States of America v. Hon. Guillermo G. at least five times on different occasions and she was
Purganan, Presiding Judge, RTC of Manila, Branch 42, and paid P5,000.00 each time and it was the first time that
Mark B. Jimenez, a.k.a. Mario Batacan Crespo, G.R. No. 153675, Oasis Jung physically hurt her. P02 Romulus detained
April 2007, that the constitutional provision on bail does not Oasis Jung at the station's jail. After the inquest
apply to extradition proceedings, the same being available proceeding, the public prosecutor filed an information
only in criminal proceedings. The Court took cognizance of for Violation of R.A. No. 9262 (The VAWC Law) for
the following trends in international law: physical violence and five separate informations for
violation of R.A. No. 7610 (The Child Abuse Law). Oasis
1. The growing importance of the individual person in Jung's lawyer filed a motion to be admitted to bail but
public international; the court issued an order that approval of his bail bond
2. The higher value now being given to human rights; shall be made only after his arraignment.
3. The corresponding duty of countries to observe these
universal human rights in fulfilling their treaty a. Did the court properly impose that bail condition?
obligations; and
4. The duty of this Court to balance the rights of the A: No. The court did not properly impose that bail condition.
individual under our fundamental law, on one hand, and The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure do not require the
the law on extradition, on the other. arraignment of the accused as prerequisite to the conduct of
hearings in the bail petition. A person is allowed to file a
In light of the recent developments in international law, petition for bail as soon as he is deprived of his liberty by
where emphasis is given to the worth of the individual and virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender. An accused need
the sanctity of human rights, the Court departed from the not wait for his arraignment before filing the bail petition
ruling in Purganan, and held that an extraditee may be (Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 149116, January 2, 2003).
allowed to post bail (Govt of Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region v. Hon. Olalia, G.R. No. 153675, April 19, Moreover, the condition that the approval of bail bonds shall
2007). be made only after arraignment would place the accused in a
position where he has to choose between: (1) filing a motion
Q: May the Court require a witness to post bail? Explain to quash (the Information) and thus delay his released on
your answer. (1999 Bar) bail because until his motion to quash can be resolved, his
arraignment cannot be held; and (2) foregoing the filing of a
A: Yes. The court may require a witness to post bail if he is motion to quash (the Information) so that he can be
a material witness and bail is needed to secure his
UST BAR OPERATIONS 52
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
arraigned at once and thereafter be released on bail (Lavides to the question of whether "he prayed for forgiveness for
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129670, February 1, 2000). shooting down the boy." The trial court, interpreting Xs
answer as an admission of guilt, convicted him. On
b. After his release from detention on bail, can Oasis appeal, Xs counsel faulted the trial court in its
Jung still question the validity of his arrest? (2015 interpretation of his clients answer, arguing that X
Bar) invoked his Miranda rights when he remained quiet for
the first two hours of questioning. Rule on the
A: Yes. Oasis Jung can still question the validity of his arrest assignment of error. (2002, 2010 Bar)
even after his release from detention on bail. Under Section
26, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, an application for or A: The assignment of error invoked by Xs counsel is
admission to bail shall not bar the accused from challenging impressed with merit since there has been no express waiver
the validity of his arrest or the legality of the warrant issued of Xs Miranda rights. In order to have a valid waiver of the
therefor, or from assailing the regularity or questioning the Miranda rights, the same must be in writing and made in the
absence of a preliminary investigation of a charge against presence of his counsel. The uncounselled extrajudicial
him, provided that he raises them before entering his plea. confession of X being without a valid waiver of his Miranda
rights, is inadmissible, as well as any information derived
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED therefrom.

Q: Under Republic Act No. 8353, one may be charged Q: Pedro, the principal witness in a criminal case,
with and found guilty of qualified rape if he knew on or testified and completed his testimony on direct
before the commission of the crime that he is afflicted examination in 2015. Due to several postponements by
with Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV)/Acquired the accused, grounded on his recurring illness, which
Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other were all granted by the judge, the cross-examination of
sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease Pedro was finally set on October 15, 2016. Before the
is transmitted to the victim. Under Section 17(a) of said date, Pedro died. The accused moved to expunge
Republic Act No. 8504 the court may compel the accused Pedros testimony on the ground that it violates his right
to submit himself to a blood test where blood samples of confrontation and the right to cross-examine the
would be extracted from his veins to determine whether witness. The prosecution opposed the motion and asked
he has HIV. (2005, 2010 Bar) Pedros testimony on direct examination be admitted as
evidence. Is the motion meritorious? (2016 Bar)
a. Are the rights of the accused to be presumed
innocent of the crime charged, to privacy, and A: The motion is meritorious. The cross-examination of a
against self-incrimination violated by such witness is an absolute right, not a mere privilege, of the party
compulsory testing? Explain. against whom he is called. With regard to the accused, it is a
right guaranteed by the fundamental law as part of due
A: No. The court may compel the accused to submit himself process. Article III, Sec. 14(2) of the 1987 Constitution
to a blood test to determine whether he has HIV under Sec. specifically mandates that the accused shall enjoy the right
17(a) of R.A. No. 8054. His rights to be presumed innocent of to meet the witnesses face to face, and Ruel 115, Sec. 1(f) of
the crime charged, to privacy and against self-incrimination the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure enjoins that in all
are not violated by such compulsory testing. In an action in criminal prosecutions the accused shall be entitled to
which the physical condition of a party is in controversy, the confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the
court may order the accused to submit to a physical trial. Accordingly, the testimony of a witness given on direct
examination (Sec. 1, Rule 28; Look for citation of latest cases, examination should be stricken off the record where there
in 2004). was not adequate opportunity for cross-examination.
(People v. Fernando Monjey Rosario, G.R. No. 146689,
b. If the result of such test shows that he is HIV positive, September 27, 2002)
and the prosecution offers such result in evidence to
prove the qualifying circumstance under the In People v. Manchetti, G.R. No. L-48883, Aug. 6, 1980, the
Information for qualified rape, should the court Supreme Court also held that if a party is deprived of the
reject such result on the ground that it is the fruit of opportunity of cross examination without fault on his part,
a poisonous tree? Explain. as in case of the illness and death of a withness after direct
examination, he is entitled to have the direct testimony
A: Since the rights of the accused are not violated because the stricken from the records. Since the accused was deprived of
compulsory testing is authorized by the law, the result of the his opportunity to cross examine the witness without fauly
testing cannot be considered to be the fruit of a poisonous on his part, the motion to expunge is meritorious.
tree and can be offered in evidence to prove the qualifying
circumstance under the information for qualified rape under ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The motion is not meritorious.
R.A. No. 8353. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine refers The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing
to that rule of evidence that excludes any evidence which witnesses in a judicial litigation is a personal one which may
may have been derived or acquired from a tainted or be waived, expressly or impliedly, by conduct amounting to
polluted source. Such evidence is inadmissible for having a renunciation of the right of cross examination. Where a
emanated from spurious origins. The doctrine, however, party has had the opportunity to cross-examine a witness
does not apply to the results obtained pursuant to Sec. 1, but failed to avail himself of it, he necessarily forfeits the
Rule 28, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as it does not right to cross-examine and the testimony given on direct
contemplate a search within the meaning of the law (People examination of the witness will be received or allowed to
v. Montilla, G.R. No. 123872, January 30, 1998). remain in the record. The conduct of a party which may be
construed as an implied waiver of the right to cross-examine
Q: X was arrested for the alleged murder of a 6-year old may take various forms. The common basic principle
lad. He was read his Miranda rights immediately upon underlying the application of the rule on implied waiver is
being apprehended. In the course of his detention, X was that the party was given the opportunity to confront and
subjected to three hours of non-stop interrogation. He cross-examine an opposing witness but failed to take
remained quiet until, on the 3rd hour, he answered "yes" advantage of it for reasons attributable to himself alone.
(People v. Abatayao, G.R. No. 139456, July 7, 2004)
53
REMEDIAL LAW
A: The motion to quash filed Samuel should be granted.
Under the Doctrine of Incomplete Testimony, the direct Under R.A. No. 6770, also known as the Ombudsman Act of
testimony of a witness who dies before conclusion of the 1989, the Special Prosecutor has the power and authority,
cross examination can be stricken only insofar as not under the supervision and control of the Ombudsman, to
covered by the cross-examination, (Curtice v. West, 2 NYS conduct preliminary investigation and prosecute criminal
507, 50 Hun 47, affirmed 24 N.E. 1099, 121 N.Y. 696) and that cases before the Sandiganbayan and perform such other
a referee has no power to strike the examination of a witness duties assigned to him by the Ombudsman (Calingin v.
on his failure to appear for cross-examination where a good Desierto, G.R. Nos. 145743-89, August 10, 2007). Absent a
excuse is given. (People v. Hon. Alberto V. Seneris, G.R. No. L- clear delegation of authority from the Ombudsman to the
48883, August 6, 1980) Special Prosecutor to file the information, the latter would
have no authority to file the same. The Special Prosecutor
At any rate, the accused may be deemed to have waived his cannot be considered an alter ego of the Ombudsman as the
right to confront and cross-examine the witness when he doctrine of qualified political agency does not apply to the
asked the postponements of the hearing for several times; Office of the Ombudsman (Perez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
therefore, the direct testimony of a witness who dies before 166062, September 26, 2006).
the conclusion of the cross-examination should not be
expunged from the records. Q: BC is charged with illegal possession of firearms
under an Information signed by a Provincial Prosecutor.
ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA After arraignment but before pre-trial, BC found out that
the Provincial Prosecutor had no authority to sign the
Q: D was charged with theft of an article worth P15, information as it was the City Prosecutor who has such
000.00. Upon being arraigned, he pleaded not guilty to authority. During the pre-trial, BC moves that the case
the offense charged. Thereafter, before trial against him be dismissed on the ground that the
commenced, he asked the court to allow him to change Information is defective because the officer signing it
his plea of not guilty to a plea of guilty but only to estafa lacked the authority to do so. The Provincial Prosecutor
involving P5, 000.00. Can the court allow D to change his opposes the motion on the ground of estoppel as BC did
plea? Why? (2002 Bar) not move to quash the Information before arraignment.
If you are counsel for BC, what is your argument to refute
A: No, because a plea of guilty to a lesser offense may be the opposition of the Provincial Prosecutor? (2000 Bar)
allowed if the lesser offense is necessarily included in the
offense charged (Sec. 2, Rule 116). Estafa involving P5,000.00 A: I would argue that since the Provincial Prosecutor had no
is not necessarily included in theft of an article worth authority to file the information, the court did not acquire
P15,000.00 jurisdiction over the person of the accused and over the
subject matter of the offense charged (Cudia v. Court of
MOTION TO QUASH Appeals, G.R. No. 110315, January 16, 1998). Hence, this
ground is not waived if not raised in a motion to quash and
Q: A criminal information is filed in court charging could be raised at the pre-trial (Sec. 9, Rule 117).
Anselmo with homicide. Anselmo files a motion to quash
the information on the ground that no preliminary Q: Rodolfo is charged with possession of unlicensed
investigation was conducted. Will the motion be firearms in an Information filed in the RTC. It was
granted? Why or why not? (2009 Bar) alleged therein that Rodolfo was in possession of two
unlicensed firearms: a .45 calibre and a .32 calibre.
A: No, the motion to quash will not be granted. The lack of Under Republic Act No. 8294, possession of an
preliminary investigation is not a ground for a motion to unlicensed .45 calibre gun is punishable by prison mayor
quash. Preliminary investigation is only a statutory right and in its minimum period and a fine of P30, 000.00, while
can be waived. The accused should instead file a motion for possession of an unlicensed .32 calibre gun is punishable
reinvestigation within five (5) days after he learn of the filing by prison correctional in its maximum period and a fine
in Court of the case against him (Sec. 6, Rule 112, as of not less than P15,000.00. As counsel of the accused,
amended). you intend to file a motion to quash the Information.
What ground or grounds should you invoke? Explain.
Q: Pedrito and Tomas, Mayor and Treasurer, (2005 Bar)
respectively, of the Municipality of San Miguel, Leyte, are
charged before the Sandiganbayan for violation of A: The ground for the motion to quash is that more than one
Section 3 (e), Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and offense is charged in the information (Sec. 3(f), Rule 117)
Corrupt Practices Act). The information alleges, among Likewise, the RTC has no jurisdiction over the second offense
others, that the two conspired in the purchase of several of possession of an unlicensed .32 calibre gun, punishable by
units of computer through personal canvass instead of a prision correctional in its maximum period and a fine of not
public bidding, causing undue injury to the less than P15,000.00. It is the MTC that has exclusive and
municipality. Before arraignment, the accused moved original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable by
for reinvestigation of the charge, which the court imprisonment not exceeding six year (Sec 2, R.A. No. 7691
granted. After reinvestigation, the Office of the Special amending B.P. Blg. 129).
Prosecutor filed an amended information duly signed
and approved by the Special Prosecutor, alleging the Q: Give two (2) grounds to quash an Information. (1998
same delictual facts, but with an additional allegation Bar)
that the accused gave unwarranted benefits to SB
Enterprises owned by Samuel. Samuel was also indicted A: Two grounds to quash an Information are:
under the amended information. Before Samuel was
arraigned, he moved to quash the amended information 1. That the facts charged do not constitute an offense; and
on the ground that the officer who filed the same had no
authority to do so. Resolve the motion to quash with 2. That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over
reasons. (2009 Bar) the offense charged or the person of the accused.

UST BAR OPERATIONS 54


QUAMTO (1997-2016)
NOTE: The other grounds are: on the ground that the information charges acts that do not
constitute an offense.
3. That the officer who filed the Information had no
authority to do so; Double Jeopardy
4. That It does not conform substantially to the prescribed
form; Q: SPO1 CNC filed with the MTC in Quezon City (MeTC-
5. That more than one offense Is charged except In those QC) a sworn written statement duly subscribed by him,
cases in which existing laws prescribe a single charging RGR (an actual resident of Cebu City) with the
punishment for various offenses; offense of slight physical injuries allegedly inflicted on
6. That the criminal action or liability has been SPS (an actual resident of Quezon City). The judge of the
extinguished; branch to which the case was raffled thereupon issued
7. That It contains averments which. If true, would an order declaring that the case shall be governed by the
constitute a legal excuse or Justification; and Rule on Summary Procedure in Criminal cases. Soon
8. That the accused has been previously convicted or In thereafter, the Judge ordered the dismissal of the case
Jeopardy of being convicted, or acquitted of the offense for the reason that it was not commenced by
charged (Sec. 3, Rule 117). information, as required by said Rule. Sometime later,
based on the same facts giving rise to the slight physical
Q: If the Information is not accompanied by a injuries case, the City Prosecutor filed with the same
certification that a preliminary investigation has been MeTC-QC an information for attempted homicide against
conducted. Is the Information void? (1998 Bar) the same RGR. In due time, before arraignment, RGR
moved to quash the information on the ground of double
A: No. The certification which is provided in Sec. 4, Rule 112, jeopardy and after due hearing, the Judge granted his
Rules of Criminal Procedure, is not an indispensable part of motion.
the information (People v. Lapura, G.R. No. 94494, March 15,
1996). a. Was the dismissal of the complaint for slight
physical injuries proper?
Q: The Information against Roger Alindogan for the
crime of acts of lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the A: Yes, the dismissal of the complaint for slight physical
Revised Penal Code avers: injuries is proper because in Metropolitan Manila and in
chartered cities, the case has to be commenced only by
That on or about 10:30 o clock in the information (Sec. 11, Revised Rule on Summary Procedure).
evening of February 1, 2010 at Barangay
Matalaba, Imus, Cavite and within the b. Was the grant of the motion to quash the attempted
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the homicide information correct? (2004 Bar)
above-named accused, with lewd and
unchaste design, through force and A: No, the grant of the motion to quash the attempted
intimidation, did then and there, homicide information on the ground of double jeopardy was
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously not correct, because there was no valid prosecution for slight
commit sexual abuse on his daughter, physical injuries.
Rose Domingo, a minor of 11 years old,
either by raping her or committing acts Q: D was charged with slight physical injuries in the MTC.
of lasciviousness on her, against her will He pleaded not guilty and went to trial. After the
and consent to her damage and prosecution had presented its evidence, the trial court
prejudice. set the continuation of the hearing on another date. On
the date scheduled for hearing, the prosecutor failed to
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. appear, whereupon the court, on motion of D, dismissed
the case. A few minutes later, the prosecutor arrived and
The accused wants to have the case dismissed because opposed the dismissal of the case. The court
he believes that the charge is confusing and the reconsidered its order and directed D to present his
information is defective. What ground or grounds can he evidence. Before the next date of trial came, however, D
raise in moving for the quashal of the information? moved that the last order be set aside on the ground that
Explain. (2016 Bar) the reinstatement of the case had placed him twice in
jeopardy. Acceding to this motion, the court again
A: The accused may move to quash the information based on dismissed the case. The prosecutor then filed an
any of the following grounds: (a) That the facts charged do Information in the RTC, charging D with direct assault
not constitute an offense; (b) That it does not conform based on the same facts alleged in the information for
substantially to the prescribed form; and (c) That more that slight physical injuries but with the added allegation
one offense is charged except when a single punishment for that D inflicted the injuries out of resentment for what
various offenses is prescribed by law. (Section 3, Rule 117, the complainant had done in the performance of his
Rules of Criminal Procedure) duties as chairman of the board of election inspectors. D
moved to quash the second information on the ground
In People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. Nos. 135554-56, June 21, 2002, the that its filing had placed him in double jeopardy. How
Supreme Court ruled that the phrase by either raping her or should Ds motion to quash be resolved? (2002 Bar)
committing acts of lasciviousness does not constitute an
offense since it does not cite which among the numerous A: Ds motion to quash should be granted on the ground of
sections or subsections of R.A. No. 7610 has been violated by double jeopardy because the first offense charged is
accused-appellant. Moreover, it does not state the acts and necessarily included in the second offense charged (Draculan
omissions constituting the offense, or any special or v. Donato, G.R. No. L-44079, December 19, 1985).
aggravating circumstances attending the same, as required
under the rules of criminal procedure. These are conclusions Q: For the multiple stab wounds sustained by the victim,
of law, and not facts. Thus, the information violated accuseds Noel was charged with frustrated homicide in the RTC.
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of Upon arraignment, he entered a plea of guilty to said
the accusation against him and therefore should be quashed crime. Neither the court nor the prosecution was aware
55
REMEDIAL LAW
that the victim had died two days earlier on account of nearby police station. PO1 Remus and P02 Romulus
his stab wounds. Because of his guilty plea, Noel was proceeded to the condo unit identified by Paz. PO 1
convicted of frustrated homicide and meted the Remus knocked at the door and when a man opened the
corresponding penalty. When the prosecution learned of door, PO1 Remus and his companions introduced
the victims death, it filed within 15 days therefrom a themselves as police officers. The man readily identified
motion to amend the information to upgrade the charge himself as Oasis Jung and gestured to them to come in.
from frustrated homicide to consummated homicide. Inside, the police officers saw a young lady with her nose
Noel opposed the motion claiming that the admission of bleeding and face swollen. Asked by P02 Romulus what
the amended information would place him in double happened, the lady responded that she was beaten up by
jeopardy. Resolve the motion with reasons. (2005 Bar) Oasis Jung. The police officers arrested Oasis Jung and
brought him and the young lady back to the police
A: The amended information to consummated homicide station. PO1 Remus took the young lady's statement who
from frustrated homicide does not place the accused in identified herself as AA. She narrated that she is a
double jeopardy. As provided in the second paragraph of Sec. sixteen-year-old high school student; that previous to
7, Rule 117, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, the conviction the incident, she had sexual intercourse with Oasis Jung
of the accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution for at least five times on different occasions and she was
an offense which necessarily includes the offense charged in paid P5,000.00 each time and it was the first time that
the former complaint or information when: a) the graver Oasis Jung physically hurt her. P02 Romulus detained
offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the Oasis Jung at the station's jail. After the inquest
same act or omission constituting the former charge; or b) proceeding, the public prosecutor filed an information
the facts constituting the graver charge became known or for Violation of R.A. No. 9262 (The VAWC Law) for
were discovered only after a plea was entered in the former physical violence and five separate informations for
complain or information. Here, when the plea to frustrated violation of R.A. No. 7610 (The Child Abuse Law). Oasis
homicide was made, neither the court nor the prosecution Jung's lawyer filed a motion to be admitted to bail but
was aware that the victim had died two days earlier on the court issued an order that approval of his bail bond
account of his stab wounds. shall be made only after his arraignment.

Q: McJolly is a trouble-maker of sorts, always getting into Before arraignment, Oasis Jung's lawyer moved to quash
brushes with the law. In one incident, he drove his the other four separate informations for violation of the
Humvee recklessly, hitting a pedicab which sent its child abuse law invoking the single larceny rule. Should
driver and passengers in different directions. The the motion to quash be granted? (2015 Bar)
pedicab driver died, while two (2) of the passenger
suffered slight physical injuries. Two (2) Informations A: No. The court should not grant the motion to quash,
were then filed against McJolly. One, for Reckless because the single larceny rule does not find application
Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to where the charges involve violations of R.A. 9262 (The
Property, and two, for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in VAWC Law) and R.A. 7610 (The Child Abuse Law),
Slight Physical Injures. The latter case was scheduled for considering that each criminal act is based on a different
arraignment earlier, on which occasion McJolly criminal impulse and intent.
immediately pleaded guilty. He was meted out the
penalty of public censure. A month later, the case for In Santiago v. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 109266, December 2,
reckless imprudence resulting on homicide was also set 1993, the Supreme Court explained that the Single Larceny
for arraignment. Instead of pleading, McJolly interposed doctrine applies only to criminal crimes committed delicto
the defense of double jeopardy. Resolve. (2014 Bar) continuado, which exists if there should be plurality of acts
performed during a period of time; unity of penal provision
A: McJolly correctly interposed the defense of double violated; and unity of criminal intent or purpose, which
jeopardy. Reckless imprudence under Article 365 is a quasi- means that two or more violations of the same penal
offense by itself and not merely a means to commit other provisions are united in one and same instant or resolution
crimes, such that conviction or acquittal of such quasi- leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or
offense already bars subsequent prosecution for the same aim.
quasi-offense, regardless of its various resulting acts (Ivler v.
Hon, Modesto-San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, November 17, The said rule applies in theft cases, where the taking of
2010). several things, whether belonging to the same or different
owners, at the same time and place constitutes but one
Provisional dismissal larceny (Id).

Q: In a prosecution for robbery against D, the prosecutor PRE-TRIAL


moved for the postponement of the first scheduled
hearing on the ground that he had lost his records of the Q: Lilio filed a complaint in the MTC of Lanuza for the
case. The court granted the motion but, when the new recovery of a sum of money against Juan. The latter filed
date of trial arrived, the prosecutor, alleging that he his answer to the complaint serving a copy thereof on
could not locate his witnesses, moved for the dismissal Lilio. After the filing of the answer of Juan, whose duty is
of the case. If Ds counsel does not object, may the court it to have the case set for pre-trial? Why? (2001 Bar)
grant the motion of the prosecutor? Why? (2002 Bar)
A: After the filing of the answer of Juan, the PLAINTIFF has
A: No, because a case cannot be provisionally dismissed the duty to promptly move ex parte that the case be set for
except upon the express consent of the accused and with pre-trial (Sec. 1, Rule 18). The reason is that it is the plaintiff
notice to the offended party (Sec. 8, Rule 117). who knows when the last pleading has been filed and it is the
plaintiff who has the duty to prosecute.
Single Larceny Rule
Pre-trial agreement
Q: Paz was awakened by a commotion coming from a
condo unit next to hers. Alarmed, she called up the
UST BAR OPERATIONS 56
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
Q: Mayor TM was charged of malversation through address the situation and what forum would you use
falsification of official documents. Assisted by Atty. OP as to invoke this relief?
counsel de parte during pre-trial, he signed together
with Ombudsman Prosecutor TG a Joint Stipulation of A: Section 7, Rule 119 provides, if the public attorney
Facts and Documents, which was presented to the assigned to defend a person charged with a crime knows that
Sandiganbayan. Before the court could issue a pre-trial the latter is preventively detained, either because he is
order but after some delay caused by Atty. OP, he was charged with bailable crime but has no means to post bail, or
substituted by Atty. QR as defense counsel. Atty QR is charge with a non-bailable crime, or, is serving a term of
forthwith filed a motion to withdraw the Joint imprisonment in any penal institution, it shall be his duty to
Stipulation, alleging that it is prejudicial to the accused do the following:
because it contains, inter alia, the statement that the
Defense admitted all the documentary evidence of the 1) Shall promptly undertake to obtain the presence of
Prosecution, thus leaving the accused little or no room the prisoner for trial or cause a notice to be served
to defend himself, and violating his right against self- on the person having custody of the prisoner
incrimination. Should the court grant or deny QRs requiring such person to so advise the prisoner of
motion? Reason. (2004 Bar) his right to demand trial.
2) Upon receipt of that notice, the custodian of the
A: The court should deny QRs motion. If in the pre-trial prisoner shall promptly advise the prisoner of the
agreement signed by the accused and his counsel, the charge and of his right to demand trial. If at anytime
accused admits the documentary evidence of the thereafter the prisoner informs his custodian that he
prosecution, it does not violate his right against self- demands such trial, the latter shall cause notice to
incrimination. His lawyer cannot file a motion to withdraw. that effect to send promptly to the public attorney.
A pre-trial order is not needed (Bayas v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
Nos. 143689-91, November 12, 2002). The admission of such Moreover, Section 1 (e), Rule 116 provides, when the
documentary evidence is allowed by the rule (Sec. 2, Rule accused is under preventive detention, his case shall be
118; People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 108028, July 30, 1996). raffled and its records transmitted to the judge to whom the
case was raffled within three (3) days from the filing of the
TRIAL information or complaint. The accused shall be arraigned
within ten (10) days from the date of the raffle. The pre-trial
Q: Enumerate the requisites of a "trial in absentia " and conference of his case shall be held within ten (10) days after
a "promulgation of judgment in absentia" (1997, 1998, arraignment.
2010 Bar)
On the other hand, if the accused is not under preventive
A: The requisites of a valid trial in absentia are: (1) accused's detention, the arraignment shall be held within thirty (30)
arraignment; (2) his due notification of the trial; and (3) his days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the
unjustifiable failure to appear during trial (Bemardo v. person of the accused. [Sec. 1 (g), Rule116]
People, G.R. No. 166980, April 4, 2007).
Since the accused has not been brought for arraignment
The requisites for a valid promulgation of judgment in within the limit required in the aforementioned Rule, the
absentia are: Information may be dismissed upon motion of the accused
invoking his right to speedy trial (Sec. 9, Rule 119) or to a
a. A valid notice of promulgation of judgment, speedy disposition of cases (Sec. 16, Art. III, 1987
b. Said notice was duly furnished to the accused, personally Constitution).
or thru counsel;
c. Accused failed to appear on the scheduled date of b. In another case, also for qualified theft, the detained
promulgation of judgment despite due notice; young domestic helper has been brought to court
d. Such judgment be recorded in the criminal docket; and five times in the last six months, but the prosecution
e. Copy of said judgment had been duly served upon the has yet to commence the presentation of its
accused or his counsel evidence. You find that the reason for this is the
continued absence of the employer-complainant
Q: If an accused who was sentenced to death escapes, is who is working overseas. What remedy is
there still a legal necessity for the Supreme Court to appropriate and before which forum would you
review the decision of conviction? (1998 Bar) invoke this relief? (2013 Bar)

A: Yes. There is still a legal necessity for the Supreme Court A: I will file a motion to dismiss the information in the court
to review the decision of conviction sentencing the accused where the case is pending on the ground of denial of the
to death, because he is entitled to an automatic review of the accused right to speedy trial (Sec. 9, Rule 119; Tan v. People,
death sentence (Secs. 3(e) and 10, Rule 122; People v. Esparas, G.R. No. 173637, April 21, 2009). This remedy can be invoked,
G.R. No. 120034, August 20, 1996). at any time, before trial and if granted will result to an
acquittal. Since the accused has been brought to Court five
Remedy when accused is not brought to trial within the times and in each instance it was postponed, it is clear that
prescribed period her right to a Speedy Trial has been violated. Moreover, I may
request the court to issue Subpoena Duces Tecum and Ad
Q: At the Public Attorney's Office station in Taguig where Testificandum to the witness, so in case he disobeys same, he
you are assigned, your work requires you to act as public may be cited in contempt. I may also file a motion to order
defender at the local Regional Trial Court and to handle the witness employer-complainant to post bail to secure his
cases involving indigents. appearance in court (Sec. 14, Rule 119). I can also move for
provisional dismissal of the case (Sec. 8, Rule 117).
a. In one criminal action for qualified theft where you
are the defense attorney, you learned that the Demurrer to Evidence
woman accused has been in detention for six
months, yet she has not been to a courtroom nor Q: After the prosecution had rested and made its formal
seen a judge. What remedy would you undertake to offer of evidence, with the court admitting all of the
57
REMEDIAL LAW
prosecution evidence, the accused filed a demurrer to and submitted the case for judgment on the basis of the
evidence with leave of court. The prosecution was prosecution evidence. In due time, the court rendered
allowed to comment thereon. Thereafter, the court judgment finding the accused guilty of the offense
granted the demurrer, finding that the accused could not charged beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly
have committed the offense charged. If the prosecution imposing on him the penalty prescribed therefore. Is the
files a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the judgment of the trial court valid and proper? Reason
court order granting the demurrer was not in accord (2001, 2004 Bar)
with the law and jurisprudence, will the motion
prosper? Explain your answer. (2009 Bar) A: Yes. The judgment of the trial court is valid. The accused
did not ask for leave to file the demurrer to evidence. He is
A: No, the motion will not prosper. With the granting of the deemed to have waived his right to present evidence (Sec. 23,
demurrer, the case shall be dismissed and the legal effect is Rule 119; People v. Flores, G.R. 106581, March 3, 1997).
the acquittal of the accused. A judgment of acquittal is However, the judgment is not proper or is erroneous because
immediately executory and no appeal can be made there was no showing from the proper office that the accused
therefrom. Otherwise the Constitutional protection against has a permit to own or possess the firearm, which is fatal to
double jeopardy would be violated. the conviction of the accused (Mallari v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 110569, December 9, 1996).
Q: Facing a charge of Murder, X filed a petition for bail.
The petition was opposed by the prosecution but after Q: AA, a twelve-year-old girl, while walking alone met
hearing the court granted bail to X. On the first BB, a teenage boy who befriended her. Later, BB brought
scheduled hearing the merits, the prosecution AA to a nearby shanty where he raped her. The
manifested that it was not adducing additional evidence Information for rape filed against BB states:
and that it was resting its case. X filed a demurrer to
evidence without leave of court but it was denied by the "On or about October 30, 2015, in the
court. City of S.P. and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the accused, a
a. Did the court have the discretion to deny the minor, fifteen (15) years old with lewd
demurrer to evidence under the circumstances design and by means of force, violence
mentioned above? and intimidation, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had
A: YES. The Court had the discretion to deny the demurrer to sexual intercourse with AA, a minor,
the evidence, because although the evidence presented by twelve (12) years old against the latter's
the prosecution at the hearing for bail was not strong, will and consent."
without any evidence for the defense, it could be sufficient
for conviction. At the trial, the prosecutor called to the witness stand AA
as his first witness and manifested that he be allowed to
b. If the answer to the preceding question is in the ask leading questions in conducting his direct
affirmative can X adduce evidence in his defense examination pursuant to the Rule on the Examination of
after the denial of his demurrer to evidence? a Child Witness. BB's counsel objected on the ground
that the prosecutor has not conducted a competency
A: No. Because he filed the demurrer to the evidence without examination on the witness, a requirement before the
leave (Sec. 15, Rule 119). However, the trial court should rule cited can be applied in the case.
inquire as to why the accused filed the demurrer without xxx
leave and whether his lawyer knew that the effect of filing it After the prosecution had rested its case, BB's counsel
without leave is to waive the presentation of the evidence for filed with leave a demurrer to evidence, seeking the
the accused (People v. Fores, G.R. 106581, March 3, 1997). dismissal of the case on the ground that the prosecutor
failed to present any evidence on BB' s minority as
c. Without further proceeding and on the sole basis of alleged in the Information. Should the court grant the
the evidence of the prosecution, can the court legally demurrer? (2015 Bar)
convict X for Murder? (1998 Bar)
A: No, the court should not grant the demurrer. While it was
A: Yes. Without any evidence from the accused, the prima alleged in the information that BB was a minor at the time of
facie evidence of the prosecution has been converted to the commission of the offense, the failure of the prosecutor
proof beyond reasonable doubt. to present evidence to prove his minority is not a basis for
the granting of the demurrer, because minority of the
Q: The information for illegal possession of firearm filed accused is not an element of the crime of rape.
against the accused specifically alleged that he had no
license or permit to possess the calibre .45 pistol Be that as it may, the Court should not consider minority in
mentioned therein. In its evidence-in-chief, the rendering the decision. After all, the failure of the prosecutor
prosecution established the fact that the subject firearm to prove the minority of AA may only affect the imposable
was lawfully seized by the police from the possession of penalty but may not absolve him from criminal liability.
the accused that is, while the pistol was tucked at his
waist in plain view, without the accused being able to JUDGMENT
present any license or permit to possess the firearm. The
prosecution on such evidence rested its case and within Q: When a criminal case is dismissed on nolle prosequi,
a period of five days therefrom, the accused filed a can it later be refilled? (2003 Bar)
demurrer to evidence, in sum contending that the
prosecution evidence has not established the guilt of the A: As a general rule, when a criminal case is dismissed on
accused beyond reasonable doubt and so prayed that he nolle prosequi before the accused is placed on trial and before
be acquitted of the offense charged. The trial court he is called on to plead, this is not equivalent to an acquittal
denied the demurrer to evidence and deemed the and does not bar a subsequent prosecution for the same
accused as having waived his right to present evidence
UST BAR OPERATIONS 58
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
offense (Galvez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114046, October erroneous. The variance between the evidence and the
24, 1994). judgment of conviction is substantial since the evidence is
one for estafa while the judgment is one for theft. The
Q: Before the arraignment for the crime of murder, the elements of the two crimes are not the same (Lauro Santos v.
private complainant executed an Affidavit of Desistance People, G.R. No. 77429 January 29, 1990). One offense does
stating that she was not sure if the accused was the man not necessarily include or is included in the other (Sec. 5, Rule
who killed her husband. The public prosecutor filed a 120). The judgment of conviction is reviewable by certiorari
Motion to Quash the Information on the ground that with even if no appeal had been taken, because the judge
private complainants desistance, he did not have committed a grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or
evidence sufficient to convict the accused. On 02 January excess of his jurisdiction in convicting the accused of theft
2001, the court without further proceedings granted the and in violating due process and his right to be informed of
motion and provisionally dismissed the case. The the nature and the cause of the accusation against him, which
accused gave his express consent to the provisional make the judgment void. With the mistake in charging the
dismissal of the case. The offended party was notified of proper offense, the judge should have directed the filing of
the dismissal but she refused to give her consent. the proper information and thereafter dismissed the original
Subsequently, the private complainant urged the public information (Sec. 19, Rule 119).
prosecutor to re-file the murder charge because the
accused failed to pay the consideration which he had Promulgation of judgment; instances of judgment in
promised for the execution of the Affidavit of Desistance. absentia
The public prosecutor obliged and refiled the murder
charge against the accused on 01 February 2003, the Q: Ludong, Balatong, and Labong were charged with
accused filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the murder. After trial, the court announced that the case
ground that the provisional dismissal of the case had was considered submitted for decision. Subsequently,
already become permanent. the Clerk of Court issued the notices of promulgation of
judgment which were duly received. On promulgation
a. Was the provisional dismissal of the case proper? day, Ludong and his lawyer appeared. The lawyers of
Balatong and Labong appeared but without their clients
A: The provisional dismissal of the case was proper because and failed to satisfactorily explain their absence when
the accused gave his express consent thereto and the queried by the court. Thus, the judge ordered that the
offended party was notified. It was not necessary for the judgment be entered in the criminal docket and copies
offended party to give her consent thereto (Sec. 8, Rule 117). be furnished their lawyers. The lawyers of Ludong,
Balatong, and Labong filed within the reglementary
b. Resolve the Motion to Quash. (2003 Bar) period of Joint Motion for Reconsideration. The court
favorably granted the motion of Ludong downgrading
A: The motion to quash the information should be denied his conviction from murder to homicide but denied the
because, while the provisional dismissal had already become motion as regards Balatong and Labong.
permanent, the prescriptive period for filing the murder
charge had not prescribed. There was no double jeopardy a. Was the court correct in taking cognizance of the
because the first case was dismissed before the accused had Joint Motion for Reconsideration?
pleaded to the charge (Sec. 7, Rule 117).
A: No. The court is not correct in taking cognizance of the
Q: X, the accused in a homicide case before the RTC, Joint Motion for Reconsideration. Section 6, Rule 120 of the
Dagupan City, was personally notified of the Rules of Court provides that if the judgment is for conviction
promulgation of judgment in his case set for 10 and the failure of the accused to appear was without
December 1996. On said date, X was not present as he justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available against
had to attend to the trial of another criminal case against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest.
him in Tarlac, Tarlac. The trial court denied the motion Henceforth, the Court erred when it entertained the Joint
of the counsel of X to postpone the promulgation. Can the Motion for Reconsideration with respect to accused Balatong
trial court also order the arrest of X? (1997 Bar) and Labong who were not present during the promulgation
of the judgment. The Court should have merely considered
A: No, the trial court cannot order the arrest of X if the the joint motion as a motion for reconsideration that was
judgment is one of acquittal and, in any event, his failure to solely filed by Ludong. (People v. De Grano, G.R. No. 167710,
appear was with justifiable cause since he had to attend to June 5, 2009).
another criminal case against him.
b. Can Balatong and Labong appeal their conviction in
Q: AX was charged before the YY RTC with theft of case Ludong accepts his conviction for homicide?
jewelry valued at P20,000.00, punishable with (2014 Bar)
imprisonment of up to 10 years of prison mayor under
the Revised Penal Code. After trial, he was convicted of A: No, Balatong and Labong cannot appeal their conviction
the offense charged, notwithstanding that the material because they lost their right to appeal during the
facts duly established during the trial showed that the promulgation of judgment. Be that as it may, if they
offense committed was estafa, punishable by surrendered and filed a Motion for Leave to avail of their post
imprisonment of up to eight years of prison mayor under judgment remedies within fifteen (15) days from
the said Code. No appeal having been taken therefrom, promulgation of judgment. And they have proven that their
said judgment of conviction became final. Is the absence at the scheduled promulgation was for a justifiable
judgment of conviction valid? Is the said judgment cause, they may be allowed to avail of said remedies within
reviewable thru a special civil action for certiorari? fifteen (15) days from notice thereof (People v. De Grano, G.R.
Reason. (2004 Bar) No. 167710, June 5, 2009).

A: Yes, the judgment of conviction for theft upon Information SEARCH AND SEIZURE
for theft is valid because the court had jurisdiction to render
judgment. However, the judgment was grossly and blatantly

59
REMEDIAL LAW
Q: A PDEA asset/informant tipped the PDEA Director said property to the undersigned to be dealt
Shabunot that a shabu laboratory was operating in a with as the law directs.
house at Sta. Cruz, Laguna, rented by two (2) Chinese
nationals, Ho Pia and Sio Pao. PDEA Director Shabunot Witness my hand this 1st day of March, 2012.
wants to apply for a search warrant, but he is worried
that if he applies for a search warrant in any Laguna (signed)
court, their plan might leak out.
Judge XYZ
a. Where can he file an application for search warrant?
Cite/enumerate the defects, if any, of the search warrant.
A: PDEA Director may file an application for search warrant
in any court within the judicial region where the crime was A:
committed (Sec. 2[b], Rule 126). 1. The search warrant failed to particularly describe the
place to be searched and the things to be seized (Sec. 4,
b. What documents should he prepare in his Rule 126).
application for search warrant? 2. The search warrant commanded the immediate search,
at any time in the day or night. The general rule is that a
A: He should prepare a petition for issuance of a search search warrant must be served in the day time (Sec. 8,
warrant and attach therein sworn statements and affidavits. Rule 126), or that portion of the twenty-four hours in
which a mans person and countenance are
c. Describe the procedure that should be taken by the distinguishable (17 C.J. 1134). By way of exception, a
judge on the application. search warrant may be made at night when it is
positively asserted in the affidavit that the property is on
A: The judge must, before issuing the warrant, examine the person or in the place ordered to be searched
personally in the form of searching questions and answers, (Alvares v. CFI of Tayabas, G.R. No. L-45358, January 29,
in writing and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses 1937). There is no showing that the exception applies.
he may produce on facts personally known to them and
attach to the record their sworn statements, together with Suppose the search warrant was served on March 15,
the affidavits submitted (Sec. 5, Rule 126). If the judge is 2012 and the search yielded the described contraband
satisfied of the existence of facts upon which the application and a case was filed against the accused in RTC, Sta. Cruz,
is based or that there is probable cause to believe that they Laguna and you are the lawyer of Sio Pao and Ho Pia,
exist, he shall issue the warrant, which must be substantially what will you do?
in the form prescribed by the Rules (Sec. 6, Rule 126).
A: If I were the lawyer of Sio Pao and Ho Pia, I would file a
Suppose the judge issues the search warrant worded in Motion to Quash the search warrant for having been served
this way: beyond its period of validity (Sec.14, Rule 126). A search
warrant shall be valid only for ten days from its date.
PEOPLE OF THE Thereafter, it shall be void (Sec. 10, Rule 126).
PHILIPPINES
Plaintiff Suppose an unlicensed armalite was found in plain view
by the searchers and the warrant was ordered quashed,
Criminal Case No.
should the court order the return of the same to the
007
Chinese nationals? (2012 Bar)
-versus- for
Violation of R.A.
A: No, the Court should not order the return of the
9165
unlicensed armalite because it is contraband or illegal per se
Ho Pia and Sio Pao, (PDEA v. Bodett, G.R. No. 196390, September 28, 2011). The
Accused. possession of an unlicensed armalite found in plain view is
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x mala prohibita. The same be kept in custodia legis.

TO ANY PEACE OFFICER Particularity of place to be searched and things to be


seized; Plain view situation
Greetings:
It appearing to the satisfaction of the Q: The search warrant authorized the seizure of
undersigned after examining under oath PDEA "undetermined quantity of shabu." During the service of
Director Shabunot that there is probable cause the search warrant, the raiding team also recovered a
to believe that violations of Section 18 and 16 of kilo of dried marijuana leaves wrapped in newsprint.
R.A. 9165 have been committed and that there The accused moved to suppress the marijuana leaves as
are good and sufficient reasons to believe that evidence for the violation of Section 11 of the
Ho Pia and Sio Pao have in their possession or Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 since they
control, in a two (2) door apartment with an iron were not covered by the search warrant. The State
gate located at Jupiter St., Sta. Cruz, Laguna, justified the seizure of the marijuana leaves under the
undetermined amount of "shabu" and drug "plain view" doctrine. There was no indication of
manufacturing implements and paraphernalia whether the marijuana leaves were discovered and
which should be seized and brought to the seized before or after the seizure of the shabu. If you are
undersigned. the judge, how would you rule on the motion to
suppress? (2008 Bar)
You are hereby commanded to make an
immediate search, at any time in the day or A: The motion to suppress filed by the accused should be
night, of the premises above described and granted. The search warrant violates the constitutional and
forthwith seize and take possession of the statutory requirement that it should particularly describe
abovementioned personal property, and bring the person or things to be seized (Sec. 2, Art. 3, 1987
UST BAR OPERATIONS 60
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
Constitution; Sec. 2, Rule 126). The plain view doctrine a. If Hercules filed with the Ombudsman a complaint
cannot be invoked because the marijuana leaves were for warrantless search, as counsel for the police
wrapped in newsprint. Besides the marijuana leaves are not officer, what defense will you raise for the dismissal
the subject of the search warrant. of the complaint?

Q: Police operatives of Western Police District, A: As counsel of policeman, I will raise the defense of
Philippine National Police, applied for a search warrant presumption of regularity in the performance of duty.
in the RTC for the search of the house of Juan Santos and
the seizure of an undetermined amount of shabu. The I can also raise the defense that the police officer has the duty
team arrived at the house of Santos but failed to find him to search Hercules under the Stop-and-Frisk rule.
there. Instead, the team found Roberto Co. The team
conducted a search in the house of Santos in the A stop-and-frisk situation must precede a warrantless arrest,
presence of Roberto Co and barangay official and found be limited to the persons outer clothing, and should be
ten (10) grams of shabu. Roberto Co was charged in grounded upon a genuine reason, in the light of the police
court with illegal possession of ten grams of shabu. officers experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant
Before his arraignment, Roberto Co filed a motion to the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed
quash the warrant on the following grounds (a) it was about him (Valdez v. People, G.R. No. 170180, November 23,
not the accused named in the search warrant and (b) the 2007).
warrant does not prescribe the article to be seized with
sufficient particularity. Resolve the motion with The stop-and-frisk search should be used when dealing
reasons. (2005 Bar) with rapidly unfolding and potentially criminal situation in
the city streets where unarguably there is no time to secure
A: The motion to quash should be denied. The name of the a search warrant. Stop-and-frisk searches (sometimes
person in the search warrant is not important. It is not even referred to as Terry searches) are necessary for law
necessary that a particular person be implicated (Mantaring enforcement, that is, law enforcers should be given the legal
v. Roman, A.M. No. RTJ-93-904, February 28, 1996), so long as arsenal to prevent the commission of the offenses. This
the search is conducted in the place where the search should be balanced, however, with the need to protect the
warrant will be served. Moreover, describing the shabu in an privacy of citizens in accordance with Article III, Section 2 of
undetermined amount is sufficiently particular (People v. the Constitution (People of the Philippines v. Victor Cogaed,
Tee, G.R. Nos. 140546-47, January 20, 2003). G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014).

Q: A search warrant was issued for the purpose of b. If Hercules opts to file a civil action against the police
looking for unlicensed firearms in the house of Ass-asin, officer, will he have a cause of action? (2015 Bar)
a notorious gun for hire. When the police served the
warrant, they also sought the assistance of barangay A: Yes. Hercules has a cause of action to file civil action
tanods who were assigned to look at other portions of against the police officer under Article 32(4) in relation to
the premises around the house. In a nipa hut thirty (30) Article 2219(6) and (10) of the New Civil code, which
meters away from the house of Ass-asin, a Barangay provides that a police officer may be liable for damages when
tanod came upon a kilo of marijuana that was wrapped the right to be secure in ones person, house, papers and
in newsprint. He took it and this was later used by the effects against unreasonable searches and seizures is
authorities to charge Ass-asin with illegal possession of impaired. The indemnity includes moral damages.
marijuana. Ass-asin objected to the introduction of such Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated (Galvante v.
evidence claiming that it was illegally seized. Is the Casimiro, G.R. No. 162808, April 22, 2008).
objection of Ass-asin valid? (2014 Bar)

A: The objection is valid. The search warrant specifically EVIDENCE


designates or describes the house as the place to be searched.
Incidentally, the marijuana was seized by the Barangay
Tanods thirty (30) meters away from the house of the GENERAL PRINCIPLES
accused. Since the confiscated items were found in a place
other than the one described in the search warrant, it can be Q: Legislative facts and adjudicative facts. (2004 Bar)
considered as fruits of an invalid warrantless search, the
presentation of which as an evidence is a violation of A: Legislative facts refer to facts mentioned in a statue or in
petitioners constitutional guaranty against unreasonable an explanatory note, while adjudicative facts are facts found
searches and seizure (Ruben Del Castillo v. People of the in a court decision.
Philippines, G.R. No. 185128, January 30, 2012). Besides, the
search is also illegal because the marijuana confiscated in the Q: Give the reasons underlying the adoption of the
nipa hut was wrapped in a newsprint. Therefore, the same following rules of evidence:
cannot be considered validly seized in plain view (Abraham
Miclat v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 176077, August 31, a. Dead Man Rule
2011).
If death has closed the lips of one party, the policy of the law
Remedies from unlawful search and seizure is to close the lips of the other (Goni v. Court of Appeals, L-
77434, September 23, 1986). This is to prevent the
Q: Hercules was walking near a police station when a temptation to perjury because death has already sealed the
police officer signalled for him to approach. As soon as lips of the party.
Hercules came near, the police officer frisked him but
the latter found no contraband. The police officer told b. Parol Evidence Rule
Hercules to get inside the police station. Inside the police
station, Hercules asked the police officer, "Sir, may It is designed to give certainty to a transaction which has
problema po ba?" Instead of replying, the police officer been reduced to writing, because written evidence is much
locked up Hercules inside the police station jail. more certain and accurate than that which rests on fleeting

61
REMEDIAL LAW
memory only (Francisco, Revised Rules of Court, Vol. VII, Part inadmissible as evidence. In a subsequent criminal case
I. p. 154) for torture against those who deprived him of sleep and
subjected him to water torture, Dominique was asked to
c. Best Evidence Rule testify and to, among other things, identify his above-
said affidavit of confession. As he was about to identify
This Rule is adopted for the prevention of fraud and is the affidavit, the defense counsel objected on the ground
declared to be essential to the pure administration of justice that the affidavit is a fruit of a poisonous tree. Can the
(Moran, Vol. 5, p. 12). If a party is in possession of such objection be sustained? Explain. (2010 Bar)
evidence and withholds it, the presumption naturally arises
that the better evidence is withheld for fraudulent purposes A: No, the objection may not be sustained on the ground
(Francisco, Revised Rules of Court Vol. VII, Part I, pp. 121,122). stated, because the affiant was only to identify the affidavit
which is not yet being offered in evidence. The doctrine of the
d. The rule against the admission of illegally obtained fruit of the poisonous tree can only be invoked by Domingo
extrajudicial confession. as his defense in the crime of violation of Human Security Act
filed against him but not by the accused in a torture case filed
An illegally obtained extrajudicial confession nullifies the by him. In the instant case, the presentation of the affidavit
intrinsic validity of the confession and renders it unreliable cannot be objected to by the defense counsel on the ground
as evidence of the truth (Moran, Volume 5. p. 257). It is the that it is a fruit of the poisonous tree because the same is
fruit of a poisonous tree. used in Domingos favour.

e. The rule against the admission of an offer of Q: Sgt. GR of WPD arrested two NPA suspects, Max and
compromise in civil cases (1997 Bar) Brix, both aged 22, in the act of robbing a grocery in
Ermita. As he handcuffed them he noted a pistol tucked
The reason for the rule against the admission of an offer of in Maxs waist and a dagger hidden under Brixs shirt,
compromise in civil case as an admission of any liability is which he promptly confiscated. At the police
that parties are encouraged to enter into compromises. investigation room, Max and Brix orally waived their
Courts should endeavor to persuade the litigants in a civil right to counsel and to remain silent. Then under oath,
case to agree upon some fair compromise (Art. 2029, NCC). they freely answered questions asked by the police desk
During pre-trial, courts should direct the parties to consider officer. Thereafter they signed their sworn statements
the possibility of an amicable settlement (Sec. 2[a], Rule 18). before the police captain, a lawyer. Max admitted his
part in the robbery, his possession of a pistol and his
Admissibility of evidence ownership of the packet of shabu found in his pocket.
Brix admitted his role in the robbery and his possession
Q: The barangay captain reported to the police that X of a dagger. But they denied being NPA hit men. In due
was illegally keeping in his house in the barangay an course, proper charges were filed by the City Prosecutor
Armalite M16 rifle. On the strength of that information, against both arrestees before the MM RTC. May the
the police conducted a search of the house of X and written statements signed and sworn to by Max and Brix
indeed found said rifle. The police raiders seized the be admitted by the trial court as evidence for the
rifle and brought X to the police station. During the prosecution? Reason. (2004 Bar)
investigation, he voluntarily signed a Sworn Statement
that he was possessing said rifle without license or A: No. The sworn written statements of Max and Brix may
authority to possess, and a Waiver of Right to Counsel, not be admitted in evidence, because they were not assisted
individually rule on the admissibility in evidence of the: by counsel, even if the police captain before whom they
signed the statements was a lawyer, nor can he be
a. Rifle; considered as an independent counsel. Waiver of the right to
a lawyer must be done in writing and in the presence of
A: The rifle is not admissible in evidence because it was independent counsel (People v. Mahinay, G.R. No. 122485,
seized without a proper search warrant. A warrantless February 1, 1999; People v. Espiritu, G.R. No. 128287, February
search is not justified. There was time to secure a search 2, 1999).
warrant (People v. Encicada G.R. No. 116720, October 2, 1997).
Q: Defendant was declared in default by the RTC.
b. Sworn Statement; (2008 Bar) and Plaintiff was allowed to present evidence in support of
his complaint. Photocopies of official receipts and
A: The sworn statement is not admissible in evidence original copies of affidavits were presented in court,
because it was taken without informing him of his custodial identified by plaintiff on the witness stand and marked
rights and without the assistance of counsel which should be as exhibits. Said documents were offered by plaintiff and
independent and competent and preferably of the choice of admitted in evidence by the court on the basis of which
the accused (People v. Januario, G.R. No. 98252, February 7, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff,
1997). pursuant to the relief prayed for. Upon receipt of
judgment, defendant appeals to the Court of Appeals
c. Waiver of Right to Counsel of X. (1998 Bar) claiming that the judgment is not valid because the RTC
based its judgment on mere photocopies and affidavits
A: The waiver of his right to counsel is not admissible of persons not presented in court. Is the claim valid?
because it was made without the assistance of counsel of his Explain. (2000 Bar)
choice (People v. Gomez, G.R. No. 101817, March 26, 1997).
A: The claim of defendant is valid, because the court received
Q: Dominique was accused of committing a violation of evidence which it can order in its own discretion, in which
the Human Security Act. He was detained case the evidence of the plaintiff must pass the basic
incommunicado, deprived of sleep, and subjected to requirements of admissibility.
water torture. He later allegedly confessed his guilt via
an affidavit. After trial, he was acquitted on the ground Burden of proof and burden of evidence
that his confession was obtained through torture, hence,
UST BAR OPERATIONS 62
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
Q: Distinguish Burden of proof and burden of evidence.
(2004 Bar) Chain of custody, in relation to Section 21 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
A: Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence
on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or Q: At the trial of Ace for violation of the Dangerous Drugs
defense by the amount of evidence required by law (Sec. 1, Act, the prosecution offers in evidence a photocopy of
Rule 131), while burden of evidence is the duty of a party to the marked P100.00 bills used in the buy-bust
go forward with the evidence to overthrow prima facie operation. Ace objects to the introduction of the
evidence established against him (See: Bautista v. photocopy on the ground that the Best Evidence Rule
Sarmiento, G.R. No. L-45137 September 23, 1985). prohibits the introduction of secondary evidence in lieu
of the original.
Quantum of proof
a. Is the photocopy real (object) evidence or
Q: Distinguish preponderance of the evidence from documentary evidence?
substantial evidence. (2003 Bar)
A: The photocopy of the marked bills is real (object) evidence
A: Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence as a not documentary evidence, because the marked bills are real
whole adduced by one side is superior to that of the other. evidence
This is applicable in civil cases (Sec. 1, Rule 133; Municipality
of Moncada v. Cajuigan, G.R. No. L-7048, January 12, 1912). b. Is the photocopy admissible in evidence? (1994 Bar)

Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence A: Yes, the photocopy is admissible in evidence, because the
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify best evidence rule does not apply to object or real evidence
a conclusion. This is applicable in cases filed before (People v. Tandoy, G.R. No. 0505, December 4, 1990).
administrative or quasi-judicial bodies (Sec. 5, Rule 133).
Q: Discuss the chain of custody principle with respect
JUDICIAL NOTICE AND JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS to evidence seized under R.A. 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. (2012
Judicial notice of foreign laws, law of nations and Bar)
municipal ordinance
A: In prosecutions involving narcotics and other illegal
Q: Give three instances when a Philippine Court can take substances, the substance itself constitutes part of the corpus
judicial notice of a foreign law. (1997 Bar) delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to
sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
A: The three instances when a Philippine court can take The chain of custody requirement is essential to ensure that
judicial notice of a foreign law are: (1) when the Philippine doubts regarding the identity of the evidence are removed
courts are evidently familiar with the foreign law (Moran, through the monitoring and tracking of the movements of
1980): (2) when the foreign law refers to the law of nations the seized drugs from the accused, to the police, to the
(Sec. 1, Rule 129) and, (3) when it refers to a published forensic chemist, and finally to the court (People v. Sitco, G.R.
treatise, periodical or pamphlet on the subject of law if the No. 178202, May 14, 2010). Ergo, the existence of the
court takes judicial notice of the fact that the writer thereof dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for conviction
is recognized in his profession or calling as expert on the (People v. De Guzman y Danzil, G.R. No. 186498, March 26,
subject (Sec. 4[5], Rule 130). 2010). The failure to establish, through convincing proof,
that the integrity of the seized items has been adequately
Q: How do you prove a written foreign law? (1997 Bar) preserved through an unbroken chain of custody is enough
to engender reasonable doubt on the guilt of an accused (Id.).
A: A written foreign law may be evidenced by an official Nonetheless, non-compliance with the procedure shall not
publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having render void and invalid the seizure and custody of the drugs
the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and when: (1) such non-compliance is attended by justifiable
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with grounds; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of
a certificate that such officer has the custody, if the office in the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate team. There must be proof that these two (2) requirements
may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, were met before such non-compliance may be said to fall
consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent or by within the scope of the proviso (People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No.
any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed 177222, October 29, 2008).
in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and
authenticated by the seal of his office (Sec. 24, Rule 132, Rule on DNA Evidence (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC)
Zalamea v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104235 November 18,
1993). Q: In a prosecution for rape, the defense relied on
Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) evidence showing that the
Q: Suppose a foreign law was pleaded as part of the semen found in the private part of the victim was not
defense of defendant but no evidence was presented to identical with that of the accused. As private prosecutor,
prove the existence of said law, what is the presumption how will you dispute the veracity and accuracy of the
to be taken by the court as to the wordings of said law? results of the DNA evidence? (2010 Bar)
(1997 Bar)
A: As private prosecutor, I shall try to discredit the results of
A: The presumption is that the wordings of the foreign law the DNA test by questioning and possibly impugning the
are the same as the local law (Northwest Orient Airlines v. integrity of the DNA profile by showing a flaw/error in
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112573, February 9, 1995; Moran, obtaining the biological sample, or in the chain of custody of
1980; Lim v. Collector of Customs, G.R. No. L-11759, March 16, the biological sample obtained; the testing methodology
1917). This is known as the PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION. employed; the scientific standard observed; the forensic
DNA laboratory which conducted the test; and the
OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE
63
REMEDIAL LAW
qualification, training and experience of the forensic
laboratory personnel who conducted the DNA testing. Best Evidence Rule

Q: At the Public Attorney's Office station in Taguig where Q: If the photocopies of official receipts and photocopies
you are assigned, your work requires you to act as public of affidavits were attached to the position paper
defender at the local Regional Trial Court and to handle submitted by plaintiff in an action for unlawful detainer
cases involving indigents. Still in another case, this time filed with Municipal Trial Court on which basis the court
for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff? Explain. (2000
prosecution has rested but you saw from the records Bar)
that the illegal substance allegedly involved has not been
identified by any of the prosecution witnesses nor has it A: The claim of defendant is valid, because although
been the subject of any stipulation. Should you now summary procedure requires merely the submission of
proceed post haste to the presentation of defense position papers, the evidence submitted with the position
evidence or consider some other remedy? Explain the paper must be admissible in evidence (Sec. 9, Revised Rule of
remedial steps you propose to undertake. (2013 Bar) Summary Procedure). Photocopies of official receipts and
affidavits are not admissible without proof of loss of the
A: I will first file a motion for leave to file demurrer to original (Sec. 3, Rule 130).
evidence within five (5) days from the time the prosecution
rested its case. If the same is granted, then I will file a Q: When A loaned a sum of money to B, A typed a single
demurrer to evidence within ten (10) days from notice on copy of the promissory note, which they both signed. A
the ground of insufficiency of evidence of the prosecution made two photo (xeroxed) copies of the promissory
(Sec. 23, Rule 119). note, giving one copy to B and retaining the other copy.
A entrusted the typewritten copy to his counsel for
In People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 186498, March 26, 2010, the safekeeping. The copy with As counsel was destroyed
Supreme Court held that in prosecution for violation of the when the law office was burned.
dangerous Drugs Act, the existence of the dangerous drug is
a condition sine qua non for conviction. The dangerous drug a. In an action to collect on the promissory note, which
is the very corpus delicti of the crime. The identity of the is deemed to be the original copy for the purpose
prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty. of the Best Evidence Rule?
Apart from the showing that the elements of possession or
sale are present, the fact that the substance illegally A: The copy that was signed and lost is the only original
possessed and sold in the first place is the same substance copy for purposes of the Best Evidence Rule (Sec. 4 [b], Rule
offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with 130).
the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a
guilty verdict. The corpus delicti should be identified with b. Can the photocopies in the hands of the parties be
unwavering exactitude. considered duplicate original copies?

Similarly, in People v. Sitco, G.R. No. 178202, May 14, 2010, the A: NO, They are not duplicate original copies because there
High Court held that in prosecutions involving narcotics and are photocopies which were not signed (Mahilum v. Court of
other illegal substances, the substance itself constitute part Appeals, G.R. No. L-17970, June 30, 1966). They constitute
of the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence secondary evidence (Sec. 5, Rule 130)
is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. Of chief concern in drug cases then is the c. As counsel for A, how will you prove the loan given
requirement that the prosecution prove that what was to A and B? (1997 Bar)
seized by police officers is the same item presented in court.
This identification must be established with moral certainty A: The loan given by A to B may be proved by secondary
and is a function of the rule of chain of custody. The chain of evidence through the xeroxed copies of the promissory note.
custody requirement is essential to ensure that doubts The rules provide that when the original document is lost or
regarding the identity of the evidence are removed through destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offerer, upon
the monitoring and tracking of the movements of the seized proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its
drugs from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its
and finally to the court. contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some
authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE order stated (Sec. 5, Rule 130).

Q: May a private document be offered, and admitted in Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC)
evidence both as documentary evidence and as object
evidence? Explain (2005 Bar) Q: State the rule on the admissibility of an electronic
evidence. (2003 Bar)
A: Yes. A private document may be offered and admitted in
evidence both as documentary evidence and as object A: Whenever a rule of evidence refers to the term
evidence. A document can also be considered as an object for writing, document, record, instrument, memorandum
purposes of the case. Objects as evidence are those or any other form of writing, such term shall be
addressed to the senses of the court (Sec. 1, Rule 130) deemed to include an electronic document as defined
Documentary evidence consists of writings or any material in the Rules (Sec. 1, Rule 3, Rules on Electronic
containing letters, words, numbers, figures, symbols or Evidence).
other modes of written expressions, offered as proof of their
contents (Sec. 2, Rule 130). A tombstone may be offered in An electronic document is admissible in evidence if it
evidence to prove what is written on it and if the same complies with the rules on admissibility prescribed by
tombstone is found on a tomb, then it is object evidence. It the Rules of Court and related laws and is
can be considered as both documentary and object evidence authenticated in the manner prescribed by thee Rules
(See: Gupit, Jr., 1989). (Sec. 2, Rule 3, Id.). The authenticity of any private
UST BAR OPERATIONS 64
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
electronic document must be proved by evidence that
it had been digitally signed and other appropriate TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE
security measures have been applied (Sec. 2, Rule 5,
Id.). Q: For over a year, Nenita had been estranged from her
husband Walter because of the latters suspicion that
Q: When is an electronic evidence regarded as being the she was having an affair with Vladimir, a barangay
equivalent of an original document under the Best kagawad who lived in nearby Mandaluyong. Nenita lived
Evidence Rule? (2003 Bar) in the meantime with her sister in Makati. One day, the
house of Nenitas sister inexplicably burned almost to
A: An electronic document shall be regarded as the the ground. Nenita and her sister were caught inside the
equivalent of an original document under the Best house but Nenita survived as she fled in time, while her
Evidence Rule if it is a printout or output readable by sister tried to save belongings and was caught inside
sight or other means, shown to reflect the data when the house collapsed. As she was running away
accurately (Sec. 1, Rule 4, Id.). from the burning house, Nenita was surprised to see her
husband also running away from the scene. Dr. Carlos,
Parol Evidence Rule Walters psychiatrist who lived near the burned house
and whom Walter medically consulted after the fire, also
Q: Pedro filed a complaint against Lucio for the recovery saw Walter in the vicinity some minutes before the fire.
of a sum of money based on a promissory note executed Coincidentally, Fr. Platino, the parish priest who
by Lucio. In his complaint, Pedro alleged that although regularly hears Walters confession and who heard it
the promissory note says that it is payable within 120 after the fire, also encountered him not too far away
days, the truth is that the note is payable immediately from the burned house. Walter was charged with arson
after 90 days but that if Pedro is willing, he may upon and at his trial, the prosecution moved to introduce the
request of Lucio give the latter up to 120 days to pay the testimonies of Nenita, the doctor and the priest-
note. During the hearing, Pedro testified that the truth is confessor, who all saw Walter at the vicinity of the fire at
that the agreement between him and Lucio is for the about the time of the fire. (2006, 2013 Bar)
latter to pay immediately after ninety days time. Also,
since the original note was with Lucio and the latter a. May the testimony of Nenita be allowed over the
would not surrender to Pedro the original note which objection of Walter?
Lucio kept in a place about one days trip from where he
received the notice to produce the note and in spite of A: No. Nenita may not be allowed to testify against Walter.
such notice to produce the same within six hours from Under the Marital Disqualification Rule, during their
receipt of such notice, Lucio failed to do so. Pedro marriage, neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or
presented a copy of such the note which was executed at against the other without the consent of the affected spouse,
the same time as the original and with identical except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal
contents. case for a crime committed by one against the other or the
latter's direct descendants or ascendants (Sec. 22, Rule 130).
a. Over the objection of Lucio, will Pedro be allowed to The foregoing exceptions cannot apply since it only extends
testify as to the true agreement or contents of the to a criminal case of one spouse against the other or the
promissory note? Why? latters direct ascendants or descendants. Clearly, Nenita is
not the offended party and her sister is not her direct
A: Yes, because Pedro has alleged in his complaint that the ascendant or descendant for her to fall within the exception.
promissory note does not express the true intent and
agreement of the parties. This is an exception to the parol b. May the testimony of Dr. Carlos, Walters
evidence rule (Sec. 9[b] Rule 130). psychiatrist, be allowed over Walters objection?

b. Over the objection of Lucio, can Pedro present a copy A: Yes. The testimony of Walters psychiatrist may be
of promissory note and have it admitted as valid allowed. The privileged communication contemplated under
evidence in his favor? Why? (2001 Bar) Sec. 24 (c) Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence involves only
persons authorized to practice medicine, surgery or
A: Yes, the copy in the possession of Pedro is a duplicate obstetrics. It does not include a Psychiatrist. Moreover, the
original and with identical contents (Sec. 4[b] Rule 130). privileged communication applies only in civil cases and not
Moreover, the failure of Lucio to produce the original of the in a criminal case for arson. Besides, the subject of the
note is excusable because he was not given reasonable testimony of Dr. Carlos was not in connection with the advice
notice, as requirement under the Rules before secondary or treatment given by him to Walter, or any information he
evidence may be presented (Sec. 6 Rule 130). acquired in attending to Walter in a professional capacity.
The testimony of Dr. Carlos is limited only to what he
Authentication and proof of documents perceived at the vicinity of the fire and at about the time of
the fire.
Q: X states on direct examination that he once knew the
facts being asked but he cannot recall them now. When c. May the testimony of Fr. Platino, the priest-
handed a written record of the facts he testifies that the confessor, be allowed over Walters objection?
facts are correctly stated, but that he has never seen the
writing before. Is the writing admissible as past A: Yes. The Priest can testify over the objection of Walter.
recollection recorded? Explain. (1996 Bar) The disqualification requires that the same were made
pursuant to a religious duty enjoined in the course of
A: No, because for the written record to be admissible as past discipline of the sect or denomination to which they belong
recollection recorded, it must have been written or recorded and must be confidential and penitential in character, e.g.,
by X or under his direction at the time when the fact under the seal of confession (Sec. 24 (d) Rule 130).
occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other time
when the fact was fresh in his memory and he knew that the Here, the testimony of Fr. Platino was not previously subject
same was correctly written or recorded (Sec. 16, Rule 132). of a confession of Walter or an advice given by him to Walter
But in this case, X has never seen the writing before. in his professional character. The testimony was merely
65
REMEDIAL LAW
limited to what Fr. Platino perceived at the vicinity of the will identify only the cellphone as that of her husband Emilio,
fire and at about the time of the fire. Hence, Fr. Platino may not the messages therein which to her are hearsay.
be allowed to testify.
c. If Mabinis objection in question B was overruled,
Competency versus credibility of a witness can he object to the presentation of the text message
on the ground that it is hearsay?
Q: Distinguish Competency of the witness and credibility
of the witness. (2004 Bar) A: No, Gregorias text message in Emilios cellphone is not
covered by the hearsay rule because it is regarded in the
A: Competency of the witness refers to a witness who can rules of evidence as independently relevant statement: the
perceive and perceiving, can make known his perception to text message is not to prove the truth of the fact alleged
others (Sec. 20, Rule 130), while credibility of the witness therein but only as to the circumstances of whether or not
refers to a witness whose testimony is believable. premeditation exists.

DISQUALIFICATIONS OF WITNESSES d. Suppose that shortly before he expired, Emilio was


able to send a text message to his wife Graciana
By reason of marriage reading "Nasaksak ako. D na me makahinga. Si
Mabini ang may gawa ni2." Is this text message
Q: Ody sued spouses Cesar and Baby for a sum of money admissible as a dying declaration? Explain. (2010
and damages. At the trial, Ody called Baby as his first Bar)
witness. Baby objected, joined by Cesar, on the ground
that she may not be compelled to testify against her A: Yes, the text message is admissible as a dying declaration
husband. Ody insisted and contended that after all, she since the same came from the victim who shortly expired
would just be questioned about a conference they had and it is in respect of the cause and circumstance of his death.
with the barangay captain, a matter which is not The decisive factor that the message was made and sent
confidential in nature. The trial court ruled in favor of under consciousness of an impending death, is evidently
Ody. Was the ruling proper? Will you answer be the same attendant from the victims statement: D na me
if the matters to be testified on were known to Baby or makakahinga and the fact that he died shortly after he sent
acquired by her prior to her marriage to Cesar? Explain the message. However, cellphone messages are regarded as
(1998, 2000, 2004 Bar) electronic evidence, and in a recent case (Ang v. Court of
Appeals et al., G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010), the Supreme
A: No. Under the Rules on Evidence, a wife cannot be Court ruled that the Rules on Electronic Evidence applies
examined for or against her husband without his consent, only to civil actions, quasi-judicial proceedings and
except in civil cases by one against the other, or in a criminal administrative proceeding, not to criminal actions.
case for a crime committed by one against the other. Since
the case was filed by Ody against the spouses Cesar and Baby, Q: On August 15, 2008, Edgardo committed estafa
Baby cannot be compelled to testify against Cesar without his against Petronilo in the amount of P3 Million. Petronilo
consent (Lezama v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-25643, June 27, brought his complaint to the National Bureau of
1968). Investigation, which found that Edgardo had visited his
lawyer twice, the first time on August 14, 2008 and the
Q: On March 12, 2008, Mabini was charged with Murder second on August 16, 2008; and that both visits
for fatally stabbing Emilio. To prove the qualifying concerned the swindling of Petronilo. During the trial of
circumstance of evident premeditation, the prosecution Edgardo, the RTC issued a subpoena ad testificandum to
introduced on December 11, 2009 a text message, which Edgardo's lawyer for him to testify on the conversations
Mabinis estranged wife Gregoria had sent to Emilio on during their first and second meetings. May the
the eve of his death, reading: "Honey,pa2tayin u ni subpoena be quashed on the ground of privileged
Mabini. Mtgal n nyang plano i2. Mg ingat u bka ma tsugi communication? Explain fully. (2008 Bar)
k."
A: No, the subpoena may not be simply quashed on the
a. A subpoena ad testificandum was served on Gregoria allegation that the testimony to be elicited constitutes
for her to be presented for the purpose of identifying privileged communication. It may be noted that the accused
her cellphone and the text message. Mabini objected committed the crime of swindling on August 15, 2008,
to her presentation on the ground of marital whereas he first visited his lawyers on August 14, 2008 or
privilege. Resolve. before he committed the swindling. Clearly the
conversations the accused had with his lawyer during such
A: The objection should be sustained on the ground of the first visit, before he committed the swindling cannot be
marital disqualification rule (Sec. 22, Rule 130), not on the protected by the privilege between attorney and client
ground of the marital privilege communication rule (Sec. because the crime had not been committed yet and it is no
24, Rule 130). The marriage between Mabini and Georgia is part of the lawyers professional duty to assist or aid in the
still subsisting and the situation at bar does not come under commission of the crime; hence not in the course of
the exceptions to the disqualification by reason of marriage. professional employment.

b. Suppose Mabinis objection in question A was The second visit by accused Edgardo to his lawyer the next
sustained. The prosecution thereupon announced day (August 16, 2008) after the swindling was committed
that it would be presenting Emilios wife Graciana to may also suffer from the same infirmity as the conversations
identify Emilios cellphone bearing Gregorias text had during their first meeting inasmuch as there could not be
message. Mabini objected again. Rule on the complaint made immediately after the estafa was committed.
objection. The privilege covering a lawyer-client relation under Sec.
24(b), Rule 130, may not be invoked, as it is not a ground for
A: The objection should be overruled. The testimony of quashal of a subpoena ad testificandum under Section 4, Rule
Graciana is not covered by the said marital disqualification 21 of the Rules of Court.
rule because she is not the wife of Mabini. Besides, Graciana
UST BAR OPERATIONS 66
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
Although the subpoena ad testificandum may not be quashed counsel for XYZ objected to the testimony of ABC at the
the, privilege covers conversations with a view to trial of the child prostitution case and the introduction
professional employment. It can be invoked at the trial but of the affidavits she executed against her husband as a
not quash the subpoena. violation of espousal confidentiality and marital
privilege rule. It turned out that DEF, the minor daughter
Q: C is the child of the spouses H and W. H sued his wife of ABC by her first husband who was a Filipino, was
W for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage under molested by XYZ earlier. Thus, ABC had filed for legal
Article 36 of the Family Code. In the trial, the following separation from XYZ since last year. May the court admit
testified over the objection of W: C, H and D, a doctor of the testimony and affidavits of the wife, ABC, against her
medicine who used to treat W. Rule on Ws objections husband, XYZ, in the criminal case involving child
which are the following: prostitution? Reason. (2004 Bar)

a. H cannot testify against her because of the rule on A: Yes. The court may admit the testimony and affidavits of
marital privilege; the wife against her husband in the criminal case where it
involves child prostitution of the wife's daughter. It is not
A: The rule of marital privilege cannot be invoked in the covered by the marital privilege rule. One exception thereof
annulment case under Article 36 of the Family Code because is where the crime is committed by one against the other or
it is a civil case filed by one against the other (Sec. 22, Rule the latters direct descendants or ascendants (Sec. 22, Rule
130). 130). A crime by the husband against the daughter is a crime
against the wife and directly attacks or vitally impairs the
b. C cannot testify against her because of the doctrine conjugal relation (Ordono v. Daquigan, G.R. No. L-39012
on parental privilege January 31, 1975).

A: The doctrine of parental privilege cannot likewise be Q: John filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his
invoked by W as against the testimony of C, their child. C may marriage to Anne on the ground of psychological
not be compelled to testify but free to testify against her (Sec. incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code. He obtained
25, Rule 130; Art. 215 FC). a copy of the confidential psychiatric evaluation report
on his wife from the secretary of the psychiatrist. Can he
c. D cannot testify against her because of the doctrine testify on the said report without offending the rule on
of privileged communication between patient and privileged communication? (2016 Bar)
physician (1998).
A: Yes, John can testify. Under the rule on privileged
A: D, as doctor who used to treat W, is disqualified to testify communication, the husband or the wife, during or after the
against W over her objection as to any advice or treatment marriage, cannot be examined without the consent of the
given by him or any information which he may have acquired other as to any communication received in confidence by one
in his professional capacity (Sec. 24[c], Rule 130). from the other during the marriage except in a civil case filed
by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime
Q: Vida and Romeo are legally married. Romeo is committed by one agaisnst the other or the latters direct
charged in court with the crime of serious physical descendants or ascendants. [Rule 130, Sec. 24(a), Rules of
injuries committed against Selmo, son of Vida, step-son Court] In this cae, Anne cannot prevent John from testifying
of Romeo. Vida witnessed the infliction of the injuries on against her since the petition for declaration of nullity is a
Selmo by Romeo. The public prosecutor called Vida to civil case filed by one spouse against the other; hence, the
the witness stand and offered her testimony as an rule on privileged communication between the spouses does
eyewitness. Counsel for Romeo objected on the ground not apply. John could testify on the confidential psychiatric
of the marital disqualification rule under the Rules of evaluation report of his wife that he obtained from the
Court. secretary of the psychiatrist, without offending the rule on
privileged communication.
a. Is the objection valid?
EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS
A: No. While neither the husband nor the wife may testify for
or against the other without the consent of the affected Judicial Affidavit (A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC)
spouse, one exception is if the testimony of the spouse is in a
criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other Q: What are the contents of a judicial affidavit? (2016
or the latters direct descendants or ascendants (Sec. 22, Rule Bar)
130). The case falls under this exception because Selma is the
direct descendant of the spouse Vida. A: A judicial affidavit shall be prepared in the language
known to the witness and, if not in English or Filipino,
b. Will your answer be the same if Vidas testimony is accompanied by a translation in English or Filipino, and shall
offered in a civil case for recovery of personal contain the following:
property filed by Selmo against Romeo? (2000 Bar)
a. The name, age, residence or business address, and
A: No. The marital disqualification rule applies this time. The occupation of the witness;
exception provided by the rules is in a civil case by one b. The name and address of the lawyer who conducts or
spouse against the other. The case here involves a case by supervises the examination of the witness and the place
Selmo for the recovery of personal property against Vidas where the examination is being held;
spouse, Romeo. c. A statement that the witness is answering the questions
asked of him, fully conscious that he does so under oath,
Q: XYZ, an alien, was criminally charged of promoting and that he mayface criminal liability for false testimony
and facilitating child prostitution and other sexual or perjury;
abuses under Rep. Act No. 7610. The principal witness d. Questions asked of the witness and his corresponding
against him was his Filipina wife, ABC. Earlier, she had answers, consecutively numbered, that:
complained that XYZs hotel was being used as a center
for sex tourism and child trafficking. The defense
67
REMEDIAL LAW
1. show the circumstances under which the witness the witness is called to testify, and any objection to it should
acquired the facts upon which he testifies; have been made at the time the witness was presented
2. Elicit from him those facts which are relevant to the (Section 6 and 8, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC or the Judicial Affidavit
issues that the case presents; and Rule).
3. Identify the attached documentary and object
evidence and establish their authenticity in Since the receipt attached to the judicial affidavit was orally
accordance with the Rules of Court. offered, there was enough basis for the court to award civil
liability.
e. The signature of the witness over his printed name; and
f. A jurat with the signature of the notary public who Q: Aside from asking a witness to explain and
administers the oath or an officer who is authorized by supplement his answer in the cross-examination, can
law to administer the same. (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, the proponent ask in re-direct examination questions on
Judicial Affidavit Rule) matters not dealt with during cross-examination? (1997
Bar)
Q: Pedro was charged with theft for stealing Juan's
cellphone worth P20, 000.00. Prosecutor Marilag at the A: Yes, on redirect examination, questions on matters not
pre-trial submitted the judicial affidavit of Juan dealt with during the cross-examination may be allowed by
attaching the receipt for the purchase of the cellphone to the court in its discretion (Sec. 7, Rule 132).
prove civil liability. She also submitted the judicial
affidavit of Mario, an eyewitness who narrated therein Q: Aside from asking the witness on matters stated in his
how Pedro stole Juan's cellphone. At the trial, Pedro's re-direct examination, can the opponent in his re-cross
lawyer objected to the prosecution's use of judicial examination ask questions on matters not dealt with
affidavits of her witnesses considering the imposable during the re-direct? (1997 Bar)
penalty on the offense with which his client was charged.
(2015) A: Yes, the opponent in his re-cross-examination may also
ask questions on such other matters as may be allowed by
a. Is Pedro's lawyer correct in objecting to the judicial the court in its discretion (Sec. 8, Rule 132).
affidavit of Mario?
Q: After plaintiff has formally submitted his evidence, he
A: Yes, Pedros lawyer is correct in objecting to the judicial realized that he had forgotten to present what is
affidavit of Mario. The Judicial Affidavit Rules shall apply considered an important evidence. Can he recall a
only to criminal actions where the maximum of the witness? (1997 Bar)
imposable penalty does not exceed six (6) years (Section
9(a)(1), A.M. No. 12-8-9-SC or the Judicial Affidavit Rule). A: Yes, after formally submitting his evidence, the plaintiff
can recall a witness with leave of court. The court may grant
Here, the maximum imposable penalty for the crime of theft or withhold leave in its discretion as the interests of justice
of a cellphone worth P20,000 is prison mayor in its minimum may require (Sec. 9, Rule 132).
to medium periods, or six years and one day to eight years
and one day. Thus, Pedros lawyer is correct in objecting to Q: As counsel of an accused charged with homicide, you
the judicial affidavit of Mario. are convinced that he can be utilized as a state witness.
What procedure will you take? (2006 Bar)
b. Is Pedro's lawyer correct in objecting to the judicial
affidavit of Juan? A: As counsel for the accused, I will advise my client to ask
for a reinvestigation and convince the prosecutor for him to
A: No. Pedros lawyer is not correct in objecting to the move for the discharge of my client as a state witness, or the
judicial affidavit of Juan because the Judicial Affidavit Rules accused can apply as a state witness with the Department of
apply with respect to the civil aspect of the actions, Justice pursuant to R.A. No. 6981, The Witness Protection,
regardless of the penalties involved (Section 9, A.M. No. 12-8- Security and Benefit Act. The right to prosecute vests the
8-SC or the Judicial Affidavit Rule). Here the judicial affidavit prosecutor with a wide range of discretion, including what
of Juan was offered to prove the civil liability of Pedro. Thus, and whom to charge (Soberano v. People, G.R. No. 154629,
the objection of Pedros lawyer to the judicial affidavit of Juan October 5, 2005).
is not correct.
Admissions and confessions
c. At the conclusion of the prosecution's presentation
of evidence, Prosecutor Marilag orally offered the Q: A was accused of having raped X. Rule on the
receipt attached to Juan's judicial affidavit, which admissibility of the following pieces of evidence:
the court admitted over the objection of Pedro's
lawyer. After Pedro's presentation of his evidence, a. An offer of A to marry X; and
the court rendered judgment finding him guilty as
charged and holding him civilly liable for A: As offer to marry X is admissible in evidence an Implied
P20,000.00. Pedro's lawyer seasonably filed a admission of guilt because rape cases are not allowed to be
motion for reconsideration of the decision asserting compromised (Sec. 27, Rule 130; People v Domingo, G.R. No.
that the court erred in awarding the civil liability on 97921, September 8, 1993).
the basis of Juan's judicial affidavit, documentary
evidence which Prosecutor Marilag failed to orally b. A pair of short pants allegedly left by A at the crime
offer. Is the motion for reconsideration meritorious? which the court, over the objection of A, required
(2015 Bar) him to put on, and when he did, it fit him well. (1998
Bar)
A: No. The motion for reconsideration is not meritorious.
The judicial affidavit is not required to be orally offered as A: The pair of short pants, which fit the accused well, is
separate documentary evidence, because it is filed in lieu of circumstantial evidence of his guilt, although standing alone
the direct testimony of the witness. It is offered, at the time it cannot be the basis of conviction. The accused cannot
UST BAR OPERATIONS 68
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
object to the court requiring him to put the short pants on. It G.R. No. 135862, May 2, 2002).
is not part of his right against self-incrimination because it is
a mere physical act. Q: If the accused on the witness stand repeats his earlier
uncounseled extrajudicial confession implicating his co-
Q: A, while driving his car, ran over B. A visited B at the accused in the crime charged, is that testimony
hospital and offered to pay for his hospitalization admissible in evidence against the latter? (1998 Bar)
expenses. After the filing of the criminal case against A
for serious physical injuries through reckless A: Yes. The accused can testify by repeating his earlier
imprudence, As insurance carrier offered to pay for the uncounseled extrajudicial confession, because he can be
injuries and damages suffered by B. the offer was subjected to cross-examination.
rejected because B considered the amount offered was
inadequate. Q: What is the probative value of a witness Affidavit of
Recantation? (1998 Bar)
a) Is the offer by A to pay hospitalization expenses of B
admissible in evidence? A: On the probative value of an affidavit of recantation, courts
look with disfavor upon recantations because they can easily
A: The offer by A to pay the hospitalization expenses of B is be secured from witnesses, usually through intimidation or
not admissible in evidence to prove his guilt in both civil and for a monetary consideration. Recanted testimony is
criminal cases (Sec. 27[4], Rule 130). exceedingly unreliable. There is always the probability that
it will be repudiated (Molina v. People, G.R. Nos. 70168-69, July
b) Is the offer by As insurance carrier to pay for 24, 1996).
injuries and damages of B admissible in evidence?
(1997 Bar) Q: X and Y were charged with murder. Upon application
of the prosecution, Y was discharged from the
A: No. It is irrelevant. The obligation of the insurance Information to be utilized as a state witness. The
company is based on the contract of insurance and is not prosecutor presented Y as witness but forgot to state the
admissible in evidence against the accused because it was purpose of his testimony much less offer it in evidence.
not offered by the accused but by the insurance company Y testified that he and X conspired to kill the victim but
which is not his agent. it was X who actually shot the victim. The testimony of Y
was the only material evidence establishing the guilt of
Res inter alios acta rule X. Y was thoroughly cross-examined by the defense
counsel. After the prosecution rested its case, the
Q: Bembol was charged with rape. Bembol's father, defense filed a motion for demurrer to evidence based
Ramil, approached Artemon, the victim's father, during on the following grounds:
the preliminary investigation and offered P1 Million to
Artemon to settle the case. Artemon refused the offer. 1. The testimony of Y should be excluded because its
purpose was not initially stated and it was not
a. During trial, the prosecution presented Artemon to formally offered in evidence as required by Section
testify on Ramil's offer and thereby establish an 34, Rule 132 of Rules of Evidence; and
implied admission of guilt. Is Ramil's offer to settle 2. Ys testimony is not admissible against X pursuant to
admissible in evidence? the rule on res inter alios acta.

A: No. The offer to settle not being made by the accused or Rule on the motion for demurrer to evidence on the
with his participation is not admissible against him under the above grounds. (2003 Bar)
rule of res inter alios acta. No implied admission of guilt can
be drawn from efforts to settle a criminal case out of court, A: The demurrer to the evidence should be denied because:
where the accused had no participation in such negotiation
(People v. Godoy, G.R. Nos. 115908-09, December 6, 1995). 1. The testimony of Y should not be excluded because the
defense counsel did not object to his testimony despite
b. During the pre-trial, Bembol personally offered to the fact that the prosecutor forgot to state its purpose or
settle the case for P1 Million to the private offer it in evidence. Moreover, the defense counsel
prosecutor, who immediately put the offer on record thoroughly cross-examined Y and thus waived the
in the presence of the trial judge. Is Bembol's offer a objection.
judicial admission of his guilt? (2008 Bar) 2. The res inter alios acta rule does not apply because Y
testified in open court and was subjected to cross
A: No. The offer is not a judicial admission of guilt because it examination.
has not been reduced in writing or signed by the accused.
The Rule on pre-trial in criminal cases (Sec. 2, Rule 118) Q: Arrested in a buy-bust operation, Edmond was
requires that all agreements or admissions made or entered brought to the police station where he was informed of
during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing his constitutional rights. During the investigation,
and signed by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they Edmond refused to give any statement. However, the
cannot be used against the accused. arresting officer asked Edmond to acknowledge in
writing that six (6) sachets of shabu were confiscated
Q: What are the requirements in order that an admission from him. Edmond consented and also signed a receipt
of guilt of an accused during a custodial investigation be for the amount of P3, 000.00, allegedly representing the
admitted in evidence? (2006 Bar) purchase price of the shabu. At the trial, the arresting
officer testified and identified the documents executed
A: An admission of guilt during a custodial investigation is a and signed by Edmond. Edmonds lawyer did not object
confession. To be admissible in evidence, the requirements to the testimony. After the presentation of the
are: (1) the confession must be voluntary; (2) the confession testimonial evidence, the prosecutor made a formal
must be made with the assistance of competent and offer of evidence which included the documents signed
independent counsel; (3) the confession must be express; by Edmond. Edmonds lawyer objected to the
and (4) the confession must be in writing (People v. Principe, admissibility of the documents for being the fruit of the
69
REMEDIAL LAW
poisoned tree. Resolve the objection with reasons. contention that the guards had no personal knowledge of the
(2009 Bar) contents of the package before it was opened is without
merit. The guards can testify as to the facts surround the
A: The objection to the admissibility of the documents which opening of the package since they have personal knowledge
the arresting officer asked Edmond to sign without the of the circumstances thereof, being physically present at the
benefit of counsel, is well-taken. Said documents having been time of its discovery.
signed by the accused while under custodial investigation,
imply an admission without the benefit of counsel, that the On the other hand, the testimony of the trainer of the dog is
shabu came from him and that the P3, 000.00 was received not hearsay based on the following grounds:
by him pursuant to the illegal selling of the drugs. Thus, it
was obtained by the arresting officer in clear violation of a. He has personal knowledge of the facts in issue, having
Section 12(3), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, witnessed the same;
particularly the right to be assisted by the counsel during b. Hearsay merely contemplates an out-of-court
custodial investigation. Moreover, the objection to the declaration of a person which is being offered to prove
admissibility of the evidence was timely made, i.e., when the the truthfulness and veracity of the facts asserted
same is formally offered. therein;
c. He is an expert witness, hence, his testimony may
HEARSAY RULE constitute an exception to the hearsay rule;
d. The accused has the opportunity to cross-examine him;
Exceptions and
e. Testimony of a witness as to statements made by
Q: Distinguish clearly but briefly between hearsay nonhuman declarants does not violate the rule against
evidence and opinion evidence. (2004 Bar) hearsay. The law permits the so-called non-human
evidence on the ground that machines and animals,
A: Hearsay evidence consists of testimony that is not based unlike humans, lack a conscious motivation to tell
on personal knowledge of the person testifying, (see: Sec. 36, falsehoods, and because the workings of machines can
Rule 130), while opinion evidence is expert evidence based be explained by human witnesses who are then subject
on the personal knowledge skill, experience or training of to cross-examination by opposing counsel. (City of
the person testifying (Sec. 49, Id.) and evidence of an Webster Groves v. Quick. 323 S.W. 2d 386 [Mo. 1959]; Buck
ordinary witness on limited matters (Sec. 50, Id.). v. State, 138 P. 2d 115 [Okla. 1943]; Herrera, 1999).

Q: What are the exceptions to hearsay rule? (1999 Bar) Conversely, the accused may not argue that he cannot cross-
examine the dog as the Constitutional right to confrontation
A: The exceptions to the hearsay rule are: dying declaration, refers only to witnesses. As alluded, the human witnesses
declaration against interest, act or declaration about who have explained the workings of the non-human
pedigree, family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree, evidence is the one that should be cross-examined. Hence,
common reputation, part of the res gestae, entries in the the contention of the accused that the he could not cross-
course of business, entries in official records, commercial examine the dog is misplaced. Ergo, there is no doubt that the
lists and the like, learned treatises, and testimony or evidence of the prosecution is admissible for being relevant
deposition at a former proceeding (Secs. 37 to 47, Rule 130). and competent.

Q: A foreign dog trained to sniff dangerous drugs from Dying declaration


packages, was hired by FDP Corporation, a door to door
forwarder company, to sniff packages in their depot at Q: Requisites of Dying Declaration (1998 Bar)
the international airport. In one of the routinary
inspections of packages waiting to be send to the United A: The requisites for the admissibility of a dying declaration
States of America (USA), the dog sat beside one of the are: (a) the declaration is made by the deceased under the
packages, a signal that the package contained dangerous consciousness of his impending death; (b) the deceased was
drugs. Thereafter, the guards opened the package and at the time competent as a witness; (c) the declaration
found two (2) kilograms of cocaine. The owner objected concerns the cause and surrounding circumstances of the
of the package was arrested and charges were filed declarants death; and (d) the declaration is offered in a
against him. During the trial, the prosecution, through (criminal) case wherein the declarant's death is the subject
the trainer who was present during the incident and an of inquiry (People v. Santos, G.R. No. 94545, April 4, 1997).
expert in this kind of field, testified that the dog was
highly trained to sniff packages to determine if the Q: Romeo is sued for damages for injuries suffered by the
contents were dangerous drugs and the sniffing plaintiff in a vehicular accident. Julieta, a witness in
technique of their highly trained dogs was accepted court, testifies that Romeo told her (Julieta) that he
worldwide and had been successful in dangerous drugs (Romeo) heard Antonio, a witness to the accident, give
operations. The prosecution moved to admit this an excited account of the accident immediately after its
evidence to justify the opening of the package. The occurrence. Is Julietas testimony admissible against
accused objected on the grounds that : (i) the guards had Romeo over proper and timely objection? Why? (2002
no personal knowledge of the contents of the package Bar)
before it was opened; (ii) the testimony of the trainer of
the dog is hearsay; and (iii) the accused could not cross- A: No, Julietas testimony is not admissible against Romeo,
examine the dog. Decide. (2014 Bar) because while the excited account of Antonio, a witness to
the accident, was told to Romeo, it was only Romeo who told
A: The objections of the accused should be overruled. An Julieta about it, which makes it hearsay.
evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is
not excluded by the law or the rules (Section 3, Rule 128). Q: Maximo filed an action against Pedro, the
Under Section 36, Rules 130 of the Rules of Court, a witness administrator of the estate of deceased Juan, for the
can testify only to those which he knows of his personal recovery of a car which is a part of the latters estate.
knowledge and derived from his own perception. The During the trial, Maximo presented witness Mariano
UST BAR OPERATIONS 70
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
who testified that he was present when Maximo and Juan Rules of Court and special laws to show pedigree
agreed that the latter would pay a rental of P20,000 for (Trinidad v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118904, April 20,
the use of Maximos car for one month after which Juan 1998; Heirs of Ignacio Conti v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
should immediately return the car to Maximo. Pedro 118464, December 21, 1998).
objected to the admission of Marianos testimony. If you 2. Entries in the family bible may be received as evidence
were the judge, would you sustain Pedros objection? of pedigree (Sec. 40, Rule 130).
Why? 3. The certification by the civil registrar of the non-
availability of records is needed to justify the
A: No, the testimony is admissible in evidence because presentation of secondary evidence, which is the
witness Mariano who testified as to what Maximo and Juan, photocopy of the birth certificate of Jocelyn (Heirs of
the deceased person agreed upon, is not disqualified to Ignacio Conti v. Court of Appeals, supra).
testify on the agreement. Those disqualified are parties or 4. Declaration of heirship in a settlement proceeding is not
assignors of the parties to a case, or persons in whose behalf necessary. It can be made in the ordinary action for
a case is prosecuted, against the administrator or Juans partition wherein the heirs are exercising the right
estate, upon a claim or demand against his estate as to any pertaining to the decedent, their predecessor-in-
matter of fact occurring before Juans death (Sec. 23, Rule interest, to ask for partition as co-owners (Id).
130). 5. Even if real property is involved, no publication is
necessary, because what is sought is the mere
Q: The accused was charged with robbery and homicide. segregation of Lindas share in the property (Sec. 1, Rule
The victim suffered several stab wounds. It appears that 69, Id.).
eleven (11) hours after the crime, while the victim was
being brought to the hospital in a jeep, with his brother Part of the res gestae
and a policeman as companions, the victim was asked
certain questions which he answered, pointing to the Q: Dencio barged into the house of Marcela, tied her to a
accused as his assailant. His answers were put down in chair and robbed her of assorted pieces of jewelry and
writing, but since he was in a critical condition, his money. Dencio then brought Candida, Marcelas maid, to
brother and the policemen signed the statement. Is the a bedroom where he raped her. Marcela could hear
statement admissible as a dying declaration? (1999 Bar) Candida crying and pleading; Huwag! Maawa ka sa
akin!After raping Candida, Dencio fled from the house
A: Yes. The statement is admissible as a dying declaration of with loot. Candida then untied Marcela and rushed to the
the victim subsequently dies and his answers were made police station about a kilometer away and told Police
under the consciousness of impending death (Sec. 37, Rule Officer Roberto Maawa that Dencio had barged into the
130). The fact that he did not sign the statement point to the house of Marcela, tied the latter to a chair and robbed
accused as his assailant, because he was in critical condition, her of her jewelry and money. Candida also related to
does not affect its admissibility as a dying declaration. A the police officer that despite her pleas, Dencio had
dying declaration need not be in writing (People v. Viovicente, raped her. The policemen noticed that Candida was
G.R. No. 118707, February 2, 1998). hysterical and on the verge of collapse. Dencio was
charged with robbery with rape. During the trial,
Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree Candida can no longer be located.

Q: Linda and spouses Arnulfo and Regina Ceres were co- a. If the prosecutor presents Police Officer Roberto
owners of a parcel of land. Linda died intestate and Maawa to testify on what Candida had told him,
without any issue. Ten (10) persons headed by Jocelyn, would such testimony of the policemen be hearsay?
claiming to be the collateral relatives of the deceased Explain. (1999, 2009 Bar)
Linda, filed an action for partition with the RTC praying
for the segregation of Lindas share, submitting in A: No. The testimony of the policemen is not hearsay. It is
support for their petition the baptismal certificates of part of the res gestae. It is also an independently relevant
seven of the petitioners, a family bible belonging to statement. The police officer testified his own personal
Linda in which the names of the petitioners have been knowledge, not to the truth of Candidas statement, i.e., that
entered, a photocopy of the birth certificate of Jocelyn, she told him, despite her pleas, Dencio has raped her (People
and a certification of the local civil registrar that its v. Gaddi, G.R. No. 74065, February 27, 1989).
office had been completely razed by fire. The spouses
Ceres refused partition on the following grounds: 1) the b. If the police officer will testify that he noticed
baptismal certificates of the parish priest are evidence Candida to be hysterical and on the verge of collapse,
only of the administration of the sacrament of baptism would such testimony be considered as opinion,
and they do not prove filiation of the alleged collateral hence, inadmissible? Explain. (2005 Bar)
relatives of the deceased; 2) entry in the family bible is
hearsay; 3) the certification of the registrar on non- A: No. It cannot be considered as an opinion, because he was
availability of the records of birth does not prove testifying on what he actually observed. The last paragraph
filiation; 4) in partition case where filiation to the of Sec. 50, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Evidence, expressly
deceased is in dispute, prior and separate judicial provides that a witness may testify on his impressions of the
declaration of heirship in a settlement of estate emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person.
proceedings is necessary; and 5) there is need for
publication as real property is involved. As counsel for Q: While passing by a dark uninhabited part of their
Jocelyn and her co-petitioners, argue against the barangay, PO2 Asintado observed shadows and heard
objections of the spouses Ceres so as to convince the screams from a distance. PO2 Asintado hid himself
court to allow the partition. Discuss each of the five (5) behind the bushes and saw a man beating a woman
arguments briefly but completely (2000 Bar) whom he recognized as his neighbour, Kulasa. When
Kulasa was already in agony the man stabbed her and
A: she fell on the ground. The man hurriedly left thereafter.
PO2 Asintado immediately went to Kulasas rescue.
1. The baptismal certificate can show the filiation or prove Kulasa who was then in a state of hysteria, kept
pedigree. It is one of the other means allowed under the mentioning to PO2 Asintado Si Rene, gusto akong
71
REMEDIAL LAW
patayin! Sinaksak niya ako! When PO2 Asintado was are deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence (People
about to carry her, Kulasa refused and said Kaya ko. v. Hipona, G.R. No. 185709, February 18, 2010).
Mababaw lang to. Habulin mo si Rene. The following day,
Rene learned of Kulasas death and, bothered by his Entries in official records
conscience, surrendered to the authorities with his
counsel. As his surrender was broadcasted all over Q: X was charged with robbery. On the strength of a
media, Rene opted to release his statement to the press warrant of arrest issued by the court, X was arrested by
which goes: police operatives. They seized from his person a
handgun. A charge for illegal possession of firearm was
I believe that I am entitled to the also filed against him. In a press conference called by the
presumption of innocence until my guilt police, X admitted that he had robbed the victim of
is proven beyond reasonable doubt. jewelry valued at P500,000. The robbery and illegal
Although I admit that I performed acts possession of firearm cases were tried jointly. The
that may take ones life away, I hope and prosecution presented in evidence a newspaper clipping
pray that justice will be served in the of the report to the reporter who was present during the
right way. God bless us all. press conference stating that X admitted the robbery. It
(Sgd.) likewise presented a certification of the PNP Firearms
and Explosive Office attesting that the accused had no
Rene license to carry any firearm. The certifying officer,
however, was not presented as a witness. Both pieces of
The trial court convicted Rene of homicide on the basis evidence were objected to by the defense.
of PO2 Asintados testimony, Kulasas statements, and
Renes statement to the press. On appeal, Rene raises the a. Is the newspaper clipping admissible in evidence
following errors: against X?

a. The trial court erred in giving weight to PO2 A: Yes, the newspaper clipping is admissible in evidence
Asintados testimony, as the latter did not have against X regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement, the
personal knowledge of the facts in issue, and hearsay rule does not apply and the statement may be shown
violated Renes right to due process when it where the fact that it is made relevant. Evidence as to making
considered Kulasas statements despite lack of of such statement is not secondary but primary, for the
opportunity for her cross-examination. statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be
circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such fact
A: The trial court did not err in giving weight to PO2 (Gotesco Investment Corporation v. Chatto, G.R. No. L-87584
Asintados testimony. June 16, 1992).

While a witness can only testify as to those facts which he has b. Is the certification of the PNP Firearm and Explosive
personal knowledge, the Rules provide that a statement Office without the certifying officer testifying on it
made under the influence of a startling event witnessed by admissible in evidence against X? (2003 Bar)
the person who made the declaration before he had time to
think and make up a story, or to concoct or contrive a A: Yes, the certification is admissible in evidence against X
falsehood, or to fabricate an account, and without any undue because a written statement signed by an officer having the
influence in obtaining it, aside from referring to the event in custody of an official record or by his deputy that after
question or its immediate attending circumstances, is an diligent search no record or entry of a specified tenor is
exception being part of res gestae (Belbis, Jr., v. People, G.R. found to exist in the records of his office, accompanied by a
No. 181052, November 14, 2012). certificate as above provided, is admissible as evidence that
the records of his office contain no such record of entry (Sec.
In the case, the statements made by PO2 Asintado constitutes 28, Rule 132).
part of res gestae since the same were made without any
opportunity to fabricate and while a startling occurrence Opinion rule
was actually taking place.
Q: At Nolans trial for possession and use of the
In addition, the statement of PO2 Asintado may fall within the prohibited drugs, known as shabu his girlfriend Kin,
purview of the doctrine of independent relevant statement, testified that on a particular day, she would see Nolan
where only the fact that such statements were made is very prim and proper, alert and sharp, but that three
relevant, and the truth and falsity thereof is immaterial days after, he would appear haggard, tired and overly
(People v. Malibiran, G.R. No. 178301, April 24, 2009). nervous at the slightest sound he would hear. Nolan
objects to the admissibility of Kims testimony on the
On the other hand, Kulasas statements are also admissible ground that Kim merely stated her opinion without
as part of res gestae since the same were made under the having been first qualified as expert witness. Should you
influence of a startling event and without any opportunity to as a judge exclude the testimony of Kim? (1994 Bar)
concoct or devise a falsehood.
A: No, the testimony of Kim should not be excluded. Even
b. The trial court erred in holding that Renes though Kim is not an expert witness, Kim may testify on her
statement to the press was a confession which, impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or
standing alone, would be sufficient to warrant a appearance of a person (Sec. 50, last par Rule 130).
conviction. Resolve. (2014 Bar)
Character evidence
A: The trial court did not err in holding that Renes statement
to the press is a confession. Renes confessions to the media Q: D was prosecuted for homicide for allegedly beating
were properly admitted because statements spontaneously up V to death with an iron pipe.
made by a suspect to news reporters on a televised interview

UST BAR OPERATIONS 72


QUAMTO (1997-2016)
a. May the prosecution introduce evidence that V had a Q: Counsel A objected to a question posed by opposing
good reputation for peacefulness and non-violence? Counsel B on the grounds that it was hearsay and it
Why? assumed a fact not yet established. The judge banged his
gavel and ruled by saying "Objection Sustained". Can
A: The prosecution may introduce evidence of the good or Counsel 8 ask for a reconsideration of the ruling? Why?
even bad moral character of the victim if it tends to establish (2012 Bar)
in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of
the offense charged (Sec. 51[a][3], Rule 130). In this case, the A: Yes, Counsel B may ask the Judge to specify the ground/s
evidence is not relevant. relied upon for sustaining the objection and thereafter move
its reconsideration thereof (Sec. 38, Rule 132).
b. May D introduce evidence of specific violent acts by
V? Why? (2002 Bar)
REVISED RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE
A: Yes, D may introduce evidence of specific violent acts by
V. Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one
time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the PROHIBITED PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS
same or a similar thing at another time; but it may be
received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, Q: Charged with the offense of slight physical injuries
plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like under an information duly filed with the MeTC in Manila
(Sec. 34, Rule 130). which in the meantime had duly issued an order
declaring that the case shall be governed by the Revised
Q: In a prosecution for murder, the prosecutor asks Rule on Summary Procedure, the accused filed with said
accused Darwin if he had been previously arrested for court a motion to quash on the sole ground that the
violation of the Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. As officer who filed the information had no authority to do
defense counsel, you object. The trial court asks you on so. The MeTC denied the motion on the ground that it is
what ground/s. Respond. (2010 Bar) a prohibited motion under the said Rule. The accused
thereupon filed with the RTC in Manila a petition for
A: The objection is on the ground that the fact sought to be certiorari in sum assailing and seeking the nullification
elicited by the prosecution is irrelevant and immaterial to of the MeTCs denial of his motion to quash. The RTC in
the offense under prosecution and trial. Moreover, the Rules due time issued an order on the ground that it is not
do not allow the prosecution to adduce evidence of bad allowed by the said Rule. The accused forthwith filed
moral character of the accused pertinent to the offense with said RTC a motion for reconsideration of its said
charged, except on rebuttal and only if it involves a prior order. The RTC in time denied said motion for
conviction by final judgment (Sec. 51, Rule 130). reconsideration on the ground that the same is also a
prohibited motion under the said Rule. Were the RTCs
Offer and objection orders denying due course to the petition as well as
denying the motion for reconsideration correct? Reason.
Q: What are the two kinds of objections? Explain each (2004 Bar)
briefly. Give example each. (1997 Bar)
A: The RTCs orders denying due course to the petition for
A: Two kinds of objections are: (1) the evidence being certiorari as well as denying the motion for reconsideration
presented is not relevant to the issue; and (2) the evidence is are both not correct. The petition for certiorari is a
incompetent or excluded by the law or the rules (Sec. 3, Rule prohibited pleading under Section 19(g) of the Revised Rule
138). An example of the first is when the prosecution offers on Summary Procedure and the motion for reconsideration,
as evidence the alleged offer of an insurance company to pay while it is not prohibited motion (Lucas v. Fabros, AM No.
for the damages suffered by the victim in a homicide case. MTJ-99-1226, January 31, 2000, citing Joven v. Court of
Examples of the second are evidence obtained in violation of Appeals, G.R. No. 80739 August 20, 1992), should be denied
the Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable because the petition for certiorari is a prohibited pleading.
searches and seizures and confessions and admissions in
violation of the rights of a person under custodial
investigation. RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES
(A.M. NO. 09-6-8-SC)
Q: A trial court cannot take into consideration in
deciding a case an evidence that has not been formally
offered. When are the following pieces of evidence
Q: What do you understand about the precautionary
formally offered? (1994, 1997 Bar)
principle under the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases? (2012 Bar)
a. Testimonial evidence
A: Precautionary principle states that when human activities
A: Testimonial evidence is formally offered at the time the
may lead to threats of serious and irreversible damage to the
witness is called to testify (Sec. 35. first par., Rule 132).
environment that is scientifically plausible but uncertain,
actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that threat. In its
b. Documentary evidence
essence, the precautionary principle calls for the exercise of
caution in the face of risk and uncertainty (Sec. 4 [f], Rule 1,
Documentary evidence is formally offered after the
Part 1, and Rule 20, A.M. NO. 09-6-8-SC, Rules of Procedure for
presentation of the testimonial evidence (Sec. 35, second par.,
Environmental Cases).
Rule 132).
WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS
c. Object evidence
Q: Hannibal, Donna, Florence and Joel, concerned
A: The same is true with object evidence. It is also offered
residents of Laguna de Bay, filed a complaint of
after the presentation of the testimonial evidence.
mandamus against the Laguna Lake Development

73
REMEDIAL LAW
Authority, the Department of Environment and Natural the respondent, under the law, rules or regulations. The
Resources, the Department of Public Works and petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-
Highways, Department of Interior and Local forum shopping. (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC also known as Rules
Government, Department of Agriculture, Department of of Procedure for Environmental Cases)
Budget and Philippine National Police before the RTC of
Laguna alleging that the continued neglect of defendants A writ of continuing mandamus is a writ issued by a
in performing their duties has resulted in serious court in an environmental case directing any agency or
deterioration of the water quality of the lake and the instrumentality of the government or officer thereof to
degradation of the marine life in the lake. The plaintiffs perform an act or series of acts decreed by final
prayed that said government agencies be ordered to judgment which shall remain effective until judgment is
clean up Laguna de Bay and restore its water quality to fully satisfied. (Section 7, Rule 8, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC also
Class C waters as prescribed by Presidential Decree known as Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases)
1151, otherwise known as the Philippine Environment
Code. Defendants raise the defense that the clean up of WRIT OF KALIKASAN
the lake is not a ministerial function and they cannot be
compelled by mandamus to perform the same. The RTC Q: The officers of Ang Kapaligiran ay Alagaan, Inc.
of Laguna rendered a decision declairing that it is the engaged your services to file an action against ABC
duty of the agency to clean up Laguna de Bay and issued Mining Corporation which is engaged in mining
a permanent writ of mandamus ordering said agencies operations in Sta. Cruz, Marinduque. ABC used highly
to perform their duties prescribed by law relating to the toxic chemicals in extracting gold. ABCs toxic mine
cleanup of Laguna de Bay. tailings were accidentellay released from its storage
dams and were discharged into the rivers of said town.
d. Is the RTC correct in issuing the writ of mandamus? The mine tailings found their way to Calancan Bay
Explain. allegedly to the waters of nearby Romblon and Quezon.
e. What is the writ of continuing mandamus? (2016 The damage to the crops and loss of earnings were
Bar) estimated at P1 Billion. Damage to the environment is
estimated at P1 Billion. As a lawyer for the organization,
A: you are requested to explain the advantages derived
from a petition for writ of kalikasan before the the
a. Yes, the RTC is correct in issuing the writ of mandamus. Supreme Court over a complaint for damages before the
Generally, the writ of mandamus lies to require the RTC of Marinduque or vice-versa. What action will you
execution of a ministerial duty. While the recommend? Explain. (2016 Bar)
implementation of the government agencies mandated
tasks may entail a decision-making process, the A: As a lawyer for the organization, I would recommend the
enforcement of the law or the very act of doing what the filing of a petition for issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan.
law exacts to be done is ministerial in nature and may be
compelled by mandamus. The Writ of Kalikasan is a remedy available to a natural or
juridical person, entity authorized by law, peoples
Here, the duty to clean up Laguna Lake and restore its organization, non-governmental organization, or any public
water quality to Class C is required not only by interest group accredited by or registered with any
Presidential Decree No. 1152, otherwise known as the government agency, on behalf of persons whose
Philippine Environment Code, but also in its charter. It constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
is, thus, ministerial in nature and can be compelled by violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
mandamus. omission of a public official or employee, or private
individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such
Accordingly, the RTC may issue a writ of continuing magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of
mandamus directing any agency or instrumentality of inhanbitants in two or more cities or provinces. (Section 1 of
the government or officer thereof to perform an act or Rule 7, A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC also known as Rules of Procedure for
series of acts decreed by final judgment which shall Environmental Case)
remain effective until the judgement is fully satisfied.
(Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. The following reliefs may be included under the writ of
Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, G.R. Nos. 171947-48, kalikasan:
December 18, 2008)
a. Directing respondent to permanently cease and desist
b. A writ of continuing mandamus is a writ issued when from committing acts or neglecting the performance ofa
any agency or instrumentality of the government or duty in violation of environmental laws resulting in
officer thereof unlawfully neglects the performance of an environmental destruction or damage;
act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting b. Directing the respondent public official, government
from an office, trust or station in connection with the agency, private person or entity to protect, preserve,
enforcement or violation of an environmental law, rule rehabilitate or restore the environment;
or regulation or a right therein, or unlawfully excludes c. Directing the respondent public official, government
another from the use or enjoyment of such right and agency, private person or entity to monitor strict
there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in compliance with the decision and orders of the court;
the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby d. Directing the respondent public official, government
may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging agency, or private person or entity to make periodic
the facts with certainty, attaching thereto supporting reports on the execution of the final judgment; and
evidence, specifying that the petition concerns an e. Such other reliefs which relate to the right of the people
environmental law, rule or regulation and praying that to a balanced and healthful ecology or to the protection,
judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of the
do an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully environment, except the award of damages to individual
satisfied, and to pay damages sustained by the petitioner petitioner. (Section 15, Rule 7, ibid.)
by reason of malicious neglect to perform the duties of
UST BAR OPERATIONS 74
QUAMTO (1997-2016)
The rules also provide interim reliefs in favor of the
petitioner upon filing a verified motion, namely: (a) ocular
inspection; (b) production or inspection of documents or
things. (Sec. 12, Rule 7, ibid.)

Additionally, the petition for Writ of Kalikasan is more


advantageous compared to a complaint for damages before
the RTC because it may be filed directly with the Supreme
Court or with any of the stations of the Court of Appeals.

Unlike a complaint for damages before the RTC which only


be filed by a real-party-in-interest as defined in Rule 3(2) of
the Ruels of Court, the rule on locus standi is relaxed in
peitions for Writ of Kalikasan which allows the petition to be
filed by parties as citizen suit.

In addition, any of the following may file a petition for writ of


kalikasan: (a) natural or juridical person; (b) entity
authorized by law; or (c) POs, NGOs, or any public interest
group accredited by or registered with any government
agency on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is violated. (Section1, Rule 7,
ibid.)

Besides, the petition for Writ of Kalikasan is exempted from


the payment of docket fees.

From the foregoing, it is clear that filing a petition for Writ of


Kalikasan would be the best remedy to address all the
environmental problems caused by the release of the toxic
waste to the waters of Romblon and Quezon without the
burden of paying docket fees. After all, the filing of a petition
for the issuance of Writ of Kalikasan shall not preclude the
filing of separate civil, criminal, or administrative actions;
thus, the organization can later file a complaint for damages
with the Regional Trial Court, should they desire to do so.

At any rate, the rules provide that judgment must be


rendered within sixty (60) days from the time the petition is
submitted for decision which expedites the proceedings
significantly considering the urgency of situation in the
instant case.

As lawyer for the organization, I would recommend,


therefore, the filing of a petition for a Writ of Kalikasan with
the Supreme Court.

75