1. What​ ​Is​ ​The​ ​“Doctrine​ ​Of​ ​Hierarchy​ ​Of​ ​Courts”​ ​or​ ​“Ladder​ ​Like​ ​Theory”?

The Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the
appropriate courts or where exceptional and compelling circumstances justify availment of a remedy
within​ ​and​ ​calling​ ​for​ ​the​ ​exercise​ ​of​ ​primary​ ​jurisdiction

2. What​ ​is​ ​the​ ​“Doctrine​ ​of​ ​Transcendental​ ​Importance”?

Suspension of the rules of procedure in case the subject matter of the action is of great
importance/involving​ ​national​ ​interest

3. What​ ​is​ ​the​ ​“principle​ ​of​ ​standing​ ​beyond​ ​natural​ ​and​ ​juridical​ ​persons”?

A “standing” or a right to pursue a case which is extended to a certain type of parties who has the
right​ ​to​ ​file​ ​the​ ​action​ ​or​ ​the​ ​right​ ​to​ ​challenge​ ​the​ ​policies​ ​of​ ​the​ ​State.​ ​Ex.​ ​Taxpayer​ ​suit.

4. Class​ ​suit​ ​vs.​ ​Derivative​ ​Suit​ ​vs.​ ​Citizen​ ​Suit:

Class suit, derivative suit, and citizen suit are all representative suits, but distinctions lies with the
following:
a. A class suit is filed regarding a controversy of common or general interest in behalf of many
persons so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties, a number which the court finds
sufficiently​ ​representative​ ​who​ ​may​ ​sue​ ​or​ ​defend​ ​for​ ​the​ ​benefit​ ​of​ ​all.​ ​(Sec.​ ​12,​ ​Rule​ ​3)​ ​b)
b. A derivative suit is a suit in equity that is filed by a minority shareholder in behalf of a corporation
to redress wrongs committed against it, for which the directors refuse to sue, the real party in
interest​ ​being​ ​the​ ​corporation​ ​itself​ ​(Lint​ ​v.​ ​Lim-Yu,​ ​G.IL​ ​No.​ ​138343,​ ​February​ ​19,​ ​2001),​ ​while
c. A citizen suit is an action filed by any Filipino citizen in representation of others, including minors
or generations not yet born to enforce rights and obligations under environmental laws. (Sec. 5,
Rule​ ​2,​ ​Part​ ​II​ ​of​ ​A.M.​ ​09-6-8-SC)

5. Doctrine​ ​of​ ​Exclusivity​ ​of​ ​venue​:

If​ ​the​ ​action​ ​involves​ ​several​ ​real​ ​properties​ ​under​ ​one​ ​(1)​ ​contract-​ ​location​ ​of​ ​the​ ​property

Clearly, the words "exclusively" and "waiving for this purpose any other venue" are restrictive and
used​ ​advisedly​ ​to​ ​meet​ ​the​ ​requirements.​ ​(Emphasis​ ​supplied.)

6. Rules​ ​on​ ​venue​ ​in​ ​small​ ​claims​ ​cases

The​ ​regular​ ​rules​ ​on​ ​venue​ ​shall​ ​apply.

However, if the plaintiff is engaged in the business of lending, banking and similar activities, and has
a branch within the municipality or city where the defendant resides, the Statement of Claim/s shall be
filed​ ​where​ ​that​ ​branch​ ​is​ ​located.

7. Certification​ ​against​ ​forum​ ​shopping:

Certification must be signed by the party not the counsel: Exception: The requirement that it is the
petitioner, not her counsel, who should sign the certificate of non-forum shopping is due to the fact

PETMALU​ ​NA​ ​BARVET​ ​NOTES​ ​2017

 that a “certification is a peculiar personal representation on the part of the principal party, an
assurance given to the court or other tribunal that there are no other pending cases involving
basically the same parties, issues and causes of action.” “Obviously, it is the petitioner, and not
always the counsel whose professional services have been retained for a particular case, who is in
the best position to know whether [she] actually filed or caused the filing of a petition in that case.”
Per the above guidelines, however, if a petitioner is unable to sign a certification for reasonable or
justifiable reasons, she must execute an SPA designating her counsel of record to sign on her behalf.
“[A] certification which had been signed by counsel without the proper authorization is defective and
constitutes a valid cause for the dismissal of the petition.” (Mary Louise R. Anderson Vs. Enrique Ho,
G.R.​ ​No.​ ​172590.​ ​January​ ​7,​ ​2013)

8. ​ ​What​ ​is​ ​the​ ​effect​ ​of​ ​partial​ ​default?​ ​Effect​ ​of​ ​partial​ ​default.​ ​—

When a pleading asserting a claim states a common cause of action against several defending
parties, some of whom answer and the others fail to do so, the court shall try the case against all
upon the answers thus filed and render judgment upon the evidence presented. Basis of the Answer:
Sec.​ ​3​ ​©,​ ​Rule​ ​9

9. Cases​ ​when​ ​there​ ​is​ ​no​ ​default:

In​ ​the​ ​following​ ​instances​ ​there​ ​will​ ​motion​ ​to​ ​declare​ ​defendant​ ​in​ ​default​ ​is​ ​not​ ​allowed:
a. In​ ​an​ ​action​ ​for​ ​annulment​ ​of​ ​marriage;
b. Declaration​ ​of​ ​nullity​ ​of​ ​marriage;
c. Action​ ​for​ ​legal​ ​separation;
d. Small​ ​claims​ ​cases;
e. Environmental​ ​cases;​ ​and
f. Forcible​ ​Entry​ ​and​ ​Unlawful​ ​Detainer​ ​cases​ ​under​ ​the​ ​Rules​ ​on​ ​Summary​ ​Procedure.

10. Service​ ​of​ ​summons​ ​in​ ​case​ ​of​ ​Intellectual​ ​Property​ ​Cases:

When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity, service may be made on its resident agent
designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the government
official​ ​designated​ ​by​ ​law​ ​to​ ​that​ ​effect,​ ​or​ ​on​ ​any​ ​of​ ​its​ ​officers​ ​or​ ​agents​ ​within​ ​the​ ​Philippines.

If the foreign private juridical entity is not registered in the Philippines or has no resident agent,
service may, with leave of court, be effected out of the Philippines through any of the following
means:
a. By personal service coursed through the appropriate court in the foreign country with the
assistance​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Department​ ​of​ ​Foreign​ ​Affairs;
b. By publication once in a newspaper of general circulation in the country where the
defendant may be found and by serving a copy of the summons and the court order by
registered​ ​mail​ ​at​ ​the​ ​last​ ​known​ ​address​ ​of​ ​the​ ​defendant;
c. By​ ​facsimile​ ​or​ ​any​ ​recognized​ ​electronic​ ​means​ ​that​ ​could​ ​generate​ ​proof​ ​of​ ​service;
d. By such other means as the court may, in its discretion, direct. Basis of the Answer: Sec.
2,​ ​Rule​ ​4​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Special​ ​Rules​ ​on​ ​Intellectual​ ​Property​ ​Rights​ ​Cases)

PETMALU​ ​NA​ ​BARVET​ ​NOTES​ ​2017

11. Service​ ​of​ ​summons​ ​to​ ​domestic​ ​juridical​ ​entity​ ​(Sec.​ ​11,​ ​Rule​ ​14):

In case of domestic juridical entity summons can only be served upon the President, General
Manager,​ ​managing​ ​partner,​ ​Corporate​ ​Treasurer,​ ​Corporate​ ​Secretary,​ ​or​ ​in​ ​house​ ​counsel

Take Note: Service of summons to the Secretary of the President or the security guard of the
company is not valid. The enumeration under Sec. 11 are EXCLUSIVE. *“Substantial Compliance
Rule” no longer applicable in case of service of summons to juridical entity. Strict compliance
required.

12. What are the distinctions between failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of
action?

Failure to state a cause of action and lack of a cause of action are not the same. Failure to state a
cause of action refers to an insufficiency of the allegations in the petition/complaint. It is a ground for
dismissal under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court before the defendant or respondent files a responsive
pleading.​ ​Notably,​ ​the​ ​dismissal​ ​is​ ​without​ ​prejudice​ ​to​ ​the​ ​refiling​ ​of​ ​an​ ​amended​ ​complaint.

On the other hand, the lack of a cause of action refers to an insufficiency of factual or legal basis to
grant the complaint. It applies to a situation where the evidence failed to prove the cause of action
alleged in the pleading. It is a ground for dismissal using a demurrer to evidence under Rule 33 after
the plaintiff has completed presenting his evidence. The dismissal constitutes res judicata on the
issue and will bar future suits based on the same cause of action. (Apostolic Vicar of Tabuk, Inc. Vs.
Sps.​ ​Ernesto​ ​and​ ​Elizabeth​ ​Sison​ ​and​ ​Venancio​ ​Wadas​ ​G.R.​ ​No.​ ​191132.​ ​January​ ​27,​ ​2016)

13. What​ ​Is​ ​The​ ​“Doctrine​ ​Of​ ​Party​ ​Autonomy”?

A pivotal feature of arbitration as an alternative mode of dispute resolution is that it is, first and
foremost, a product of party autonomy or the freedom of the parties to “make their own arrangements
to resolve their own disputes.” Arbitration agreements manifest not only the desire of the parties in
conflict for an expeditious resolution of their dispute. They also represent, if not more so, the parties’
mutual aspiration to achieve such resolution outside of judicial auspices, in a more informal and less
antagonistic environment under the terms of their choosing. Needless to state, this critical feature can
never be satisfied in an ejectment case no matter how summary it may be. (Koppel, Inc. [Formerly
Known as KPL Aircon, Inc]. Vs. Makati Rotary Club Foundation, Inc. September 4, 2013 G.R. No.
198075)

14. What​ ​Is​ ​The​ ​Doctrine​ ​Of​ ​Separability?

Doctrine of separability, an arbitration agreement is considered as independent of the main contract.

Being a separate contract in itself, the arbitration agreement may thus be invoked regardless of the
possible​ ​nullity​ ​or​ ​invalidity​ ​of​ ​the​ ​main​ ​contract.

15. What is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)? Strategic Lawsuit Against
Public​ ​Participation​ ​(SLAPP)​ ​–

PETMALU​ ​NA​ ​BARVET​ ​NOTES​ ​2017

 refers to an action whether civil, criminal or administrative, brought against any person, institution or
any government agency or local government unit or its officials and employees, with intent to harass,
vex, exert undue pressure or stifle any legal recourse that such person, institution or government
agency has taken or may take in the enforcement of environmental laws, protection of the
environment or assertion of environmental rights. b) SLAPP is a ground for the dismissal of the action
under the rules on environmental cases which should be raised as an affirmative defense in the
answer.​ ​Basis​ ​of​ ​the​ ​answer:​ ​Sec.​ ​2,​ ​Rule​ ​6​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Rules​ ​on​ ​Environmental​ ​Cases.

16. “Hypothetical​ ​Admission​ ​Rule”​ ​or​ ​“Assumption​ ​of​ ​Truth​ ​Rule”

When a motion to dismiss is filed, the material allegations of the complaint are deemed to be
hypothetically admitted. This hypothetical admission, extends not only from the relevant and material
facts well pleaded in the complaint, but also to inferences that may be fairly deduced from them. (The
Municipality of Hagonoy, Bulcan, et al. vs. Hon. Simeon Dumdum, Jr., G.R. No. 168289, March 22,
2010)

17. ​ ​What​ ​is​ ​Two​ ​Dismissal​ ​Rule?

When the notice operates as an adjudication upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once
dismissed​ ​an​ ​action​ ​in​ ​a​ ​competent​ ​court​ ​based​ ​on​ ​or​ ​including​ ​the​ ​same​ ​claim.​ ​(Sec.​ ​1,​ ​Rule​ ​17)

18. Test​ ​to​ ​determine​ ​the​ ​doctrine​ ​of​ ​“Non-Prosequitur”​ ​as​ ​a​ ​ground​ ​for​ ​dismissal:

The fundamental test for non prosequitur is whether, under the circumstances, the plaintiff is
chargeable with want of due diligence in failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude. There must
be unwillingness on the part of the plaintiff to prosecute. (Shimizu Philippines Contractors, Inc., Vs.
Mrs. Leticia B. Magsalin, Doing Business Under The Trade Name "Karen's Trading," Fgu Insurance
Corporation, Godofredo Garcia, Concordia Garcia, And Reynaldo Baetiong, G.R. No. 170026, June
20,​ ​2012)

19. What​ ​is​ ​a​ ​consent​ ​decree?

Consent decree- refers to a judicially-approved settlement between concerned parties based on

public​ ​interest​ ​and​ ​public​ ​policy​ ​to​ ​protect​ ​and​ ​preserve​ ​the​ ​environment.

20. “Viatory​ ​Right”​ ​of​ ​the​ ​witness

If the witness resides more than 100 km from the place where he is to travel by the ordinary course of
travel, or if he is a detention prisoner and no permission is obtained from the court in which his case
is​ ​pending,​ ​then​ ​he​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​compelled​ ​to​ ​attend​ ​the​ ​trial.​ ​The​ ​right​ ​is​ ​available​ ​only​ ​in​ ​CIVIL​ ​cases.

21. What​ ​is​ ​an​ ​alternate​ ​trial?

An alternate trial is one where parties take turns in presenting their witnesses respecting the first
factual issue or related issues stated in the order of trial. The party who bears the burden of proving
the affirmative of the issue under consideration shall be the first to present a witness. ( Sec. 24.1. of
A.M.​ ​14-03-02-SC​ ​(March​ ​8,​ ​2014​ ​on​ ​the​ ​draft​ ​Revised​ ​Rules​ ​of​ ​Civil​ ​Procedure)

PETMALU​ ​NA​ ​BARVET​ ​NOTES​ ​2017

22. What​ ​is​ ​a​ ​face​ ​to​ ​face​ ​trial?

A face-to-face trial is one wherein witnesses from the contending sides appear together before the
court, sit face-to-face around a table in a non-adversarial environment, and answer questions from
the court as well as the parties’ counsels respecting the factual issue under consideration. (Sec. 24.2.
of​ ​A.M.​ ​14-03-02-SC​ ​(March​ ​8,​ ​2014​ ​on​ ​the​ ​draft​ ​Revised​ ​Rules​ ​of​ ​Civil​ ​Procedure)

23. Judgment​ ​on​ ​the​ ​pleadings​ ​vs.​ ​summary​ ​judgment​ ​(Rule​ ​34​ ​&​ ​35)​ ​-​ ​Distinctions

It is also important to know the distinctions between judgment on the pleadings and summary
judgment​ ​which​ ​are​ ​as​ ​follows,​ ​to​ ​wit:
a. Judgment on the pleadings is proper when it appears that there is no genuine issue
between the parties; a summary judgment is proper even if there is an issue as to
damages​ ​recoverable.
b. Judgment on the pleadings is based exclusively upon the pleadings without introduction
of evidence; a summary judgment is based not only on the pleadings but also upon the
affidavits, depositions and admissions of the parties showing that, except as to the
amount​ ​of​ ​damages,​ ​there​ ​is​ ​no​ ​genuine​ ​issue.
c. Judgment on the pleadings is available in any action, except for annulment of marriage or
legal separation; a summary judgment is proper only in actions to recover a debt, or for a
liquidated​ ​sum​ ​of​ ​money,​ ​or​ ​for​ ​declaratory​ ​relief.
d. A motion for judgment on the pleadings is subject only to the 3 day notice rule (Sec. 4,
Rule 15) and where all the material averments of the complaint are admitted, such motion
may even be made ex parte (Cruz vs. Oppen, L-23861, February 17, 1968); a motion for
summary​ ​judgment​ ​requires​ ​prior​ ​10-​ ​day​ ​notice.​ ​(Sec.​ ​3,​ ​Rule​ ​35)

Take Note: Motions for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment are not only available during
pre-trial​ ​conference

24. What​ ​is​ ​Slip​ ​Rule?

A Slip rule refers to a rule permitting the correction of any accidental slip or omission in judgments or
orders. Correction can be made only of typographical errors or matters that were genuine slips or
mistakes. Such errors can be corrected at any time by the court on application without an appeal. The
rule cannot be used to correct errors of substance, nor in an attempt to add to or detract from the
original​ ​order​ ​made.

The established doctrine is that when the dispositive portion of a judgment, which has become final
and executory, contains a clerical error or an ambiguity arising from an inadvertent omission, such
error or ambiguity may be clarified by reference to the body of the decision itself. In Reinsurance
Company of the Orient, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[6] the Court surveyed the applicable case law in the
following​ ​manner:

"It is true that even a judgment which has become final and executory may be clarified under certain
circumstances. The dispositive portion of the judgment may, for instance, contain an error clearly
clerical in nature (perhaps best illustrated by an error in arithmetical computation) or an ambiguity

PETMALU​ ​NA​ ​BARVET​ ​NOTES​ ​2017

 arising from inadvertent omission, which error may be rectified or ambiguity clarified and the omission
supplied by reference primarily to the body of the decision itself. Supplementary reference to the
pleadings previously filed in the case may also be resorted to by way of corroboration of the existence
of the error or of the ambiguity in the dispositive part of the judgment. In Locsin, et al. v. Paredes, et
al. (63 Phil. 87 [1936]), this Court allowed a judgment which had become final and executory to be
clarified by supplying a word which had been inadvertently omitted and which, when supplied, in
effect changed the literal import of the original phraseology: (ANTONIO L. CASTELO v. CA [ GR No.
96372,​ ​May​ ​22,​ ​1995​ ​]

25. What​ ​Is​ ​Single​ ​Motion​ ​Rule?

The above rule provides that no party shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration of a
judgment​ ​or​ ​final​ ​order​ ​by​ ​the​ ​same​ ​party​ ​shall​ ​be​ ​allowed.​ ​(Sec.​ ​5,​ ​Rule​ ​37)

26. What​ ​Is​ ​“Berry​ ​Rule?

Motion for New trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, which he could not, with reasonable
diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial, and which if presented would probably alter the
result.​ ​(Sec.​ ​1,​ ​Rule​ ​37)

27. Can government funds be the subject of garnishment by virtue of a final judgment even
though there was an implied consent/contract between the government entity and private
person?

Government funds cannot be the subject of immediate execution because suability did not
necessarily mean liability. It must be adjudicated first by the COA before the execution of the
judgment​ ​in​ ​accordance​ ​with​ ​P.D.​ ​1445,​ ​Government​ ​Auditing​ ​Code​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Philippines.

28. Doctrine​ ​of​ ​“res​ ​judicata”,​ ​“Merger​ ​or​ ​Bar”​ ​or​ ​“Principle​ ​of​ ​Preclusion”.​ ​Aspects.

The​ ​doctrine​ ​of​ ​res​ ​judicata​ ​is​ ​set​ ​forth​ ​in​ ​Section​ ​47​ ​of​ ​Rule​ ​39​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Rules​ ​of​ ​Court.

This provision comprehends two distinct concepts of res judicata: (1) bar by former judgment and (2)
conclusiveness of judgment. The first aspect is the effect of a judgment as a bar to the prosecution of
a second action upon the same claim, demand or cause of action. In traditional terminology, this
aspect​ ​is​ ​known​ ​as​ ​merger​ ​or​ ​bar;​ ​in​ ​modern​ ​terminology,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​called​ ​claim​ ​preclusion.

The second aspect precludes the relitigation of a particular fact of issue in another action between the
same parties on a different claim or cause of action. This is traditionally known as collateral estoppel;
in modern terminology, it is called issue preclusion. (Elisa Degayo Vs. Cecilia Magbanua-Dinglasan,
et​ ​al.​ ​G.R.​ ​No.​ ​173148.​ ​April​ ​6,​ ​2015)

29. What​ ​Is​ ​“Lord​ ​Coke’s​ ​Doctrine”?

As stated in Section 48, Rule 39, the actionable issues are generally restricted to a review of
jurisdiction of the foreign court, the service of personal notice, collusion, fraud, or mistake of fact or
law. The limitations on review [are] in consonance with a strong and pervasive policy in all legal
systems to limit repetitive litigation on claims and issues. Otherwise known as the policy of preclusion,

PETMALU​ ​NA​ ​BARVET​ ​NOTES​ ​2017

 it seeks to protect party expectations resulting from previous litigation, to safeguard against the
harassment of defendants, to insure that the task of courts not be increased by neverending litigation
of the same disputes, and – in a larger sense – to promote what Lord Coke in the Ferrer’s Case of
1599 stated to be the goal of all law: “rest and quietness.” If every judgment of a foreign court were
reviewable on the merits, the plaintiff would be forced back on his/her original cause of action,
rendering immaterial the previously concluded litigation. (Bank of Philippine Islands Securities
Corporation​ ​vs.​ ​Edgardo​ ​Guevara,​ ​G.R.​ ​No.​ ​167052,​ ​March​ ​11,​ ​2015)

30. What​ ​is​ ​Harmless​ ​Error​ ​Rule?

“Sec. 6. Harmless error. — No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence and no error
or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the trial court or by any of the parties
is ground for granting a new trial or for setting aside, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or
order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice. The
court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect which does not affect the
substantial​ ​rights​ ​of​ ​the​ ​parties.”

***This stance is a specie of a mid-1800 rule known as the “English Exchequer Rule” pursuant to
which "a trial court's error as to the admission of evidence was presumed to have caused prejudice
and therefore, almost automatically required a new trial." The Exchequer rule has long been laid to
rest for even English appellate courts now disregard an error in the admission of evidence "unless in
its opinion, some substantial wrong or miscarriage (of justice) has been occasioned." American courts
adopted this approach especially after the enactment of a 1915 federal statute which required a
federal appellate court to "give judgment after an examination of the entire record before the court,
without regard to technical errors, defects, or exceptions which do not affect the substantial rights of
the parties." We have likewise followed the harmless error rule in our jurisdiction. In dealing with
evidence improperly admitted in trial, we examine its damaging quality and its impact to the
substantive rights of the litigant. If the impact is slight and insignificant, we disregard the error as it will
not overcome the weight of the properly admitted evidence against the prejudiced party. (PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE, JR., accused-appellant. G.R.
Nos.​ ​111206-08​ ​October​ ​6,​ ​1995)

31. What​ ​is​ ​the​ ​Principle​ ​Of​ ​Prior​ ​Or​ ​Contemporaneous​ ​Jurisdiction?

In enforcing a writ of attachment it must be preceded by or simultaneously accompanied by service of

summons,​ ​copy​ ​of​ ​the​ ​complaint,​ ​application​ ​and​ ​affidavits,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​bond​ ​upon​ ​the​ ​adverse​ ​party.

Take​ ​Note:

The personality of a corporation is distinct and separate from the personalities of its stockholders.
Hence, its stockholders are not themselves the real parties in interest to claim and recover
compensation for the damages arising from the wrongful attachment of its assets. Only the
corporation is the real party in interest for that purpose.( Stronghold Insurance Company, Inc. vs.
Tomas​ ​Cuenca,​ ​Marcelina​ ​Cuenca​ ​et​ ​al,​ ​G.R.​ ​No.​ ​173297,​ ​March​ ​6,​ ​2013,​ ​BERSAMIN,​ ​J.:)

32. Limitation​ ​on​ ​the​ ​issuance​ ​of​ ​Injunction​ ​or​ ​TRO​ ​in​ ​environmental​ ​cases.

PETMALU​ ​NA​ ​BARVET​ ​NOTES​ ​2017

 “Except the Supreme Court, no court can issue a TRO or writ of injunction against the lawful actions
of​ ​government​ ​agencies​ ​that​ ​enforce​ ​environmental​ ​laws​ ​or​ ​prevent​ ​violations​ ​thereof.”

33. What​ ​Is​ ​The​ ​Doctrine​ ​Of​ ​“Strong​ ​Arm​ ​Of​ ​Equity”?

At times referred to as the “Strong Arm of Equity,” [the Court has] consistently ruled that there is no
power the exercise of which is more delicate and which calls for greater circumspection than the
issuance of an injunction. It should only be extended in cases of great injury where courts of law
cannot afford an adequate or commensurate remedy in damages; “in cases of extreme urgency;
where the right is very clear; where considerations of relative inconvenience bear strongly in
complainant’s favor; where there is a willful and unlawful invasion of plaintiff’s right against his protest
and remonstrance, the injury being a continuing one, and where the effect of the mandatory injunction
is rather to re-establish and maintain a pre-existing continuing relation between the parties, recently
and arbitrarily interrupted by the defendant, than to establish a new relation.” (Thunder Security and
Investigation​ ​Agency​ ​vs.​ ​National​ ​Food​ ​Authority,​ ​G.R.​ ​No.​ ​182042,​ ​July​ ​27,​ ​2011)

34. ​ ​What​ ​is​ ​“material​ ​dates​ ​rule”?

In actions filed under Rule 65, the petition shall further indicate the material dates showing when
notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for
new​ ​trial​ ​or​ ​reconsideration,​ ​if​ ​any,​ ​was​ ​filed​ ​and​ ​when​ ​notice​ ​of​ ​the​ ​denial​ ​thereof​ ​was​ ​received.

35. What​ ​Is​ ​The​ ​“Principle​ ​Of​ ​Jus​ ​Regalia”?

Proceeding from the principle of jus regalia, the right to eminent domain has always been considered
as a fundamental state power that is inseparable from sovereignty. It is described as the State’s
inherent power that need not be granted even by the Constitution, and as the government's right to
appropriate, in the nature of compulsory sale to the State, private property for public use or purpose.
(Republic of the Philippines vs. Hon. Rosa Samson-Tatad and Spouses William and Rebecca To
G.R.​ ​No.​ ​187677,​ ​April​ ​17,​ ​2013)

36. Rape​ ​of​ ​minor​ ​and​ ​Sexual​ ​Abuse​ ​under​ ​RA​ ​7610​ ​exclusive​ ​of​ ​each​ ​other.

The Court observes that the DOJ charged Gil for Rape in relation to Child Abuse under Section 5(b),
Article III of RA 7610 on account of the December 28, 2001 and April 23, 2002 incidents. Existing
jurisprudence, however, proscribes charging an accused of both crimes, rather he may be charged
only for either. As held in People v. Pangilinan, if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should
be charged with either sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under 266-A (except
paragraph 1(d) of the Revised Penal Code. However, the offender cannot be accused of both crimes
for the same act because his right against double jeopardy will be prejudiced. (Iris Kristine Balois
Alberto​ ​vs.​ ​CA,​ ​GR​ ​No.​ ​182130,​ ​June​ ​19,​ ​2013)

37. Action for specific performance is a prejudicial question in criminal case for violation of Sec.
25,​ ​PD​ ​No.​ ​957

PETMALU​ ​NA​ ​BARVET​ ​NOTES​ ​2017

 The pendency of an administrative ease for specific performance brought by the buyer of residential
subdivision lots in the Housing and Land Use Regulatory .Board (IILURH) to compel the seller to
deliver the transfer certificate of title (TCTs) of the fully paid Jots is properly considered a ground to
suspend a criminal prosecution for violation of Sectio11 25 of Presidential Decree NL). 9571 on tile
ground of a prejudicial question. The administrative determination is a logical antecedent of the
resolution​ ​of​ ​the​ ​criminal​ ​charges​ ​based​ ​on​ ​non-delivery​ ​of​ ​the​ ​TCTs.

Conformably with the foregoing, the action for specific performance in the HLURB would determine
whether or not San Miguel Properties was legally entitled to demand the delivery of the remaining 20
TCTs, while the criminal action would decide whether or not BF Homes’ directors and officers were
criminally liable for withholding the 20 TCTs. The resolution of the former must obviously precede that
of the latter, for should the HLURB hold San Miguel Properties to be not entitled to the delivery of the
20 TCTs because Atty. Orendain did not have the authority to represent BF Homes in the sale due to
his receivership having been terminated by the SEC, the basis for the criminal liability for the violation
of Section 25 of Presidential Decree No. 957 would evaporate, thereby negating the need to proceed
with the criminal case. (San Miguel Properties, Inc. vs. Sec. Hernando Perez, G.R. No. 166836,
September​ ​4,​ ​2013,​ ​BERSAMIN,​ ​J)

38. Person under preliminary investigation not yet an accused hence cannot demand full exercise
of​ ​the​ ​rights​ ​of​ ​the​ ​accused.

Moreover, a person under preliminary investigation, as Sen. Estrada is in the present case when he
filed his Request, is not yet an accused person, and hence cannot demand the full exercise of the
rights of an accused person. (Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada vs. Office of the Ombudsman, Field
Investigation Office, National Bureau of Investigation and Atty. Levito D. Baligod, G.R. Nos.
212140-41,​ ​January​ ​21,​ ​2015)

39. “Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may,
without​ ​a​ ​warrant,​ ​arrest​ ​a​ ​person:

a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting​ ​to​ ​commit​ ​an​ ​offense;​ ​(Plainview​ ​Doctrine)
b. When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it;
(Doctrine​ ​of​ ​Hot​ ​Pursuit)​ ​and
c. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has​ ​escaped​ ​while​ ​being​ ​transferred​ ​from​ ​one​ ​confinement​ ​to​ ​another.

40. Warrantless​ ​arrest​ ​in​ ​Environmental​ ​Cases

a. When, in his presence the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing or is
attempting​ ​to​ ​commit​ ​an​ ​offense;​ ​or
b. When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal​ ​knowledge​ ​of​ ​facts​ ​or​ ​circumstances​ ​that​ ​the​ ​person​ ​to​ ​be​ ​arrested​ ​has​ ​committed​ ​it.

PETMALU​ ​NA​ ​BARVET​ ​NOTES​ ​2017

 Individuals deputized by the proper government agency who are enforcing environmental laws shall
enjoy the presumption of regularity under Section 3 (m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court when
effecting​ ​arrests​ ​for​ ​violations​ ​of​ ​environmental​ ​laws.

41. Difference​ ​between​ ​entrapment​ ​and​ ​instigation

It is elementary that entrapment and instigation are different. In instigation, the instigator induces the
would-be-defendant into committing the offense, and himself becomes a co-principal. In entrapment,
the means originates from the mind of the criminal. Otherwise stated, the idea to commit the crime
come from the criminal. While in instigation, the law enforcer conceives the commission of the crime
and suggests the same to the accused who adopts the idea and carries it into execution. (People Of
The​ ​Philippines​ ​Vs.​ ​Manuelita​ ​Ampatuan​ ​Y​ ​Gonzales,​ ​Et​ ​Al.,​ ​G.R.​ ​No.​ ​188707,​ ​July​ ​30​ ​2014)

42. Right​ ​to​ ​Counsel​ ​does​ ​not​ ​apply​ ​in​ ​administrative​ ​investigation

In Remolona v. Civil Service Commission, 362 SCRA 304 (2001), we declared that the right to
counsel “applies only to admissions made in criminal investigation but not to those made in an
administrative investigation”. The right to counsel under Section 12 of the Bill of Rights is meant to
protect a suspect during custodial investigation. Here, petitioner’s written statement was given during
an administrative inquiry conducted by his employer in connection with an anomaly/irregularity he
allegedly committed in the course of his employment. No error can therefore be attributed to the
courts below in admitting in evidence and in giving due consideration to petitioner’s written statement
as there is no constitutional impediment to its admissibility. (Carlos Tanenggee v. People of the
Philippines,​ ​GR​ ​No.​ ​179448,​ ​June​ ​26,​ ​2013)

43. DNA samples taken from the party does not violate the right of the accused to
self-incrimination:

Obtaining DNA samples from an accused in a criminal case or from the respondent in a paternity
case, contrary to the belief of respondent in this action, will not violate the right against
self-incrimination. This privilege applies only to evidence that is “communicative” in essence taken
under duress (People vs. Olvis, 154 scra 513, 1987). The Supreme Court has ruled that the right
against self-incrimination is just a prohibition on the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communication (testimonial evidence) from a defendant, not an exclusion of evidence taken from his
body when it may be material. As such, a defendant can be required to submit a test to extract virus
from his body (as cited in People vs. Olvis, supra); the substance emitting from the body of the
accused was received as evidence for acts of lasciviousness (US vs. Tan Teng, 23 Phil. 145);
morphine forced out of the mouth was received as proof (US vs. Ong Siu Hong, 26 Phil. 735); an
order by the judge for the witness to put on pair of pants for size was allowed (People vs. Otadora, 86
phil. 244); and the court can compel a woman accused of adultery to submit for pregnancy test
(Villaflor vs. Summers, 41 Phil. 62), since the gist of privilege is the restriction on “testimonial
compulsion.” (Rosendo Herrera, vs. Rosendo Alba, minor, represented by his mother Armi A. Alba,
and Hon. Nimfa Cuesta-Vilches, Presiding Judge, Branch 48, Regional Trial Court, Manila, G.R. No.
148220,​ ​June​ ​15,​ ​2005)

44. Hypothetical​ ​admission​ ​rule

PETMALU​ ​NA​ ​BARVET​ ​NOTES​ ​2017

 A motion to quash the information is the mode by which an accused assails the validity of a criminal
complaint or information filed against him for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects
which are apparent in the face of the information. It is the hypothetical admission of the facts alleged
in the information. The fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of the material averments in an
Information is whether or not the facts alleged therein, which are hypothetically admitted, would
establish the essential elements of the crime defined by law. Evidence alliunde or matters extrinsic of
the information are not to be considered. To be sure, a motion to quash should be based on a defect
in the information which is evident on its face. (People of the Philippines vs. Edgardo V. Odtuhan,
G.R.​ ​No.​ ​191566,​ ​July​ ​17,​ ​2013)

45. Motion​ ​to​ ​Dismiss​ ​on​ ​the​ ​ground​ ​of​ ​SLAPP

Sec. 1, Rule 19 Part IV of the Rules of Procedure on Environmental Cases (A.M. No. 09-6-08- SC,
April 13, 2010) provides for the rule on the dismissal of an environmental cases based on SLAPP. It
states:

“SECTION 1. Motion to dismiss. – Upon the filing of an information in court and before arraignment,
the​ ​accused​ ​may​ ​file​ ​a​ ​motion​ ​to​ ​dismiss​ ​on​ ​the​ ​ground​ ​that​ ​the​ ​criminal​ ​action​ ​is​ ​a​ ​SLAPP.”

46. Distinctions​ ​between​ ​right​ ​to​ ​speedy​ ​disposition​ ​of​ ​cases​ ​and​ ​rights​ ​to​ ​speedy​ ​trial

It must be clarified right off that the right to a speedy disposition of case and the accused's right to a
speedy trial are distinct, albeit kindred, guarantees, the most obvious difference being that a speedy
disposition of cases, as provided in Article III, Section 16 of the Constitution, obtains regardless of the
nature​ ​of​ ​the​ ​case:

Section 16 “All persons shall have the right to speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial,
quasi-judicial,​ ​or​ ​administrative​ ​bodies.”

In fine, the right to a speedy trial is available only to an accused and is a peculiarly criminal law
concept, while the broader right to a speedy disposition of cases may be tapped in any proceedings
conducted by stage agencies. (Danilo Ursua vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 178193,
January​ ​24,​ ​2012)

47. Variance​ ​doctrine;​ ​application

However, since the charge in the Information for the December 2003 incident is rape through carnal
knowledge, Pareja cannot be found guilty of rape by sexual assault even though it was proven during
trial. This is due to the material differences and substantial distinctions between the two modes of
rape; thus, the first mode is not necessarily included in the second, and vice-versa. Consequently, to
convict Pareja of rape by sexual assault when what he was charged with was rape through carnal
knowledge, would be to violate his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation​ ​against​ ​him.

Nevertheless, Pareja may be convicted of the lesser crime of acts of lasciviousness under the
variance doctrine embodied in Section 4, in relation to Section 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure,52​ ​to​ ​wit:

PETMALU​ ​NA​ ​BARVET​ ​NOTES​ ​2017

 SEC. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof. – When there is a variance
between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved, and the offense as
charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of
the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is
included​ ​in​ ​the​ ​offense​ ​proved.

SEC. 5. When an offense includes or is included in another. – An offense charged necessarily

includes the offense proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as
alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter. And an offense charged is necessarily
included in the offense proved, when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form part of
those constituting the latter. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BERNABE PAREJA y CRUZ, G.R.
No.​ ​202122,​ ​January​ ​15,​ ​2014)

A variance in the mode of commission of the offense is binding upon the accused if he fails to object
to evidence showing that the crime was committed in a different manner than what was alleged.
While the information clearly states that the crime was committed by appellant's insertion of his penis
inside AAA's vagina, the latter solemnly testified on the witness stand that appellant merely put his
penis in her mouth. Nevertheless, appellant failed to register any objection that the Information
alleged a different mode of the commission of the crime of rape. Thus, appellant's conviction for rape
by sexual assualt must be sustained, the variance notwithstanding. (PEOPLE vs. GULLERMO
LOMAQUE,​ ​GR​ ​189297,​ ​June​ ​5,​ ​2013)

48. ​ ​Difference​ ​Between​ ​“Stop​ ​And​ ​Frisk”​ ​Searches​ ​And​ ​Searches​ ​Incidental​ ​To​ ​Lawful​ ​Arrest

“Stop and frisk” searches are often confused with searches incidental to lawful arrests under the
Rules of Court. Searches incidental to a lawful arrest require that a crime be committed in flagrante
delicto, and the search conducted within the vicinity and within reach by the person arrested is done
to ensure that there are no weapons, as well as to preserve the evidence. On the other hand, “stop
and frisk” searches are conducted to prevent the occurrence of a crime. For instance, the search in
Posadas v. Court of Appeals was similar “to a ‘stop and frisk’ situation whose object is either to
determine the identity of a suspicious individual or to maintain the status quo momentarily while the
police officer seeks to obtain more information.” This court stated that the “stop and frisk” search
should be used “[w]hen dealing with a rapidly unfolding and potentially criminal situation in the city
streets where unarguably there is no time to secure . . . a search warrant. (People Of The Philippines
Vs.​ ​Victor​ ​Cogaed​ ​Y​ ​Romana,​ ​G.R.​ ​No.​ ​200334,​ ​July​ ​30,​ ​2014)

49. Remedy/ies in case of order quashing a search warrant can be the proper subject of an
appeal.or​ ​petition​ ​for​ ​certiorari

An application for a search warrant is a judicial process conducted either as an incident in a main
criminal case already filed in court or in anticipation of one yet to be filed. Whether the criminal case
(of which the search warrant is an incident) has already been filed before the trial court is significant
for the purpose of determining the proper remedy from a grant or denial of a motion to quash a
search warrant. Where the search warrant is issued as an incident in a pending criminal case, the
quashal of a search warrant is merely interlocutory. There is still “something more to be done in the
said criminal case, i.e., the determination of the guilt of the accused therein.” In contrast, where a
search warrant is applied for and issued in anticipation of a criminal case yet to be filed, the order
quashing the warrant (and denial of a motion for reconsideration of the grant) ends the judicial

PETMALU​ ​NA​ ​BARVET​ ​NOTES​ ​2017

 process. There is nothing more to be done thereafter. Here, the applications for search warrants were
instituted as principal proceedings and not as incidents to pending criminal actions. When the search
warrants issued were subsequently quashed by the Regional Trial Court, there was nothing left to be
done by the trial court. Thus, the quashal of the search warrants were final orders, not interlocutory,
and an appeal may be properly taken therefrom. (World Wide Web Corporation, et al. v. People of the
Philippines, et al./Planet Internet Corporation v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company,G.R.
Nos.​ ​161106/161266,​ ​January​ ​13,​ ​2014.)

50. Sexual​ ​Abuse​ ​Shield​ ​Abuse​ ​Rule”

The following evidence is not admissible in any criminal proceeding involving alleged child sexual
abuse:
(1)​ ​Evidence​ ​offered​ ​to​ ​prove​ ​that​ ​the​ ​alleged​ ​victim​ ​engaged​ ​in​ ​other​ ​sexual​ ​behavior;​ ​and
(2)​ ​Evidence​ ​offered​ ​to​ ​prove​ ​the​ ​sexual​ ​predisposition​ ​of​ ​the​ ​alleged​ ​victim.

Exception.— Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove that a
person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence shall be
admissible.

51. Doctrine​ ​of​ ​“presumed-identity​ ​approach”​ ​or​ ​“processual​ ​presumption”:

Where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign
law is the same as ours. (ATCI Overseas Corporation, Amalia G. Ikdal And Ministry Of Public
Health-Kuwait​ ​Vs.​ ​Ma.​ ​Josefa​ ​Echin,​ ​G.R.​ ​No.​ ​178551,​ ​October​ ​11,​ ​2010)

52. Best evidence rule will not apply if the subject of the inquiry is the authenticity or due
execution​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Deed​ ​of​ ​Sale

The said rule applies only when the content of such document is the subject of the inquiry. Where the
issue is only as to whether such document was actually executed, or exists, or on the circumstances
relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial
evidence is admissible. Any other substitutionary evidence is likewise admissible without need to
account for the original. In the instant case, what is being questioned is the authenticity and due
execution of the subject deed of sale. There is no real issue as to its contents. (Skunac Corporation
and Alfonso Enriquez vs. Roberto Sylianteng and Caesar Sylianteng, G.R. No. 205879, April 23,
2014,​ ​PERALTA​ ​J)

53. When​ ​carbon​ ​sheets​ ​considered​ ​original​ ​document?

When carbon sheets are inserted between two or more sheets of writing paper so that the writing of a
contract upon the outside sheet, including the signature of the party to be charged thereby, produces
a facsimile upon the sheets beneath, such signature being thus reproduced by the same stroke of
pen which made the surface or exposed impression, all of the sheets so written on are regarded as
duplicate originals and either of them may be introduced in evidence as such without accounting for
the non-production of the others. (Capital Shoes Factory Ltd. Vs. Traveler Kids Inc., G.R. No. 200065,
September​ ​24,​ ​2014)

PETMALU​ ​NA​ ​BARVET​ ​NOTES​ ​2017

54. What is the principle of interlocking confession? What is its nature and binding effect against
a​ ​co-accused?

In People v. Encipido 230 Phil. 560, 574 (1986), the Supreme Court also elucidated as follows: “It is
also to be noted that APPELANTS’ extrajudicial confessions were independently made without
collusion, are identical with each other in their material respects and confirmatory of the other. They
are, therefore, also admissible as circumstantial evidence against their co-accused implicated therein
to show the probability of the latter’s actual participation in the commission of the crime. They are also
admissible as corroborative evidence against others, it being clear from other facts and
circumstances presented that persons other than the declarants themselves participated in the
commission of the crime charged and proved. They are what is commonly known as interlocking
confession and constitute an exception to the general rule that extrajudicial confessions/admissions
are admissible in evidence only against the declarants thereof”. (People Vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 178300,
March​ ​17,​ ​2009)

55. Doctrine​ ​of​ ​Independent​ ​Relevant​ ​Statement:

Regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement, when what is relevant is the fact that such statement
has been made, the hearsay rule does not apply and the statement may be shown. (Jose Espineli
a.k.a​ ​Danilo​ ​Espineli​ ​vs.​ ​People​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Philippines,​ ​G.R.​ ​No.​ ​179535,​ ​June​ ​9,​ ​2014)

56. ​ ​What​ ​is​ ​Bubble​ ​Burst​ ​Theory​ ​(Thygorean​ ​Doctrine)

The​ ​rule​ ​on​ ​presumption​ ​of​ ​law​ ​shall​ ​not​ ​apply​ ​in​ ​case​ ​there​ ​is​ ​evidence​ ​to​ ​the​ ​contrary

57. What​ ​is​ ​‘writ​ ​of​ ​liberty”​ ​Writ​ ​of​ ​Amparo​ ​or​ ​Amparo​ ​Libertad?

“Writ of Liberty” or habeas corpus – it is a process issued by the court directed to a peace officer in
custody​ ​of​ ​a​ ​person​ ​to​ ​produce​ ​his​ ​body​ ​on​ ​the​ ​date,​ ​place​ ​and​ ​time​ ​designated​ ​in​ ​the​ ​writ

58. What​ ​are​ ​the​ ​kinds​ ​of​ ​amparo?

a. Amparo​ ​Libertad-​ ​habeas​ ​copus-​ ​writ​ ​to​ ​protect​ ​the​ ​right​ ​to​ ​liberty​ ​of​ ​the​ ​person;
b. Amparo​ ​Casacion-​ ​review​ ​of​ ​the​ ​decision​ ​of​ ​the​ ​court;
c. Amparo​ ​Administrativo-​ ​review​ ​of​ ​the​ ​decision​ ​of​ ​administrative​ ​bodies;
d. Amparo​ ​leyes-​ ​Review​ ​of​ ​the​ ​constitutionality​ ​of​ ​law;​ ​and
e. Amparo​ ​agrario-​ ​to​ ​protect​ ​the​ ​rights​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Agrarian​ ​people/​ ​farmers,

59. What​ ​is​ ​the​ ​“Doctrine​ ​of​ ​continuing​ ​threat”?

In order that writ of amparo can be issued, the threat on the right to life liberty or security must be actual
and continuing and not merely imaginary, thereby depriving the petitioner of his said right from the
inception​ ​up​ ​to​ ​the​ ​termination​ ​of​ ​the​ ​case.

Take​ ​Note:​ ​Writ​ ​of​ ​Amparo​ ​is​ ​not​ ​a​ ​substitute​ ​for​ ​a​ ​lost​ ​appeal​ ​in​ ​ejectment​ ​case.

60. Distinctions​ ​between​ ​Writ​ ​of​ ​Habeas​ ​Corpus​ ​vs.​ ​Writ​ ​of​ ​Amparo​ ​vs.​ ​Writ​ ​of​ ​Habeas​ ​Data?

PETMALU​ ​NA​ ​BARVET​ ​NOTES​ ​2017

1. As​ ​to​ ​definition:
a. “Writ of Liberty” or habeas corpus – it is a process issued by the court directed to a peace
officer in custody of a person to produce his body on the date, place and time designated
in​ ​the​ ​writ.
b. Writ of Amparo - It is a remedy for the protection of the person’s constitutional right to life,
liberty or security against violations or threatened acts of violation of a public officer, or
person.
c. Writ of habeas data- It is a remedy to protect the constitutional right of the person to
privacy to life, liberty, or security against a violation or threatened violation or a public
officer​ ​engage​ ​in​ ​the​ ​gathering​ ​of​ ​any​ ​information​ ​or​ ​data.
2. As​ ​to​ ​court​ ​which​ ​has​ ​jurisdiction?
a. Writ of Habeas Corpus – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Regional
Trial Court, and in the absence of RTC Judge with the MTC/MTC pursuant to its special
jurisdiction.
b. Writ​ ​of​ ​Amparo-​ ​SC,​ ​Court​ ​of​ ​Appeals,​ ​Sandiganbayan,​ ​RTC
c. Writ​ ​Habeas​ ​Data-​ ​SC,​ ​Court​ ​of​ ​Appeals,​ ​Sadiganbayan,​ ​RTC
3. As​ ​to​ ​purpose:
a. Habeas​ ​Corpus-​ ​To​ ​release​ ​the​ ​person​ ​from​ ​illegal​ ​deprivation​ ​of​ ​liberty;
b. Writ​ ​of​ ​amparo-​ ​To​ ​protect​ ​the​ ​constitutional​ ​right​ ​of​ ​the​ ​person​ ​to​ ​life,​ ​liberty​ ​or​ ​security;
c. Writ of habeas data- To protect the constitutional of the person to privacy to life liberty or
security.
4. As​ ​to​ ​who​ ​may​ ​file?
a. Habeas​ ​Corpus-​ ​the​ ​detained​ ​person​ ​or​ ​any​ ​person​ ​in​ ​his​ ​behalf
b. Amparo-​ ​spouse,​ ​children,​ ​immediate​ ​relatives,​ ​or​ ​even​ ​NGO
c. Data​ ​–​ ​spouse,​ ​children,​ ​immediate​ ​relatives.
5. As​ ​to​ ​remedies​ ​in​ ​case​ ​of​ ​adverse​ ​decision:
a. Habeas​ ​corpus-​ ​appeal​ ​within​ ​48​ ​hours;
b. Amparo-​ ​appeal​ ​within​ ​5​ ​working​ ​days;
c. Data​ ​–​ ​appeal​ ​within​ ​5​ ​working​ ​days;

PETMALU​ ​NA​ ​BARVET​ ​NOTES​ ​2017