Remedial Law Review I appears in the absence of the plaintiff shall be entitled to
Midterms judgment of a permissive counterclaim.
1. Municipal/City Trial Court of Davao
Under the Rules on Small Claims, the regular rules on
venue shall apply as a general rule. However, if the
plaintiff is engaged in the business of lending or similar
activities and has a branch where the defendant resides,
the claim shall be filed where the branch is located.
2. Yes, the dismissal is correct.
If plaintiff misrepresents that he/she is not engaged in
the business of banking, lending or similar activities when
in fact he/she is so engaged, the Statement of Claims
shall be dismissed with prejudice and plaintiff shall be
meted the appropriate sanctions, such as direct
contempt
3. Remedy in Small Claim
The possible remedy is to file a petition for certiorari.
Under the Rules on Small Claims, the decision shall be
final, executory and unappealable. Moreover, MR of a
judgment is a prohibited motion, hence, there is no need
to file MR before filing a petition for certiorari
4. The denial is not proper
Under the Rules on Small Claims, parties may avail of
postponement of a hearing only upon proof of the
physical inability of the party to appear before the court
on the scheduled date and time. A party may avail of only
(1) postponement.
Motion means a party’s request, written or oral, to the
court for an order or other action. It shall include an
informal written request to the court, such as a letter.
5. The dismissal of the counterclaim is not valid,
Under the Rules on Small Claims, the failure of the
plaintiff to appear shall be cause for dismissal of the
Statement of Claims w/o prejudice. The defendant who
A: As a general rule, the petition for certiorari against the
6. The court is correct in declaring Jejomar in default
for failure to file an answer.
Under the Rules, the plaintiff is entitled to an
amendment once as a matter of right before a responsive
pleading has been served. Moreover, a motion to dismiss
is not a responsive pleading
Since what Jejomar filed is a motion to dismiss, Poe is
entitled to the amendment as a matter of right. Hence, it
is correct that Jejomar was declared in default for not
filing an answer.
7. Since he was declared in default, the remedy of
Jejomar is to file motion to lift order of default upon
a proper showing that his failure to answer was due
to FAMEN and that he has a meritorious defense
stated in the his affidavit of merit. If denial is tainted
with grave abuse of discretion, file a petition for
certiorari.
After judgment but before finality, he can file a MR or
appeal the judgment
After finality of judgment, he can avail of petition for
relief from judgment, annulment of judgment, petition
for certiorari or collateral attack
8. As a Judge, I would overrule the motion.
Unlawful detainer cases falls within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the MTC regardless if the parties are
Muslims or not and irrespective of the amount of unpaid
rentals sought to be recovered.
Since the case filed is an unlawful detainer, the MTC of
Maguindanao clearly has jurisdiction over the case, thus,
the motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction should
be overruled.
9. Can a petition for certiorari be filed directly with the
SC from the Order of the RTC?
Order of the RTC must be filed with the Court of Appeals
following the doctrine of hierarchy of court. However, as
an exception, it may be filed with the Supreme Court (1)
when the redress desired cannot be obtained in the
appropriate courts or (2) where exceptional and
compelling circumstances justify availment of a remedy
within and calling for the exercise of our primary
jurisdiction.
10. Can a petition for certiorari be filed questioning the
wisdom and legal soundness of a decision?
A: No, because errors in the exercise of jurisdiction is not
within the province of a petition for certiorari. The proper
remedy in questioning the legal soundness of a decision is
to file an appeal.
11. A filed a case for collection of sum of money against
B in the RTC of Manila. After hearing, the court
rendered a decision in favor of A ordering B to pay
A, which became final and executory. C counsel for A
filed a Motion for the Issuance of a writ of execution
on May 16, 2012 and set it for hearing on May 18,
2012 at 2 PM copy furnished D counsel for B. On the
hearing of the motion A & B appeared together with
their counsels, and the latter was given a chance to
file his comment on the motion within five (5) days.
In his Comment D contended that the motion does
not comply with the three (3) days notice
requirement on motions? Is the contention tenable?
A: No, because Rule 39, Sec. 1 of the ROC does not
prescribe a copy of the motion for execution of a final and
executory judgment to be served on the defeated party,
and for being ministerial. Moreover, as long as the adverse
party will be given an opportunity to heard and object on
the motion, it operates as an exception to the 3 day notice
rule.
12. In case of a claim for non-payment of debt, who has
the burden of proof?
1
A: The adverse party has the burden of proving, being a
negative assertion
13. Can the Court dismiss the case for failure to comply
with the barangay conciliation in cases falling under
the Rules of Summary Proceedings?
A: Yes. Under the Rules on Summary Procedure, when the
court finds from the examination of the allegations and
the evidence attached thereto that any grounds apparent
for the dismissal of the civil action, it shall dismiss the case
outright.
14. Is the three (3) day notice rule on motion’s
absolute?
A: No, by way of exception, as long as the adverse party
will be given an opportunity to be hear and to object on
the motion.
15. The liability of the surety in the attachment counter-
bond begins when?
A: Upon demand made on surety, notice and summary
hearing on the same action
16. A filed a case against B before the barangay for
violation of the lease contract. After the proceedings
with the barangay, A died. C & D heirs of A filed a
case for unlawful detainer against B. B filed a motion
to dismiss for failure to comply with the condition
precedent of barangay referral since C & D are not
the original parties in the barangay? If you were the
judge, how would you rule on the motion
A: Motion overruled. An unlawful detainer case is an
action that survives, hence upon A’s death, C and D as
heirs of A are automatically substituted as parties to the
case. In other words, C and D steps into the shoes of their
predecessor A. Since there was a prior barangay
proceedings between A and B, such proceedings shall be
binding also on C & D, There is no need to resort to
another barangay proceedings and the condition
precedent is deemed complied with.
17. The remedy in case of a denial of a MR of a final
order, is?
A:
(1) Appeal from the order denying the MR
(2) Appeal from the final order which is the subject of the
MR
18. A filed a complaint for Sum of Money in the RTC of
Manila. Upon receipt of the complaint, the judge
dismissed the case on the ground of failure to
comply with the certification of non-forum
shopping. Is the dismissal valid?
A: No, the dismissal is no valid.
Under the Rule 7, Sec. 5, failure to comply with the
requirements on certification of non-forum shopping shall
be a cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice,
unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing.
In this case, the court may not dismiss the case at its own
initiative since the rules requires a motion and hearing
before it could dismiss it. Hence, the dismissal is not valid.
19. A filed an action against B for Damages on May
1997. After hearing, the court finally rendered a
decision on January 15, 2012, in favor of B and the
action was dismissed, w/c judgment was received by
C (counsel for A) on January 30, 2012. C filed a MR
on the judgment on the 15th day or on Feb. 14, 2012,
which was denied by the Court in its Order dated
February 9, 2012, which was received by C on March
15, 2012. On March 20, 2012, C filed a Notice of
Appeal, while D (counsel for B) filed a MTD the
appeal for being filed out of time since he has only
one (1) day to appeal. B opined that the case should
be governed by the Rules at the time of filing of the
case by A on 1997. C contended that they have
another 15 days to appeal in accordance with the
Neypes Rule. Rule on MTD
A: I will deny the motion.
Under the “Neypes rule” a party has a fresh period of 15
days from denial of motion for new trial or reconsideration
to appeal the case. According to jurisprudence, it is a
procedural law that should be given retroactive effect to
pending actions at the time of its enactment.
Hence, C is correct in contending that they have a fresh
period of 15 days within which to file the appeal.
20. What is the “law of the case”?
Law of the case has been defined as the opinion delivered
on a former appeal. It is a term applied to an established
rule that when an appellate court passes on a question
and remands the case to the lower court for further
proceedings, the question there settled becomes the law
of the case upon subsequent appeal. It means that
whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling
legal rule or decision between the same parties in the
same case continues to be the law of the case, … so long
as the facts on which such decision was predicated
continue to be the facts of the case before the court.
Otherwise put, the principle means that questions of law
that have been previously raised and disposed of in the
proceedings shall be controlling in succeeding instances
where the same legal question is raised, provided that the
facts on which the legal issue was predicated continue to
be the facts of the case before the court. Guided by this
definition, the law of the case principle cannot provide
petitioners any comfort.
21. In case the plaintiff died during the pendency of an
action for foreclosure of mortgage with damages,
the court will?
A: The court shall continue with the case and order the
substitution of his heirs since it is an action that survives,
and any judgment it shall be enforced in the estate of the
deceased (Rule 3)
22. Does the mere filing of an unfounded civil action by
the plaintiff against the defendant entitle him to a
counter-claim for damages?
2
A: No, because the filing of an unfounded civil action is not
among the grounds for moral damages under the law.
23. Can an action for land registration be the subject of
notice of lis pendens?
A: No, there is no title yet to protect. Yes, if the question is
action to recover possession of real estate, quiet title, and
action to remove clouds.
24. Plaintiff file a complaint with the following recital on
the certification against forum shopping, to wit:
(a) That he has not commenced any action or filed any
claim involving the same issue in any court or
tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and to the best of
his knowledge
(b) If there is such other pending action or claim a
statement of the present status thereof.”
Is the certification against forum shopping valid?
Effect of failure to comply with the requirements.
remedy
A: Yes. Under Rule 7, Sec. 5, it should also contain an
undertaking that if he should thereafter learn that the
same or similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days
therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or
initiatory pleading has been filed.
However, in a case decided by the Supreme Court, the
substantial compliance rule may be applied with respect to
the contents of the certification because although it is
mandatory but jurisdictional.
Failure to comply with the requirements of the
certification of non-forum shopping shall not be curable by
amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading
but shall be cause for dismissal of the case without
prejudice, unless otherwise provided upon motion and
after hearing.
The remedy therefore is to ref-file the case and attach
thereto a valid certification against non-forum shopping
25. A filed a case against B before the QC-RTC for
Collection of Sum of Money. After the presentation
of the plaintiff’s evidence, B filed a Demurrer to
Evidence which was denied by the Court, the trial
proceeded, then the court rendered a judgment in
favor of A. B then filed an appeal to the CA and
assigned as one of the errors the denial of his D2E.
The CA set aside the judgment of the lower court
and granted the D2E based on insufficiency of
evidence, and dismissed the case, is the dismissal
valid.
A: No, considering that demurrer to evidence is a motion
to dismiss which must be filed before the court which
renders the judgment, and it is no longer within the power
of the CA to rule on the same.
26. Can a dismissal of the case for non-compliance with
the rule on barangay conciliation be revived by
motion after it became final and executory?
A: No, because it can only be revived by the filing of
another action after compliance with such condition
precedent.
27. In case the plaintiff died during the pendency of an
action for partition of real property, the court will?
A: Continue with the case and order the substitution of
heirs it is an action that survives.
28. A died in his home in Zamboanga City leaving
properties located in Pampanga and Quezon City
worth Php 300,000 with B and C as surviving heirs. B
resident of Manila filed a petition for probate
proceedings in the RTC of QC. C opposed the petition
based on improper venue. The judge allowed the
petition.
a. Is the judge correct?
b. If the petition was filed in Zamboanga City, should
the judge sustain the opposition?
A:
a. No, because the court’s want of jurisdiction appears
on the record.
b. Yes, because the petition was filed on the wrong
venue
29. A filed an ejectment case against B. The court, after
due hearing, ruled in favor of A. During the
execution B suddenly disappeared, hence it cannot
be enforced.
a. How would you enforce the judgment after five
years? Which court has jurisdiction? In this action,
where do you file the case (Venue)?
A: I will file an action for revival of judgment in the RTC.
Under the Rule 39, after the lapse of 5 years from the time
the action became final and executory and before it is
barred by statute of limitations, an action may be filed to
revive the judgment. According to jurisprudence, action
for revival of judgment maybe cognizable by the court
which rendered the same judgment or the court
designated by statute
Since ejectment is a real action, it shall be filed in the place
where the real property or a portion thereof is situated.
b. An action for sum of money with application for writ
of attachment is what kind of action?
A: Quasi in-rem
30. A filed a complaint against B based on a contract of
mortgage entered by them. After the service of
summons, B died and was substituted by C, son of B,
but before his death, B filed an unverified answer. If
you are A what is the remedy?
A: A should file a motion for judgment on the pleadings
since the answer is unverified and posed no triable issue
31. A entered into a contract of lease with B. B
defaulted in the payment of rentals in the amount of
Php 500,000. A filed an ejectment case against B
3
 with the MTC and recovery of sum of money with
the RTC. If you are the counsel of B what is your
remedy?
A: I will file a motion to dismiss on the ground of litis
pendentia
32. Which court has jurisdiction over an action for
quieting of title?
A: RTC or MTC depending on the assessed value of the
property
33. Is an application for the issuance of a writ of
attachment available as a remedy in Summary
Procedure?
A: Yes. Because there is no prohibition under the Rules on
Summary Procedure.
34. A filed a case against B for unlawful detainer. B filed
his answer. B subsequently filed a motion to amend
his complaint with the amended complaint
attached. B filed an opposition since it is a
prohibited motion, the proceedings being summary
in nature. If you were the judge, how would you rule
on the motion to amend?
A: I will grant the motion since there is no prohibition
under the Rules on Summary Proceeding
35. Which court has jurisdiction in an action for
partition?
A: The RTC or MTC depending on the assessed value of the
real property, or the value of the personal properties
involved in the action.
36. A filed a case for collection of sum of money against
B. Corp. in the MTC. Service of summons cannot be
effected in person or by substituted service to the
officers of the corporation. As counsel of A, what is
your remedy?
A: Under the rules whenever practicable summons maybe
served personally, and in case of failure of personal service
by substituted service. However, if the action is in
personam, summons by publication may be availed of by
amending the pleading and applying for a writ of
attachment.
37. The doctrine of confluent jurisdiction mean?
The power of different courts to take cognizance of the
case at the same time
38. Upon receipt of the Statement of Claims for the
recovery of P100,000 filed by the plaintiff, the court
dismissed the case motu proprio for failure to
comply with the barangay conciliation.
A: Yes, as expressly provided under the Rules on Small
Claims that the court may dismiss the case on its own
initiative in any of the grounds under Rule 16, Sec. 1
39. In case the plaintiff fails to move ex parte for the
conduct of pre-trial, what is the effect?
A: The clerk of court will issue a notice of pre-trial
conference
40. For failure of the plaintiff to appear during pre-trial
conference, the court issued an order stating that
the case is hereby dismissed. If you are the counsel,
what is the remedy?
A: File an appeal since the dismissal with prejudice.
41. What is the effect of the amendment of the original
complain in relation to a writ of attachment issued
in the original pleading?
A: It will be lifted since the original pleading has already
been superseded by the amended complaint.
42. A filed a suit against B. A served a written request
for admission to B on the promissory notes he
executed from which the complaint was based. B
failed to file an answer. What is the recourse of A?
A: File a motion for summary judgment.
43. Is the prohibition in the filing for a petition for
certiorari absolute in case of summary proceedings?
A: No. Petition CFM allowed against final judgments. It is
not allowed in interlocutory orders.
44. A filed a case for Damages with injunction against B
Corp., in the RTC. Service of Summons cannot be
effected through personal and substituted service of
summons to the officers of the corporation. A filed a
motion for service of summons by publication since
the whereabouts of the officers of B Corp. cannot be
determined. If you were the judge, how would you
rule on the motion?
A: I will deny the motion since the action is in personam
and service is by personal service
45. A filed a MR of the Order of the court denying his
motion to dismiss. The court issued the order as
follows: after careful examination of the issues and
arguments posited in the instant motion, the same is
hereby denied. Is the order valid
A: No, because the Order does not state the facts and the
law on which the denial is made (Constitution)
46. A filed an unlawful detainer case against B due to
non-payment of rentals before the MTC. After due
hearing, the court rendered a decision in favor of A,
ordering B to vacate the premises and to pay
monthly rentals plus attorney’s fees. B appealed the
decision of the RTC and deposited the current
monthly rentals with the said court. While the case
was pending appeal, A ‘s counsel filed a motion for
execution for its non-perfection for failure to file a
supersedeas bond. The judge issued a writ of
execution.
a. Is the order of execution pending appeal correct?
Why?
b. Remedy as counsel for the defendant Why?
4

A:
a. Yes, since the payment of supersedeas bond is
required to stay the execution pending appeal
Under Rule 70, in unlawful detainer cases, execution shall
issue immediately upon motion, unless appeal has been
perfected and the defendant files a supersedeas bond,
executes in favor of plaintiff the payment of rents and
period deposits to cover the amount of rentals due.
In this case, since supersedeas bond is not paid. Hence,
execution pending appeal shall issue immediately.
b. File a MR. Then appeal to the Court of Appeals via
Rule 42 and ask for Temporary Restraining Order or
Injunction. In case of adverse judgment, MR under
Rule 52. In case of denial of MR, file a petition of
review on certiorari under Rule 45.
47. Tita Cory died of cancer last Aug. 1, 2009 in QC in her
place of residence, leaving a will. May the RTC of
Manila take cognizance of the petition for probate of
her will even if she left no properties in Manila?
48. In proceedings for the settlement of D’s Estate, H,
one of the heirs, caused the annotation of notice of
lis pendens on real properties of the estate. The
other heirs moved to cancel this annotation on the
ground that it was not necessary to protect the
rights of H. Is the annotation correct?
49. A filed an unlawful detainer case against B before
the Manila-MTC. On the scheduled hearing, A failed
to appear and his case was dismissed w/o prejudice.
A filed a MR on the said dismissal, which was
opposed by B on the ground that it was a prohibited
motion. Rule on the motion.
50. A filed a case before the MTC for recovery of a sum
of money which was dismissed the said court for
lack of jurisdiction. A appealed to the RTC wherein
said court assumed jurisdiction. In case of adverse
decision of the RTC, what is the proper remedy?
A: The proper remedy is to appeal the case via Rule 41 by
notice or record of appeal within 15 or 30 days,
respectively.
Under the Rule 40, if the MTC dismissed the case on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction without trial on the merits,
the RTC may take cognizance of the case as if it was
originally filed with it.
In this case, since the dismissal was due to lack of
jurisdiction on the subject matter, the proper remedy is to
appeal via Rule 41.
In other words, without trial on the merits, lack of
jurisdiction, Rule 41.
Trial on the merits, lack of jurisdiction, Rule 42
51. Due to lack material time, A filed a MR on the
judgment on the 15th day without setting the same
for hearing due to urgency. Upon receipt, the court
denied the motion for lack of merit. Denial correct?
52. A filed a case for injunction with damages before the
RTC against B Corp. Summons cannot be served to
the officers of B Corp. despite repeated efforts and
substituted service. A filed a motion to serve
summons by publication on the ground that the
defendant’s whereabouts is unknown which was
granted by the court. Is the service valid?
53. A filed a case for sum of money against B before RTC
Manila and applied for a writ of preliminary
attachment which was granted by the court. B filed
his Answer with counterclaim against A. A filed a
motion for the amendment of his complaint, which
was granted by the court, but without the
certification of forum shopping. B filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground of non-compliance with
forum shopping, and move that the writ of
preliminary attachment be dissolved by virtue of the
said attachment. A, on the other hand, contended
that the original complaint contains the required
certification against forum shopping, and the
amended complaint is no longer an initiatory
pleading, hence, there is already compliance with
the rule.
a. Is the contention of A tenable? Why?
b. If you are the judge, how would you rule on the
motion filed by B?
A:
a. No, the contention of A is not tenable
Under the law, one of the effects of an amended pleading
is it supersedes the original pleading. As a rule,
certification of non-forum shopping is required especially
when the amendment is substantial. However, if it is not
substantial, certification of non-forum shopping is no
longer required
b. As to the motion to dismiss, I will deny the same upon
lack of showing that the amendment is substantial,
otherwise I will grant it.
As to the writ of preliminary attachment, I will dissolve the
same because under the law one of the effects of
amendment of the pleading is that all the ancillary remedy
issued in the original pleading shall be deemed vacated or
lifted.
54. Atong obtained a loan in the amount of P500,00
from Erap and executed a promissory note, and
promised to pay the same within three (3) months.
After the lapse of three (3) months, Atong failed to
pay the loan, and Erap filed a complaint for sum of
money based on the loan and attached the
promissory note in his complaint. Atong filed his
unverified answer. Erap filed a motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings. During the pendency of the action,
Atong died of heart attack
a. Can the court dismiss the case? Why?
b. If you were the judge would how would your rule on
the motion?
5

A:
a. No, when the action is for recovery of money arising
from contract, express or implied, and the defendant
dies before entry or final judgment in court in which
the action was pending at the time of such death, it
shall not be dismissed but shall instead be allowed to
continue until entry of final judgment. Hence, the
case should not be dismissed but should be allowed
to continue. Moreover, in case Atong obtained a
favorable judgment, he shall enforce his claims in
accordance with the Rules on prosecuting claims
against the estate.
b. I will grant the motion. Rule 8, Sec. 8, to contest the
genuineness and due execution of an actionable
document, it must be specifically denied under oath
and set forth what he claims to be the facts. Hence, in
this case since it was denied under oath, Erap is
entitled to judgment on the pleadings.
55. P sued D in the RTC for a sum of money. Summons
could not be served on D because the sheriff could
not locate his address. So, after a year, the RTC
dismissed the complaint “for P’s failure to prosecute
his action for an unreasonable length of time”. Three
months later, P filed another complaint for the same
cause of action against D. D now moves to dismiss
the second complaint on the ground of res judicata.
Resolve D’s motion to dismiss.
A: Motion should be denied.
Under the law, for requisites of res judicata or bar by prior
judgment are:
(a) The former judgment or order must be final
(b) It must be a judgment on the merits
(c) It must have been rendered by a court having
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties
(d) There must be between the first and second actions,
identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of
action
In this case, the third requisite is lacking since jurisdiction
was not acquired by the court over the parties because
summons was not served. Hence, the motion should be
denied.
56. Keana Reeves registered owner of Reeves
Construction applied for a loan from BPI Family Bank
in the sum of Php 400,000 evidenced by promissory
note no. 007-04. Pursuant thereto, Reeves obligated
herself to pay the amount with interest at the rate
of 29% per annum. Additionally, it was stipulated
that if the payment was not made upon maturity of
the loan, penalty charges of 1% per month and 25%
of the total amount due would be charged against
her. Reeves signed the aforesaid promissory note
together with the disclosure statement on
loan/credit transaction ____ by the bank. Reeves
failed to pay the aforesaid obligation prompting the
BPI Family Bank to send her a letter of demand
dated January 2, 1998. Despite the demand,
however, Reeves still failed to settle her
indebtedness. Thus on February 20, 1998, BPI Family
Bank filed a complaint for a sum of money against
him. In her answer, Reeves denied that she received
the proceeds of the loan transaction and prayed that
the case against him be dismissed.
a. Is the contention of Keana Reeves tenable. Why?
Discuss and cite your legal basis.
b. If you were the judge, decide the case
c. When is notice of lis pendens available? What are the
grounds for its cancellation
A:
a. Keana Reeves contention is not tenable since the
cause of action of BPI Family Bank is based on
actionable document.
Rule 8, Sec. 8 provides that to contest an actionable
document, he should deny the genuineness and due
execution of the document under oath and set forth what
he claims to be the facts.
In this case, mere denial that he received the proceeds of
the loan are payed is insufficient. It should be denied
under oath for it to be a valid defense.
b. I would decide the case in favor of BPI Family Savings.
Since the actionable document is not denied under
oath, the genuineness and due execution of the
document are deemed admitted.
c. Notice of lis pendens is available in actions title
affecting title or the right of possession of real
property, the plaintiff and defendant, when
affirmative relief is claimed in the answer, may
record in the office of registry of deeds of the
province in which the property is situated notice of
the pendency of the action
The notice of lis pendens may be cancelled ONLY upon
order of the court, after proper showing that:
(a) The notice is for the purpose of molesting the adverse
party, or
(b) That it is not necessary to protect the rights of the
party who caused it to be recorded.
57. A filed a civil case against B for the collection of Php
5,000 in the MTC of Manilla. After an examination of
the complaint, the judge dismissed the case outright
due to improper venue. A filed a motion for
reconsideration of the dismissal, contending that a
provision in the promissory note attachment to the
complaint and made as the basis thereto clearly
shows that the case must be filed with the Manila
Court. Although realizing and admitting that he
committed an error in dismissing because no action
can be taken on the motion for reconsideration,
which is a prohibited pleading under the summary
rules. Is the judge correct?
A: No. Motion for reconsideration may be filed in
summary may still be filed.
Under the Rules of Summary Procedure, a motion for
reconsideration is a prohibited motion in case it is directed
to a judgment.
In this case, the motion for reconsideration filed by A is
only interlocutory. Hence, it is not a prohibited under the
Rules on Summary Procedure.
6
58. Teofisto filed a case of forcible entry against Gloria
before the MetC of Manila. Gloria was served a copy
of the summons but without the attachment copy of
the complaint. Gloria failed to file her answer.
Teofisto moved that the case be submitted for
resolution which was objected to by Gloria and
subsequently filed her answer. If you were the
judge, how will you decide the issue?

A: I will grant the motion to submit the case for resolution.

Under the law, jurisdiction over the person of the

defendant can be acquired by voluntary appearance. By
voluntary appearance can be done when the defendant
asked for affirmative relief from the court regarding the
action.

In this case, the subsequent filing of Gloria of her answer is

deemed a voluntary appearance. Hence, the case may be
submitted for resolution.