UP Preweek Remedial 2017

UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Q1: DISCUSS THE DOCTRINE OF HIERARCHY OF COURTS AND THE EXCEPTIONS
THERETO
A1: The doctrine states that where courts have concurrent jurisdiction over a subject matter, a case must
be filed before the lowest court possible having the appropriate jurisdiction. The principle of hierarchy of
courts requires that recourse should be made to the lower courts before they are made to the higher
courts. The exceptions to this doctrine are as follows:
1) Where there are special and important reasons clearly stated in the petition;
2) When dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy;
3) When demanded by the broader interest of justice;
4) When the challenged orders are patent nullities;
5) When analogous exceptional and compelling circumstances call for and justify the immediate
and direct handling by the Court [Republic v. Caguioa, G.R. No. 174385 (2013)]
Q2: W HAT IS THE SLIP RULE?

A2: Where the dispositive portion of a final and executory judgment contains a clerical error of an
ambiguity arising from an inadvertent omission, the error of ambiguity may be clarified by reference to
the body of the decision itself. This is generally known as the slip rule – so called because the clerical
mistakes or errors arise from accidental slip or omission [Bersamin, Appeal and Review in the Philippines
(2000) p. 324, citing Reinsurance Company of the Orient v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 61250 (1991) and
Reyes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124280 (1997)]
Page 1 of 65
JURISDICTION
Q3: FOR HIS SUPPOSED INVOLVEMENT IN THE DRUG TRADE IN THEIR PROVINCE,
GOVERNOR R W AS CHARGED IN THE RTC W ITH ILLEGAL DRUG TRADING, A VIOLATION
OF RA 9165. GOVERNOR R’S COUNSEL FILED A MOTION TO QUASH, ALLEGING THAT
SINCE HE IS AMONG THE OFFICIALS ENUMERATED IN THE SANDIGANBAYAN LAW ,
AND THAT THE OFFENSE W AS ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED IN RELATION TO HIS OFFICE,
IT IS THE SANDIGANBAYAN THAT HAS JURISDICTION, NOT THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURTS. DECIDE THE MOTION.
A3: His motion to quash should be denied, as it is the RTC which has jurisdiction in this case.
In Morales v. Court of Appeals, this Court categorically named the RTC as the court with jurisdiction over
drug related-cases. The exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165 is not transferred to the
Sandiganbayan whenever the accused occupies a position classified as Grade 27 or higher, regardless of
whether the violation is alleged as committed in relation to office. Public officials were never considered
excluded from the scope of RA 9165
Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as amended by RA 10660, is the general law on jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan over crimes and offenses committed by high-ranking public officers in relation to their
office; Section 90, RA 9165 is the special law excluding from the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction violations
of RA 9165 committed by such public officers. [De Lima v. Guerrero, G.R. 229781 (2017)]
Q4: DISCUSS THE CONCEPT OF RESIDUAL JURISDICTION, AND DIFFERENTIATE

RESIDUAL JURISDICTION IN RULE 41 (ORDINARY APPEAL) AND RULE 42 (PETITION
FOR REVIEW )
A4: The residual jurisdiction of trial courts is available at a stage in which the court is normally deemed
to have lost jurisdiction over the case or the subject matter involved in the appeal. This stage is reached
upon the perfection of the appeals by the parties or upon the approval of the records on appeal,
but prior to the transmittal of the original records or the records on appeal [Katon v.
Palanca, G.R. No. 151149 (2004)]. Corollary to this, there is no residual jurisdiction to speak of where no
appeal or petition has even been filed [Fernandez v. CA, G.R. No. 131094 (2005)].
In both Rule 41 and Rule 42, the court exercising residual jurisdiction may:
• issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve
any matter litigated by the appeal,
• approve compromises,
• permit appeals of indigent litigants,
• order execution pending appeal, and
• allow withdrawal of the appeal.
In Rule 41, the RTC exercises residual jurisdiction prior to transmittal of the original record or
the record on appeal to the CA. [Sec. 9, Rule 41] On the other hand, in Rule 42, the RTC exercises
residual jurisdiction before the CA gives due course to the petition. [Sec. 8, Rule 42]
Page 2 of 65
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Q5: W HAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETW EEN A CIVIL ACTION AND A SPECIAL
PROCEEDING?
A5: Unlike a civil action which has definite adverse parties, a special proceeding has no definite adverse
parties. The definitions of a civil action and a special proceeding, respectively, in the Rules illustrate this
difference. A civil action, in which “a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the
prevention or redress of a wrong” necessarily has definite adverse parties, who are either the plaintiff or
defendant. On the other hand, a special proceeding, “by which a party seeks to establish a status, right,
or a particular fact,” has one definite party, who petitions or applies for a declaration of a status, right, or
particular fact, but no definite adverse party. [Montañer v. Sharia District Court, G.R. No. 174975 (2009)]
Q6: STATE THE RULE W HEN IT COMES TO SPLITTING A CAUSE OF ACTION.

A6: Institution of more than one suit for the same cause of action constitutes splitting the cause of action,
which is a ground for the dismissal. Thus, in Rule 2:
Section 3. One suit for a single cause of action — A party may not institute more than one suit for
a single cause of action.
Section 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of — If two or more suits are instituted on the
basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available
as a ground for the dismissal of the others. [Lanuza Jr. v. BF Corporation, G.R. No. 174938 (2014)]
Q7: STATE THE RULE AS TO MISJOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION.

A7: The rule is that a party’s failure to observe the following conditions under Section 5, Rule 2 of the
Rules results in a misjoinder of causes of action:
Section 5. Joinder of causes of action — A party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or
otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party, subject to the following
conditions:
(1) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on joinder of parties;
(2) The joinder shall not include special civil actions governed by special rules;
(3) Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different venues or
jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the causes of
action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein; and
(4) Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate
amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction.
Q8: W HAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF A CLASS SUIT?

A8: The requisites of a class suit are:
(a) the subject matter of controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons;
(b) the parties affected are so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all to court; and
(c) the parties bringing the class suit are sufficiently numerous or representative of the class and can
fully protect the interests of all concerned. [Juana Complex Homeowner’s Association v. Fil-Estate
Land, G.R. No. 152272 (2012)]
Q9: W HAT IS “ADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION” IN RELATION TO A CLASS SUIT?
Page 3 of 65
A9: An element of a class suit or representative suit is the adequacy of representation. In determining the
question of fair and adequate representation of members of a class, the court must consider [MVRS
Publications v. Islamic Dawah Council, G.R. No. 135306 (2003)]:
(5) Whether the interest of the named party is coextensive with the interest of the other members of
the class;
(6) The proportion of those made a party, as it so bears, to the total membership of the class; and
(7) Any other factor bearing on the ability of the named party to speak for the rest of the class.
Where the interests of the plaintiffs and the other members of the class they seek to represent are
diametrically opposed, the class suit will not prosper.
Q10: DISTINGUISH BETW EEN REAL PARTY AND INTEREST AND LOCUS STANDI
A10: A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit,
or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. [Sec. 2, Rule 3; David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396
(2006)]
Locus standi or legal standing has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in a case such that
the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being
challenged. Thus, as a general rule, a party is allowed to “raise a constitutional question” when:
(1) He can show that he will personally suffer some actual or threatened injury because of the
allegedly illegal conduct of the government;
(2) The injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and
(3) The injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action. [Galicto v. Aquino, G.R. No. 193978
(2012)]
Q11: W HAT IS THE EFFECT OF A FAILURE TO IMPLEAD A PARTY?

A11: If it is a necessary party, failure to implead does not result in the waiver of the right to implead.
However, if there is an order by the court to implead and there is failure to comply, there is a waiver of
claim.
If it is an indispensable party, the court should order the indispensable party be impleaded. If
there is a failure to implead an indispensable party, the judgment rendered will be null and void.
Moreover, if there is an order by the court to implead and there is failure to comply, the court may dismiss
the case for failure to prosecute under Sec. 3, Rule 17.
Q12: W HAT IS THE VENUE OF ACTIONS AGAINST NON-RESIDENTS W HERE (A) THE
ACTION AFFECTS THE PERSONAL STATUS OF THE PLAINTIFF OR (B) ANY PROPERTY
OF THE DEFENDANT IN THE PHILIPPINES?
A12: Either (a) the residence of the plaintiff or (b) where the non-resident’s property may be found.

Q13: W HAT ARE THE RULES ON VENUE W HEN THE PARTIES STIPULATE ON THE SAME?
A13: The rules on venue finds no application where the parties, before the filing of the action, have
validly agreed in writing on an exclusive venue. But note that the mere stipulation on the venue of an
action is not enough to preclude parties from bringing a case in other venues. It must be shown that such
stipulation is exclusive. In the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, such as “exclusively” and
“waiving for this purpose any other venue,” “shall only” preceding the designation of venue, “to the
exclusion of the other courts,” or words of similar import, the stipulation should be deemed as merely an
agreement on an additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place. [Auction in Malinta v.
Luyaben, G.R. No. 173979 (2007)]
Page 4 of 65
Q14: W HEN IS A COUNTERCLAIM COMPULSORY?

A14: A counterclaim is compulsory if:
(1) It arises out of or is necessarily connected with the transaction or occurrence which is the subject
matter of the opposing party’s claim;
(2) It does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot
acquire jurisdiction; and
(3) The court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim both as to its amount and nature, except that in
an original action before the RTC, the counterclaim may be considered compulsory regardless of
the amount. [Metropolitan Bank and Trust v. CPR Promotions and Marketing, G.R. No. 200567
(2015)]
Q15: W HAT TESTS HAVE BEEN USED BY THE COURT IN DETERMINING THE NATURE OF
A COUNTERCLAIM?
A15: In determining whether a counterclaim is compulsory or permissive, the following tests have been
used:
(1) Are the issues of fact or law raised by the claim and the counterclaim largely the same?
(2) Would res judicata bar a subsequent suit on defendant’s claims, absent the compulsory
counterclaim rule?
(3) Will substantially the same evidence support or refute plaintiff’s claim as well as the
defendant’s counterclaim?
(4) Is there any logical relation between the claim and the counterclaim, such that the conduct of
separate trials of the respective claims of the parties would entail a substantial duplication
of effort and tim e by the parties and the court? This test is the “compelling test of
compulsoriness.” [Metropolitan Bank and Trust v. CPR Promotions and Marketing, G.R. No.
200567 (2015)]
Q16: W HAT IS A CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING?

A16: It is a sworn statement in which the plaintiff or principal party certifies in a complaint or initiatory
pleading:
(1) That he has not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court or
tribunal, and to the best of his knowledge, no such other action is pending;
(2) That if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status
thereof; and
(3) That if he should learn that the same or a similar action has been filed or is pending, he shall
report such fact within 5 days to the court receiving his initiatory pleading. [Sec. 5, Rule 7]
Q117: W HAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO COMPLY W ITH THE

REQUIREMENT FOR A CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING?
A17:
Defect Effect
Not curable by mere amendment
Failure to comply with the requirement Cause for dismissal of the case, without prejudice
unless otherwise provided as with prejudice, upon
motion and after hearing
Page 5 of 65
False certification Constitutes indirect contempt, without prejudice to

administrative and criminal actions
Noncompliance with any undertaking
Ground for summary dismissal, with prejudice
Willful and deliberate forum shopping Direct contempt
Cause for administrative sanctions
The requirement specific to petitions filed with the appellate court simply provides as a penalty that the
failure of the petitioner to comply with the listed requirements, among them the need for a certification
against forum shopping, “shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.” [Heirs of Juan
Valdez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 163208 (2008)]
Q18: W HAT IS AN ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT?

A8: An actionable document is the written instrument upon which the action or defense is based. [Sec. 7,
Rule 8]

Q19: HOW DO YOU CONTEST AN ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT?
A19:
(1) By specific denial under oath; and
(2) By setting forth what is claimed to be the facts [Sec. 8, Rule 8]
Q20: W HEN DOES DENIAL NOT NEED TO BE UNDER OATH?

A20:
(1) The adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument, or
(2) Compliance with an order for inspection of the document has been refused.
Note: there must nevertheless be a specific denial in these cases. Only the oath requirement may be
dispensed with.
Q21: W HAT IS THE EFFECT OF FAILURE TO DENY AN ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT UNDER

OATH?
A21:
(1) The genuineness and due execution is deemed admitted
(2) The document need not be formally offered in evidence
Q22: W HAT ARE THE THREE MODES OF SPECIFIC DENIAL?

A22:
(1) Absolute denial: by specifying each material allegation of the fact in the complaint, the truth
of which the defendant does not admit, and whenever practicable, setting forth the substance of
the matters which he will rely upon to support his denial;
(2) Partial denial: by specifying so much of an averment in the complaint as is true and material
and denying only the remainder;
(3) Disavowal of knowledge: by stating that the defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment in the complaint, which has the
Page 6 of 65
effect of a denial. [Sec. 10, Rule 8; PBC v. Go, G.R. No. 175514 (2011)]
Q23: W HAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AN AMENDED AND A SUPPLEMENTAL

PLEADING?
A23:
Amended pleadings Supplemental pleadings
Reason for amendment is available at time of the Grounds for supplemental pleading arose after the
first pleading filing of the first pleading
Either as a matter of right or by leave of court Always by leave of court
Merely supplements, and exists side-by-side with
Supersedes the original
the original
A new copy of the entire pleading must be filed Does not require a new copy of the entire pleading
Q24: W HAT IS PERSONAL SERVICE?

A24: The service of the summons should firstly be effected on the defendant himself whenever
practicable. Personal service consists either in:
(a) Handing a copy of the summons to the defendant in person, or,
(b) If the defendant refuses to receive and sign for it, in tendering it to him. [Macasaet v. Co, Jr., G.R.
No. 156759 (2013)]
Q25: JOE BOMB OW NS A COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN. HE

ENTERED INTO AN ORAL CONTRACT OF LEASE FOR THE USE OF COMMERCIAL SPACE
W ITHIN HIS BUILDING TO BOOMBASTIC ELECTRONIC INDUSTRIES. THE LEASE W AS
FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD, W ITH A MONTHLY RENT OF PHP 150.00 WHICH IS PAID
ON A MONTH-TO-MONTH BASIS. JOE BOMB LATER SUBDIVIDED THE LEASED
PREMISES INTO TW O PORTIONS BY CONSTRUCTING A PARTITION W ALL IN BETWEEN.
HE THEN TOOK POSSESSION OF THE OTHER HALF. BOOMBASTIC ELECTRONIC
INDUSTRIES THEN FILED AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES AND FIXING OF THE TIME OF THE
LEASE AT 5 YEARS BEFORE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA. JOE BOMB FILED A
MOTION TO DISMISS CONTENDING THAT THE ACTION W AS A REAL ACTION W HICH
SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED W ITH REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MALOLOS W HERE THE
PROPERTY IN QUESTION W AS SITUATED. BOOMBASTIC COUNTERS THAT THE
PRESENT ACTION IS CHIEFLY FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM AN ALLEGED BREACH IN
THE LEASE CONTRACT; HENCE, THE ISSUE OF RECOVERY OF POSSESSION IS MERELY
INCIDENTAL; THEREFORE, VENUE MAY BE LAID IN THE PLACE W HERE PLAINTIFF OR
DEFENDANT RESIDES AT THE OPTION OF PLAINTIFF. IF YOU W ERE THE JUDGE, W ILL
YOU GRANT THE MOTION TO DISMISS?
A25: Yes, I will grant the motion for dismiss. The action is a real action which shall be filed in the place
where the property in question is located.
While the instant action is for damages arising from an alleged breach of the lease contract, it likewise
prays for the fixing of the period of lease at five (5) years. If found meritorious, Boombastic will be entitled
to remain not only as lessee for another five (5) years but also to the recovery of the portion earlier taken
from him as well. This is because the leased premises under the original contract was the whole
commercial space itself and not just the subdivided portion. While it may be that the instant complaint
does not explicitly pray for recovery of possession, such is the necessary consequence. The instant action
therefore does not operate to efface the fundamental and prime objective of the nature of the case which
Page 7 of 65
is to recover the one-half portion repossessed by the lessor, Joe Bomb. Indeed, where the ultimate
purpose of an action involves title to or seeks recovery of possession, partition or condemnation of, or
foreclosure of mortgage on, real property, such an action must be deemed a real action and must
perforce be commenced and tried in the province where the property or any part thereof lies.” [Paderanga
vs Buissan, G.R. No. 49475 (1993)]
Q26: YOU ARE SEEKING TO HAVE YOUR CLIENT DECLARED AS AN INDIGENT LITIGANT.
HOW EVER, YOU DISCOVER THAT HE OWNS A PARCEL OF LAND W ITH A FAIR MARKET
VALUE OF PHP 400,000. W OULD IT STILL BE POSSIBLE FOR YOUR CLIENT TO BE
CONSIDERED AN INDIGENT PARTY?
A26: Yes, but it would be subject to the discretion of the court using the indigency test.
If the applicant meets BOTH the salary (gross income and that of their immediate family’s do not exceed
an amount double the monthly minimum wage) and property requirements (does not own real
property with a fair market value of more than PHP 300,000) under Section 19 of Rule 141, then the grant
of the application is mandatory. Since my client owns real property with FMV of above PHP 300,000,
s/he cannot be mandatorily considered an indigent.
On the other hand, when the application does not satisfy one or both requirements, then the application
should not be denied outright; instead, the court should apply the "indigency test" under Section 21 of
Rule 3 (no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter, and basic necessities) and use its
sound discretion in determining the merits of the prayer for exemption. [Spouses Algura v. LGU of the
City of Naga, G.R. No. 150135 (2006)]
Q27: BRYAN IS LEASING ONE OF THE UNITS IN THE APARTMENT BUILDIN G THAT
ADAM OW NS. BRYAN’S GIRLFRIEND CATHY FREQUENTLY VISITS AND SPENDS THE
NIGHT THERE. THEY W ENT TO HOSPITAL ONE DAY BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT BEEN
FEELING W ELL FOR SEVERAL DAYS. UPON INVESTIGATION, THE DOCTOR TOLD THEM
THAT THE MOLD IN THE CEILING OF BRYAN’S APARTMENT CAUSED THEM A SERIOUS
ILLNESS. THEY HAD TO TAKE MEDICINE AND W AS FORCED TO TAKE A LEAVE FROM
W ORK. BRYAN REFUSED TO PAY THE RENT FOR THAT MONTH. ADAM SUED BRYAN
FOR A MONTH’S W ORTH OF RENT. BRYAN ALLEGED IN HIS ANSW ER W ITH
COUNTERCLAIM, INTER ALIA, THAT THERE W AS MOLD IN THE APARTMENT W HICH
MADE HIM AND CATHY SERIOUSLY ILL, CAUSED THEM TO TAKE LEAVE FROM W ORK,
COST THEM MEDICAL EXPENSES AND BROUGHT ANGUISH TO THEIR LIVES. BRYAN
ASKED THE COURT TO ORDER ADAM TO REIMBURSE HIM THE MEDICAL EXPENSES
AND LOST SALARIES AS ACTUAL DAMAGES AND TO PAY HIM MORAL DAMAGES. THE
TRIAL COURT ORDERED CATHY TO BE BROUGHT IN AS A DEFENDANT. CAN IT DO SO?
A27: Yes. According to Rule 6, Section 12 of the Rules of Court, “When the presence of parties other than
those to the original action is required for the granting of complete relief in the determination of a
counterclaim or cross-claim, the court shall order them to be brought in as defendants, if jurisdiction over
them can be obtained.” The relief asked in Bryan’s counter-claim consists of actual and moral damages
brought about by the mold in the apartment that Adam leased to him. Both Bryan and Cathy suffered the
actual and moral damages alleged, and they suffered due to the same exposure to the mold. Hence,
granting of complete relief to the determination of the counter-claim requires Cathy’s presence.
Therefore, provided that jurisdiction over the person of Cathy can be obtained, the court shall order him
to be brought in as a defendant.
Q28: W HILE ON A DINNER DATE, CATHY BLAMED BRYAN FOR GETTING HER EXPOSED
TO THE MOLD AND THE RESULTING FINANCIAL AND EMOTIONAL COSTS SHE
INCURRED. SHE TOLD BRYAN THAT SHE COULD HAVE AVOIDED GETTING SICK IF
BRYAN HAD ONLY AGREED FOR THEM TO SPEND MORE TIME IN HER APARTMENT.
Page 8 of 65
THEY BROKE UP AFTER THE ARGUMENT. BRYAN SUED ADAM BEFORE THE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT FOR ALIENATION OF AFFECTIONS AND CLAIMED DAMAGES. ADAM DID
NOT FILE AN ANSW ER WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM SERVICE OF SUMMONS. BRYAN,
PREOCCUPIED W ITH THE BREAK-UP, DID NOT MOVE TO DECLARE ADAM IN DEFAULT.
NEVERTHELESS, THE TRIAL COURT ISSUED AN ORDER DECLARING HIM IN DEFAULT.
W HAT IS ADAM’S REMEDY?
A28: Adam’s remedy is to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on the ground that the
RTC gravely abused its discretion in issuing an Order declaring him in default.
Section 3, Rule 9, allows the court to declare the defending party in default only upon motion of the
claiming party with notice to such defending party and proof of such failure. In ordinary proceedings, the
RTC cannot declare parties in default motu proprio. Moreover, Section 1, Rule 11 allows the defendant 15
days after service of summons to file his Answer. The facts state that Adam failed to file within 10 days
from service. Therefore, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding these two
provisions of the Rules of Court.
Adam has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Order is an
interlocutory order that cannot be appealed under Rule 41, Section 1 because the RTC still has to decide
on the merits of Bryan’s complaint. A motion to set aside the order of default under Rule 9, Section 3(b) is
not a remedy as well because Adam’s ground in challenging the Order does not consist of failure to
answer due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence and existence of a meritorious defense.
His ground is the trial court’s disregard of Rule 9, Section 3 and Rule 11, Section 1. Thus, the petition for
certiorari is the proper remedy.
Q29: IN THE QUESTION ABOVE, SUPPOSE ADAM W AS ABLE TO FILE HIS ANSW ER
W ITHIN THE ALLOW ED PERIOD, BUT NEITHER BRYAN NOR HIS COUNSEL APPEARED
ON THE DATE OF THE PRESENTATION OF HIS EVIDENCE IN CHIEF BECAUSE THEY
W ERE PREOCCUPIED W ITH BRYAN’S BREAK-UP. THE TRIAL COURT MOTU PROPRIO
DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT. BRYAN FILED ANOTHER COMPLAINT AGAINST ADAM ON
THE SAME CAUSE OF ACTION OF ALIENATION OF AFFECTIONS. IF YOU W ERE ADAM’S
COUNSEL, W HAT W OULD YOU DO?
A29: I will file a motion to dismiss on the ground that the cause of action is barred by prior judgment (res
judicata). Section 3, Rule 17, states that the court may dismiss the complaint if, for no justifiable cause,
the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief. The provision also says
that such dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by
the court. Bryan failed to appear on the date of the presentation of his evidence in chief because he was
preoccupied with his break-up, which is not a justifiable cause, thereby allowing the court to dismiss his
complaint. Since this dismissal is on the merits, that the cause of action is barred by prior judgment is a
ground to dismiss Bryan’s subsequent complaint.
Q30: HOW SHOULD SUMMONS BE SERVED ON A FOREIGN PRIVATE JURIDICAL ENTITY

THAT IS NOT REGISTERED IN THE PHILIPPINES?
A30: According to Sec. 12 Rule 14, the options are as follows, all with leave of court and out of the
Philippines:
(a) Personal service coursed through the foreign court with the assistance of the DFA
(b) Publication AND registered mail to last known address
(c) Facsimile or any recognized electronic means, and
(d) Other means at the discretion of the court.
Note: The same modes are available to a foreign private juridical entity without a resident agent.
Page 9 of 65
Q31: W HEN CAN THERE BE RESORT TO SUBSTITUTED SERVICE?

A31: To warrant the substituted service of the summons and copy of the complaint, the serving officer
must first attempt to effect the same upon the defendant in person. Only after the attempt at personal
service has become futile or impossible within a reasonable time may the officer resort to substituted
service. The rule on personal service is to be rigidly enforced.
Being in derogation of the usual method of service, substituted service may be used only as prescribed
and in the circumstances authorized by statute. The impossibility of prompt personal service should be
shown by stating the efforts made to find the defendant himself and the fact that such efforts failed,
which statement should be found in the proof of service or sheriff’s return. Nonetheless, the requisite
showing of the impossibility of prompt personal service as basis for resorting to substituted service may
be waived by the defendant either expressly or impliedly. [Macasaet v. Co, Jr., G.R. No. 156759 (2013)]
Q32: HOW DO YOU EFFECT SUBSTITUTED SERVICE?

A32: If, for justifiable reasons, the defendant cannot be served in person within a reasonable time, the
service of the summons may then be effected through substituted service either:
(a) By leaving a copy at his residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing
therein, or
(b) By leaving the copy at his office or regular place of business with some competent person in
charge thereof. [Macasaet v. Co Jr., G.R. No. 156759 (2013)]
Q33: DIFFERENTIATE BETW EEN ACTIONS IN PERSONAM, ACTIONS IN REM AND

ACTIONS QUASI IN REM.
A33: Actions in personam, are those actions brought against a person; actions in rem are actions against
the thing itself instead of against the person; and actions are quasi in rem, where an individual is named
as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his or her interest in a property to the
obligation or loan burdening the property. [Perkin Elmer Singapore PTE LTD v. Dakila Trading, G.R. No.
172242 (2007)]
Q34: W HEN MAY EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE OF SUMMONS BE RESORTED TO, AND

W HAT ARE THE MODES OF EFFECTING IT?
A34: Extraterritorial service is applicable in cases where:
(1) Defendant is a nonresident;
(2) He is not found in the Philippines; and
(3) The action is either in rem. or quasi in rem [Jose v. Boyon, G.R. No. 147369 (2003)]
The following cases are specifically stated by the rules:
a) Those which affect the personal status of the plaintiff,
b) Those which relate to, or the subject of which is, property within the Philippines in which
defendant claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent;
c) Those in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from
any interest in property located in the Philippines, or
d) Those wherein property of defendant within the Philippines has been attached
Page 10 of 65
Service of summons is effected, by leave of court, in the following modes:

(1) By personal service (outside of the Phils.), as under Sec. 6, Rule 14;
(2) By publication (outside of the Phils.) in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for
such time as court may order AND, a copy of the summons and order of the court shall be sent by
registered mail to the last known address of defendant; or
(3) In any other manner the court may deem sufficient.
Q35: HOW IS SERVICE OF SUMMONS DONE TO A DOMESTIC CORPORATION,

PARTNERSHIP OR OTHER JURIDICAL ENTITY?
A35: It is governed by Rule 14, Section of the Rules of Court. It provides that service must be made on
any of the following:
(a) president,
(b) managing partner,
(c) general manager,
(d) corporate secretary,
(e) treasurer, or
(f) in-house counsel.
The enumeration of persons to whom summons may be served is restricted, limited and exclusive.
Substantial compliance cannot be invoked. Service of summons upon persons other than those officers
specifically mentioned in Section 11, Rule 14 is void, defective and not binding to said corporation.
However, if one of the persons in the enumeration empowers another to act as his/her agent to receive
summons in representation, while it may be true that there was no direct, physical handing of the
summons to the corporate secretary, the latter could at least be charged with having constructively
received the same, which amounts to a valid service of summons. [Nation Petroleum Gas v. Rizal
Commercial Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 183370 (2015)]

Q36: W HAT ARE THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE, IN VARIOUS STAGES OF THE
PROCEEDINGS, TO A PARTY W HO W AS DECLARED IN DEFAULT?
A36: [Riguera, p. 274]
Situation Remedy
After order declaring in default, but before Motion to set aside the order of default, upon
judgment is rendered showing any of the following grounds: fraud,
accident, mistake, excusable negligence [FAME],
and a meritorious defense, before judgment is
rendered
After judgment is rendered, but before the same Motion for new trial under Rule 37 on the
becomes final and executory ground of FAME, before the judgment becomes
final and executory
After judgment becomes final Petition for relief from judgment under Rule
38 on the ground of FAME, within 60 days from
notice of the judgment, but within 6 months from
entry thereof (must be within both periods)
After judgment becomes final, and after the Petition for annulment of judgment under
period to file petition for relief under Rule 38 Rule 47 on the ground of extrinsic fraud, within 4
years from discovery of the extrinsic fraud
Page 11 of 65
If grave abuse of discretion attended the grant of Special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65
order of default

Q37: W HAT ARE THE GROUNDS FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS?
A37:
(1) Lack of jurisdiction over the defendant’s person
(2) Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim
(3) Improper venue
(4) Plaintiff’s lack of legal capacity to sue
(5) Litis pendentia
(6) Res judicata
(7) Prescription
(8) Failure to state a cause of action
(9) Extinguished claim
(10) Unenforceable claim under the Statute of Frauds
(11) Non-compliance with a condition precedent
Q38: W HAT IS THE EFFECT OF FAILURE TO FILE A PRE-TRIAL BRIEF?

A38: Section 6, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court mandates that parties shall file with the court and serve on
the adverse party their pre-trial briefs at least three days before the scheduled pre-trial. The Rules also
provide that failure to file the pre-trial brief shall have the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial.
Therefore, plaintiff’s failure to file the pre-trial brief shall be cause for dismissal of the action.
If the trial court has discretion to dismiss the case because of plaintiff’s failure to appear at pre-trial, then
the trial court also has discretion to dismiss the case because of plaintiff’s failure to file the pre-trial brief.
Moreover, whether an order of dismissal should be maintained under the circumstances of a particular
case or whether it should be set aside depends on the sound discretion of the trial court. [Republic v.
Oleta, G.R. No. 156606 (2007)]
Q39: JUAN IS A PLAINTIFF IN A CIVIL CASE FOR DAMAGES. AFTER THE LAST
PLEADING W AS SERVED AND FILED, JUAN FAILED TO MOVE THAT THE CASE BE SET
FOR PRE-TRIAL. PEDRO, THE DEFENDANT, FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS STATING
THAT PRE-TRIAL IS MANDATORY AND THE RULES STATE THAT IT IS THE PLAINTIFF
W HO HAS THE DUTY TO MOVE FOR PRE-TRIAL AFTER THE LAST PLEADING IS FILED.
PEDRO CONTENDS THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY W ITH SUCH DUTY W ARRANTS
DISMISSAL OF THE CASE. RULE ON THIS CONTENTION.
A39: The Motion to Dismiss must be denied. Although Section 1, Rule 18, states that “After the last
pleading has been served and filed, it shall be the duty of the plaintiff to promptly move ex parte that the
case be set for pre-trial,” the Supreme Court has issued an administrative rule that if the plaintiff fails to
file said motion within the given period, the branch clerk shall issue a Notice of Pre-Trial [AM No. 03-1-
09-SC]. Furthermore, failing to move for pre-trial is not one of the grounds in a motion to dismiss.
Q40: DISTINGUISH PRE-TRIAL IN CIVIL CASES AND PRE-TRIAL IN CRIMINAL CASES.

A40:
Civil (Rule 18) Criminal (Rule 118)
After the last pleading has been served After arraignment and within 30
When set
and filed (Sec. 1, Rule 18) days after the court acquires
Page 12 of 65
jurisdiction over the person of

the accused (Sec. 1, Rule 118)
Within five (5) days from date of filing After the arraignment, the
and serving of the last pleading joining court shall set the pre-trial
the issues (or the expiration of time to file conference within thirty (30)
such pleading without it having been days from arraignment. (A.M.
filed), the plaintiff must promptly move No.03-01-09-SC)
ex parte that the case be set for pre-
Who moves to set trial conference.
If the plaintiff fails to file said motion

within the given period, the Branch
Clerk of Court shall issue a notice
of pre-trial (A.M. No.03-01-09-SC)
Mandatory Yes Yes
Not required to be signed by both party All admissions and agreements
and counsel. The minutes may be signed shall be reduced and writing
Agreements and by either party or counsel [Riano] and signed by both the
admissions in the pre- accused and counsel;
trial otherwise they cannot be used
against the accused. (Sec. 2,
Rule 118)
Failure of a plaintiff to appear results to Failure of the counsel of the
the dismissal of the case with prejudice accused or the prosecutor to
unless otherwise ordered by the court appear without an acceptable
excuse results to sanctions and
Effect of failure to
penalties on the
appear
Failure of the defendant to appear counsel/prosecutor (Sec. 3,
shall be cause for the plaintiff to present Rule 118).
evidence ex parte and obtain judgment
based thereon. (Sec. 5, Rule 18).
Specifically required (Sec. 6, Rule 18). Not specifically required.
Pre-trial brief Failure to file PTB has same effect as
failure to appear
Q41: W HEN MAY DEPOSITIONS OF A W ITNESS BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE?

A41:
(a) Witness-deponent is dead
(b) Witness-deponent resides more than 100 km from the place of trial or hearing, or is out of the
country, unless absence was procured by the proponent of the deposition
(c) Disability of a witness-deponent due to age, sickness, infirmity, or imprisonment
(d) Inability to procure attendance of witness-deponent by subpoena
(e) Exceptional circumstances, when the interest of justice may require.
Q42: JUAN IS A PLAINTIFF IN A CIVIL CASE AGAINST PEDRO. AFTER JUAN PRESENTED
HIS EVIDENCE, PEDRO FILED A DEMURRER W HICH W AS GRANTED BY THE TRIAL
Page 13 of 65
COURT. UPON APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE APPEAL W AS GRANTED AND
THE COURT OF APPEALS RENDERED JUDGMENT AGAINST PEDRO. PEDRO FILES A
PETITION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT CONTENDING THAT THE PROPER ORDER
SHOULD HAVE BEEN A REMAND OF THE CASE TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR PEDRO TO
PRESENT HIS OW N EVIDENCE. IF YOU W ERE THE COURT, HOW W OULD YOU RULE ON
PEDRO’S ARGUMENT?
A42: Pedro’s argument has no merit. If a demurrer is granted but later reversed on appeal, the appellate
court should not remand the case for further proceedings but should render judgment on the basis of the
evidence submitted by the plaintiff. [Consolidated Bank and Trust Corp. v. Del Monte Motor Works, Inc.,
G.R. No. 143338 (2005)]. If the order granting the demurrer is reversed on appeal, the defendant loses his
right to present evidence. [Sec. 1, Rule 33; Republic v. Tuvera, G.R. No. 148246 (2007)].
Q43: W HAT ARE THE REQUISITES FOR INTERVENTION?

A43:
(1) The intervenor has legal interest:
(a) In the matter in controversy; or
(b) In the success of either of the parties; or
(c) Against both; or
(d) Is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the
custody of the court or of an office thereof;
(2) Intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of rights of original parties
(3) Intervenor’s rights may not be fully protected in a separate proceeding [Ortega v. CA, G.R. No. 125302
(1998)]
Q44: W HAT IS A JUDGMENT COGNOVIT ACTIONEM, AND IS IT VALID?

A44: It is one rendered upon confession made pursuant to a clause in a promissory note or contract that
upon default, the holder may confess judgment as the maker’s attorney-in-fact.
This is considered void in our jurisdiction for denying a party his right to a day in court [PNB vs. Manila Oil,
G.R. No. L-18103 (1992)]
Q45: W HAT IS A MEMORANDUM DECISION, AND W HEN CAN IT BE CONSIDERED

VALID?
A45: It is a decision rendered by an appellate court, that incorporates by reference the findings of fact or
the conclusions of law contained in the decision, order or ruling under review.
To be valid, it must:
(a) Provide for direct access to the facts and the law being adopted, which must be contained in a
statement attached to the said decision (and not merely a remote reference);
(b) Be resorted to only in cases where the facts are in the main accepted by both parties and
easily determinable by the judge and there are no doctrinal complications involved that will
require an extended discussion of the laws involved. [Bersamin, Appeal and Review in the
Philippines (2000), p. 313, citing Francisco v. Permskul, G.R. No. 81006 (1989)]
Q46: W HAT ARE THE GROUNDS FOR QUASHING A SUBPOENA?
Page 14 of 65
A46: [Sec. 4, Rule 23]

For quashing subpoena duces tecum:
(a) That the subpoena is unreasonable and oppressive;
(b) That the articles sought do not appear prima facie relevant to the issues;
(c) That the applicant does not advance the cost for the production of the articles desired; or
(d) That there was no tender of witness fees and kilometrage.
For quashing subpoena ad testificandum
(a) That the witness is not bound thereby, or
(b) That there was no tender of witness fees and kilometrage.
Q47: W HAT IS THE VIATORY RIGHT OF A W ITNESS, AND IS IT APPLICABLE TO BOTH

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES?
A47:
The viatory right of a witness is the right to not be compelled to attend in court under a subpoena if s/he
resides more than 100 kilometers from his residence to where he is to testify, in the ordinary course of
travel [Riguera, citing 1 Regalado, p. 300]. This viatory right applies only in civil cases, not criminal cases.
[Genorga v. Quitain, A.M. No. 981-CFI (1977)]
Q48: W HAT ARE THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF CONSOLIDATION?

A48: [Republic v. Heirs of Oribello, G.R. No. 199501 (2013)]
(1) Quasi-consolidation – where all, except one, of several actions are stayed until one is tried, in
which case, the judgment in the one trial is conclusive as to others; not actually consolidation but
is referred to as such
(2) Actual consolidation – where several actions are combined into one, lose their separate
identity, and become one single action in which judgment is rendered
(3) Consolidation for Trial – where several actions are ordered to be tried together, but each
retains its separate character, and requires the entry of separate judgment
Q49: DISTINGUISH A JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS FROM A SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

A49: Judgment on the pleadings is a judgment rendered by the court if the answer fails to tender an
issue, or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading. It is rendered without
a trial, or even without a pre-trial. The grounds are as follows:
(1) The answer fails to tender an issue because of:
a. General denial of the material allegations of the complaint;
b. Insufficient denial of the material allegations of the complaint; or
(2) The answer otherwise admits material allegations of the adverse party’s pleading [Sec. 1, Rule 34]
On the other hand, summary Judgment is a judgment which the court may render before trial, but after
both parties have pleaded, upon application by one party supported by affidavits, depositions, or other
documents, with notice upon the adverse party who may file an opposition supported also by such
documents, should the court find, after summarily hearing both parties with their respective proofs, that
there exists no genuine issue between them. The grounds are as follows:
(1) There exists no genuine issue as to any material fact, except as to the amount of damages; and
(2) The party presenting the motion must be entitled to judgment as a matter of law [Rule 35]
Page 15 of 65
Other differences are as follows [Riguera]:

Judgment on the Pleadings Summary Judgment
Based on the pleadings only May be based on the pleadings as well as
affidavits, depositions and admissions.
Requires a 3-day notice, same as the general rule Requires a 10-day notice. [Sec. 3, Rule 35]
for motions [Sec. 4, Rule 15]
No such thing as a partial judgment on the Partial summary judgment may be allowed
pleadings
May only be prayed for by the claiming party or May be prayed for by either claiming or defending
plaintiff party
Q50: DISTINGUISH THE FINAL JUDGMENT RULE FROM THE DOCTRINE OF

IMMUTABILITY OF JUDGMENTS
A50:
Final judgment rule Doctrine of immutability of judgment
Applies to final judgments and orders Applies to final and executory judgments and
orders
The final judgment rule as enunciated in Section Under the Doctrine of Immutability of Judgments,
1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court states that appeal
a judgment that has attained finality can no
may be taken from a judgment or final order that
completely disposes of the case, or of a particular longer be disturbed. The reason of two-fold:
matter therein when declared by these Rules to
1) To avoid delay in the administration of
be appealable. Moreover, the remedy from an
justice, and to make orderly the discharge
interlocutory order is not an appeal but a special
of judicial business; and
civil action for certiorari. [Jose v. Javellana, G.R.
No. 158239 (2012), Bersamin, J.] 2) To put an end to judicial controversies at
the expense of occasional errors. [Riano]
Exceptions to the final judgment rule are as Exceptions to the doctrine of immutability of
follows: [Bersamin, Appeal and Review in the judgment as seen in jurisprudence:
Philippines (2000) p. 120]
1) Correction of clerical errors [Filipinas
1) Statutory exception Palmoil Processing, Inc. v. Dejapa, G.R.
No. 167332 (2011)]
a. Partial judgment for or against
one or more of several parties 2) Nunc Pro Tunc entries [Filipinas
Palmoil Processing, Inc. v. Dejapa, G.R.
b. Partial judgment for or against
No. 167332 (2011)]
one or more separate claims
3) Whenever circumstances transpire
c. Cases under Sec. 1, Rule 109
after finality of the decision, rendering
(special proceedings):
its execution unjust and
2) Discretionary exception inequitable. [Apo Fruits Corp. v. Land
Bank of the Phils., G.R. No. 164195
a. Supreme Court’s plenary
(2010)]
discretion to accept or refuse
invocations of its appellate 4) In cases of special and exceptional
jurisdiction nature, when it is necessary in the
interest of justice to direct
Page 16 of 65
3) Collateral order exception modification in order to harmonize the

disposition with the prevailing
a. The decision or order determines
circumstances [Industrial Timber Corp. v.
a matter collateral to the
Ababon, G.R. No.164518 (2006)]
rights underlying the action and
which is too important to be 5) In case of void judgments [FGU
denied review. Insurance v. RTC Makati, G.R. No. 161282
(2011)]
6) Where there is a strong showing that a
Examples of cases where the particular matter
grave injustice would result from an
(although not completely disposing of the case) is
application of the Rules [Almuete v.
specifically declared by the Rules to be
People, G.R. No. 179611 (2013)]
appealable are the following [Riguera, p. 580]:
7) When there are grounds for
(1) The order of expropriation in
annulment of judgment or petition
expropriation cases [Sec. 4, Rule 67]
for relief [Gochan v. Mancao, G.R. No.
(2) The order of partition in partition 182314 (2013)]
cases [Sec. 2, Rule 69]
Q51: HOW MAY A FOREIGN JUDGMENT BE ENFORCED?

A51: In the Philippines, a judgment or final order of a foreign tribunal cannot be enforced simply by
execution. Such judgment or order merely creates a right of action, and its non-satisfaction is the cause of
action by which a suit can be brought upon for its enforcement. An action for the enforcement of a foreign
judgment or final order in this jurisdiction is governed by Rule 39, Section 48 of the Rules of Court.
The rules are silent as to what initiatory procedure must be undertaken in order to enforce a foreign
judgment in the Philippines. But the filing of a civil complaint is an appropriate measure for such purpose
brought before the regular courts.
Recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment or final order requires only proof of fact of the said
judgment or final order. [BPI Securities v. Guevara, G.R. No. 167052 (2015)]
Q52: W HAT IS THE EFFECT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS, AND HOW MAY THEIR
ENFORCEMENT BE REPELLED?
A52: In case of judgment or final order upon a specific thing, it is conclusive upon the thing. In case of
judgment or final order against a person, it is presumptive evidence of a right as between parties and
successors in interest
Foreign judgments in either case may be repelled by the following grounds:
(1) Want of jurisdiction
(2) Want of notice
(3) Collusion
(4) Fraud
(5) Clear mistake of law or fact
Q53: W HAT ARE THE REQUISITES AND GROUNDS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A W RIT OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND A FINAL W RIT OF INJUNCTION?
A53: For a writ of preliminary injunction:
Page 17 of 65
According to jurisprudence, the requisites are:

(1) Right in esse or a clear and unmistakable right
(2) Violation of that right
(3) Urgent and permanent act and urgent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage
[Tayag v. Lacson, G.R. No. 134971 (2006)]
Moreover, according to the rules, the grounds for issuance of a preliminary injunction are as follows [Sec.
3, Rule 58]:
(1) The applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and such relief consist in whole or in part of
restraining the commission or continuance of an act or requiring performance of an act
(2) The commission, continuance, or non-performance would probably work injustice to the
applicant
(3) A party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, attempting to do, or is procuring to be
done acts probably in violation of rights of the applicant and tending to render the
judgment ineffectual
For a final writ of injunction:
If after the trial, it appears that the applicant is entitled to have the acts complained of permanently
enjoined [Sec. 9, Rule 58]
Q54: W HAT IS A STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER, AND DIFFERENTIATE IT FROM A

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION?
A54: A status quo ante order is an order to maintain the last, actual, peaceable and uncontested state of
things that preceded the controversy, it is a remedy apart from the provisional remedies expressly
recognized and made available under Rule 56 to Rule 61 of the Rules of Court.
Compared to a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, it can be granted even if the
affected party neither sought such relief or the allegations in his pleading nor did not sufficiently make
out a case for a temporary restraining order. The status quo order was thus issued motu proprio on
equitable considerations. Also, unlike a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, a status
quo order is more in the nature of a cease and desist order, since it neither directs the doing or undoing of
acts as in the case of prohibitory or mandatory injunctive relief. Further, unlike the amended rule on
restraining orders, a status quo order does not require the posting of a bond. [Megaworld Properties v.
Majestic Finance, G.R. No. 169694 (2015), Bersamin, J.]
Q55: ON W HAT GROUNDS MAY A PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT BE GRANTED?

A55:
(1) Action for recovery of a specified amount of money or damages, except moral and exemplary
(i) On a cause of action arising from law, contract, quasi-contract, delict, or quasi-delict
(ii) Against a party who is:
(1) about to depart from the Philippines
(2) with intent to defraud his creditors;
(2) Action for money or property, embezzled or fraudulently misapplied or converted to his own use by
either:
(a) A public officer;
(b) An officer of a corporation;
Page 18 of 65
(c) An attorney, factor, broker, agent, or clerk, in the course of his employment as such; or
(d) Any other person in a fiduciary capacity, or for a willful violation of duty;
(3) Action to recover the possession of property unjustly or fraudulently taken, detained or
converted,
(i) When the property, or any part thereof, has been concealed, removed, or disposed of
(ii) To prevent its being found or taken by the applicant or an authorized person;
NOTE: The rule makes no distinction between real and personal property [Riano]
(4) Action against a party who has been guilty of a fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the
obligation upon which the action is brought, OR in the performance thereof;
NOTE: The delivery of counterfeit money or knowingly issuing a bounced check are considered as
grounds under this rule [Riano]
(5) Action against a party who:
(i) has removed or disposed of his property, or is about to do so,
(ii) with intent to defraud his creditors
(6) Action against a party who:
(a) Does not reside and is not found in the Philippines; or
(b) On whom summons may be served by publication.
NOTE: The persons on whom summons may be served by publication are:
(a) Resident defendants whose identity or whose whereabouts are unknown [Sec. 14, Rule
14]
(b) Resident defendants who are temporarily out of the country [Sec. 16, Rule 14
Q56: W HAT IS THE LIFETIME OF A W RIT OF EXECUTION?

A56: Under the present Section 14, Rule 39, the lifetime of the writ of execution during the period within
which the judgment may be enforced by motion, that is, within 5 years from entry thereof [Bajet v.
Baclig, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1598 (2002)]
Q57: CAN A FOREIGN ARBITRAL AW ARD BE ENFORCED UNDER SECTION 48 OF RULE

39 OF THE RULES OF COURT? EXPLAIN BRIEFLY
A57: No. A foreign arbitral award cannot be enforced under Section 48 because it is not a foreign
judgment. It may be enforced under Rule 12 of the Special Rules of Court on Alternative Dispute
Resolution, as a petition to recognize or enforce the arbitral award with any of the following RTCs:
(a) Where the arbitration proceedings were conducted
(b) Where any of the assets to be attached or levied upon are located
(c) Where to act to be enjoined is being performed
(d) Where any of the parties to arbitration resides or has its place of business
(e) In the National Capital Judicial Region [Riguera, p. 569-570]
Q58: HOW MAY A JUDGMENT BE EXECUTED BY MOTION, AND W HEN MAY IT BE BY

INDEPENDENT ACTION?
Page 19 of 65
A58: A final and executory judgment or order may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the
date of its entry.
After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations (ten (10) years from entry
[Art. 1144(3)]), a judgment may be enforced by action.
The revived judgment may also be enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry and
thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute of limitations. Once the judgment is revived, the 10-
year prescriptive period commences to run from the date of finality of the revived judgment and not the
original judgment. [PNB v. Bondoc, G.R. No. L-20236 (1965)]
Q59: W HAT ARE THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE THAT A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION IS A PREREQUISITE TO A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI?
A59:
(a) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction;
(b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon
by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court;
(c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would
prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is
perishable;
(d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless;
(e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief;
(f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by
the trial court is improbable;
(g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process;
(h) where the proceeding was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and
(i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved. [Abacan vs.
Northwestern University, Inc. G.R. No. 140777, (2005)]
Q60: DOES FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BAR RESORT TO A

PETITION FOR PROHIBITION?
A60: Yes. The availability of an administrative remedy via a complaint filed before the NEA precludes the
filing a petition for prohibition before the court. It is settled that one of the requisites for a writ of
prohibition to issue is that there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In
order that prohibition will lie, the petitioner must first exhaust all administrative remedies. [Samar II
Electric Cooperative, Inc., et al vs. Seludo, Jr., G.R. No. 173840 (2012)]
Q61: W HAT IS THE PROPER VENUE FOR THE SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION OF QUO
W ARRANTO?
A61: Generally, it should be filed with the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or the RTC
exercising jurisdiction over the area where the respondent or any of the respondents reside. If
filed by the Solicitor General, it should be in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or an RTC in the
City of Manila [Sec. 7, Rule 65].
Note: If the quo warranto under Sec. 1(c), Rule 66 (An association which acts as a corporation within the
Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act), original and
exclusive jurisdiction is vested on the special commercial courts. Hence, in these cases, the venue
should be the special commercial court having jurisdiction over the area where respondent or any of the
respondents reside.
Page 20 of 65
Q62: W HAT IS INVERSE CONDEMNATION?

A62: It is the action to recover just compensation from the State or its expropriating agency when the
property taken in fact by the governmental defendant, even though no formal exercise of the power of
eminent domain has been attempted by the taking agency. It is not an action for damages. In these cases,
reckoning just compensation on the value at the time the owners commenced these inverse
condemnation proceedings is warranted. [National Power Corporation v. Makabangkit, G.R. No. 165828
(2011), Bersamin, J.]
NOTE: The case of DPWH v. Spouses Tecson, G.R. No. 179334 (2015) states that in cases where there was
taking before the filing of complaint, the just compensation is based on the value at the time of
taking. The owner is then compensated in those cases by the award of interest, exemplary damages,
attorney's fees, and costs of litigation, in view of the expropriating agency’s deprivation of the owners of
the beneficial ownership over their property without the benefit of a timely expropriation proceeding.
Q63: DISCUSS THE DIFFERENCE BETW EEN, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF, THE ISSUANCE
AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE W RIT OF ATTACHMENT.
A63: The distinction is indispensably necessary to determine when jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant should be acquired in order to validly implement the writ of attachment upon his person. In
short, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary only in the implementation of the writ,
hence the requirement of service of summons prior or contemporaneous to the implementation of the
writ.
Rule 57 on preliminary attachment speaks of the grant of the remedy “at the commencement of the
action or at any time before entry of judgment.” This phrase refers to the date of the filing of the
complaint, which is the moment that marks "the commencement of the action." The reference plainly is
to a time before summons is served on the defendant, or even before summons issues.
In Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals (1991), the Court clarified that whatever be the acts
done by the Court prior to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of defendant do not and cannot
bind and affect the defendant until and unless jurisdiction over his person is eventually obtained by the
court. Hence, when the sheriff or other proper officer commences implementation of the writ of
attachment, it is essential that he serve on the defendant not only a copy of the
applicant’s affidavit and attachm ent bond, and of the order of attachment, as explicitly
required by Section 5 of Rule 57, but also the summons addressed to said defendant as well as a copy of
the complaint.
In Cuartero v. Court of Appeals (1992), the Court held that the grant of the provisional remedy of
attachment involves three stages:
(1) the court issues the order granting the application;
(2) the writ of attachment issues pursuant to the order granting the writ;
(3) the writ is implemented.
For the initial two stages, it is not necessary that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant be first
obtained. However, once the im plem entation of the writ com m ences, the court m ust have
acquired jurisdiction over the defendant, for without such jurisdiction, the court has no power and
authority to act in any manner against the defendant. Any order issuing from the Court will not bind the
defendant. Thus, it is indispensable not only for the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant, but also upon consideration of fairness, to apprise the defendant of the complaint against him
and the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment and the grounds therefor that prior or
contemporaneously to the serving of the writ of attachment, service of summons, together with a copy of
the complaint, the application for attachment, the applicant’s affidavit and bond, and the order must be
served upon him. The subsequent service of summons does not confer a retroactive acquisition of
jurisdiction over her person because the law does not allow for retroactivity of a belated service. [Torres v.
Satsatin, G.R. No. 166759 (2009)]
Page 21 of 65
Q64: DEFINE “GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LAW OR EXCESS OF

JURISDICTION.”
A64: The term grave abuse of discretion has a specific meaning. An act of a court or tribunal can only be
considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a capricious or whimsical exercise
of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as
to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to
act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by
reason of passion and hostility. [Metrobank v. Tobias, G.R. No. 177780 (2012), Bersamin, J.]

Q65: W HAT IS EQUITY OF REDEMPTION?
A65: It is the right of the mortgagor to extinguish the collateral and retain ownership of it exercised after
default in the performance of the condition of the mortgage but before the foreclosure sale of the
collateral by paying the mortgage obligation. The period is no less than 90 days but no more than 120
days from the entry of judgment [Sec. 2, Rule 68]
Note: This is only applicable to judicial foreclosure.

Q66: THE EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT IN AN EJECTM ENT CASE IS IMMEDIATELY
EXECUTORY. HOW DO YOU STAY ITS EXECUTION?
A66: The perfection of the appeal by the defendant does not forbid the favorable action on the plaintiff’s
motion for immediate execution. The execution of the decision could not be stayed by the mere taking of
the appeal. Only the filing of the sufficient supersedeas bond and the deposit with the appellate court
of the amount of rent due from time to time, coupled with the perfection of the appeal, could stay
the execution.
The summary nature of the special civil action under Rule 70 and the purpose underlying the mandate for
an immediate execution, which is to prevent the plaintiffs from being further deprived of their rightful
possession, should always be borne in mind. [Ferrer v. Judge Rabaca, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1580 (2010)]
Q64: W HAT ARE THE ESSENTIAL REQUISITES OF AN UNLAW FUL DETAINER?

A64:
(a) The fact of lease by virtue of a contract, express or implied;
(b) The expiration or termination of the possessors right to hold possession;
(c) Withholding by the lessee of possession of the land or building after the expiration or termination
of the right to possess;
(d) Letter of demand upon lessee to pay the rental or comply with the terms of the lease and vacate
the premises; and
(e) The filing of the action within one year from the date of the last demand received by the
defendant [Pasricha v. Don Luis Dison Realty, Inc., G.R. No. 136409 (2008)]
Q65: W HAT IS CONTEMPT O F COURT?

A65: Contempt of court has been defined as a willful disregard or disobedience of a public authority. In
its broad sense, contempt is a disregard of, or disobedience to, the rules or orders of a legislative or
judicial body or an interruption of its proceedings by disorderly behavior or insolent language in its
presence or so near thereto as to disturb its proceedings or to impair the respect due to such a body. In its
restricted and more usual sense, contempt comprehends a despising of the authority, justice, or dignity of
Page 22 of 65
a court. The phrase contempt of court is generic, embracing within its legal signification a variety of
different acts. [Lorenzo Shipping Corporation v. DMAP, G.R. No. 155849 (2011), Bersamin, J.]

Q66: COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE TW O KINDS OF CONTEMPT OF COURT.
A66: Contempt of court is of two kinds, namely: direct contempt, which is committed in the presence of
or so near the judge as to obstruct him in the administration of justice; and constructive or indirect
contempt, which consists of willful disobedience of the lawful process or order of the court.
The punishment for the first is generally summary and immediate, and no process or evidence is
necessary because the act is committed in facie curiae. In contrast, the second usually requires
proceedings less summary than the first. The proceedings for the punishment of the contumacious act
committed outside the personal knowledge of the judge generally need the observance of all the
elements of due process of law, that is, notice, written charges, and an opportunity to deny and to defend
such charges before guilt is adjudged and sentence imposed. [Lorenzo Shipping Corporation v. DMAP, G.R.
No. 155849 (2011), Bersamin, J.]
Q67: ATTY. ANDREW BOGADO W AS CHARGED OF INDIRECT CONTEMPT OF COURT, ON

THE GROUND OF MISBEHAVIOR OF AN OFFICER OF THE COURT FOR CRITICIZING A
DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. MAY GOOD FAITH BE USED AS DEFENSE?
A67: Yes. Misbehavior means something more than adverse comment or disrespect. There is no question
that in contempt the intent goes to the gravamen of the offense. Thus, the good faith, or lack of it, of the
alleged contemnor should be considered. Where the act complained of is ambiguous or does not clearly
show on its face that it is contempt, and is one which, if the party is acting in good faith, is within his
rights, the presence or absence of a contumacious intent is, in some instances, held to be determinative
of its character. A person should not be condemned for contempt where he contends for what he believes
to be right and in good faith institutes proceedings for the purpose, however erroneous may be his
conclusion as to his rights. To constitute contempt, the act must be done willfully and for an illegitimate
or improper purpose. The test for criticizing a judges decision is, therefore, whether or not the criticism is
bona fide or done in good faith, and does not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. [Lorenzo
Shipping Corporation v. DMAP, G.R. No. 155849 (2011), Bersamin, J.]

Q68: W HAT ARE THE GROUNDS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN DISMISSING AN
APPEAL?
A68: An appeal may be dismissed by the CA, on its own motion, or on that of the appellee on certain
grounds:
(1) Failure of record on appeal to show on its face that appeal was taken within the period fixed by
Rules
(2) Failure to file notice of appeal or record on appeal within prescribed period
(3) Failure of appellant to pay docket and other lawful fees as provided in Sec. 4, Rule 41
(4) Unauthorized alterations, omissions, or additions in approved record on appeal as provided in
Sec. 4, Rule 44
(5) Failure of appellant to serve and file required number of copies of his brief or memorandum
within time provided by Rules
(6) Absence of specific assignment of errors in the appellant’s brief, or of page references to record as
required in Sec. 13, (a), (c), (d), (f) of Rule 44
(7) Failure of appellant to take necessary steps for correction or completion of record within time
limited by the court in its order
Page 23 of 65
(8) Failure of appellant to appear at preliminary conference under Rule 48 or comply with orders,
circulars, directives of the court without justifiable cause
(9) Fact that the order or judgment appealed from is not appealable
Other Grounds
(1) Appeal under Rule 41 from the RTC, raising only questions of law;
(2) Appeal by notice of appeal from a decision rendered by the RTC in its appellate jurisdiction;
(3) Appeals erroneously taken to the CA
(4) By agreement of the parties (i.e. amicable settlement)
(5) Where appealed case has become moot or academic
(6) Where appeal is frivolous or dilatory
Q69: W HEN MAY APPEALS BE W ITHDRAW N AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, AND W HEN MAY
IT BE W ITHDRAW N UPON DISCRETION OF THE COURT?
A69: In civil cases, an appeal may be withdrawn as a matter of right at any time before the filing of the
appellee’s brief. Thereafter, the withdrawal may be allowed in the discretion of the appellate court. [Sec.
3, Rule 50]
In criminal cases, withdrawal of appeal shall be subject to the following rules:
(1) Before the record has been forwarded to the clerk of court of the appellate court, the MTC or RTC,
withdrawal may be allowed
(2) After the records have already been received by the RTC from the MTC, the RTC in its discretion
may allow withdrawal provided a motion is filed before judgment on the appeal is rendered
[Bersamin, Appeal and Review in the Philippines (2000) p. 252, citing Sec. 12, Rule 122]
Q70: MAY DISMISSED APPEALS BE REINSTATED?

A70: Yes. The appellate court has the discretion on whether or not to reinstate. The discretion to
reinstate is implied from discretion to dismiss the appeal. The reinstatement should be justified by a
showing of good and sufficient cause. [Bersamin, Appeal and Review in the Philippines (2000) p. 251,
citing B.R. Sebastian Enterprises v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 41862 (1992)]
Q71: EXPLAIN THE DUAL FUNCTION OF APPELLATE COURTS

A71: “An appellate court serves a dual function. The first is the review for correctness function,
whereby the case is reviewed on appeal to assure that substantial justice has been done. The second is
the institutional function, which refers to the progressive development of the law for general
application in the judicial system.
Differently stated, the review for correctness function is concerned with the justice of the particular
case while the institutional function is concerned with the articulation and application of
constitutional principles, the authoritative interpretation of statutes, and the formulation of policy within
the proper sphere of the judicial function.
With each level of the appellate structure, the review for correctness function diminishes and the
institutional function, which concerns itself with uniformity of judicial administration and the progressive
development of the law, increases.” [Bersamin, L.P., Appeal and Review in the Philippines, 2000, p. 355,
quoted in Re: Letter complaint of Merlita B. Fabiana against presiding justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. et al.,
A.M. No. CA-13-51-J (2013), Bersamin, J.]
Page 24 of 65
Q72: STATE THE HARMLESS ERROR RULE IN APPELLATE DECISIONS

A72: 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
proceedings must disregard any error or defect which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.
[Sec. 6, Rule 51]
“It is not enough for the counsel of the appellant to point out errors to the appellate court, for there must
be a persuasive demonstration that the errors were reversible. An error is considered reversible only if it is
sufficiently serious or grave that the substantial rights of the appellant are prejudiced [...]. Accordingly,
when the errors are harmless, minor, or inconsequential, reversal on appeal should not be handed down
by the appellate courts. The errors are harmless if they do not produce substantial prejudice to the
appellant. They are minor or inconsequential if they do not affect the results of the cases differently.”
[Bersamin, Appeal and Review in the Philippines (2000) p. 362]
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 v. Teehankee, G.R. Nos. 111206-08
(1995)]
Page 25 of 65
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
Q73: DIFFERENTIATE W RIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND W RIT OF AMPARO AND THE
W RIT OF HABEAS DATA AS TO THE INSTANCES COVERED BY EACH RULE, W HO MAY
APPLY, AND W HERE THE PETITION MAY BE FILED
A73: [Note: Comprehensive comparative table is attached as Annex]
Writ of Habeas Corpus Writ of Amparo Writ of Habeas Data
Coverage All cases of illegal confinement Involves right to life, Involves the right to
and detention which any person liberty and security privacy in life, liberty or
is deprived of his liberty. violated or threatened security violated or
with violation by an threatened by an unlawful
Deprivation of rightful custody
unlawful act or omission act or omission of a public
of any person from the person
of a public official or official or employee, or of
entitled thereto.
employee or a private a private individual or
[Sec. 1] individual or entity. Covers entity engaged in the
extralegal killings gathering, collecting or
storing of data or
and enforced
information regarding the
disappearances or threats
person, family, home and
thereof. [Sec. 1]
correspondence of the
aggrieved party.
[Sec. 1]
Who may By the party for whose relief it is The aggrieved party or by Any aggrieved party may
file intended, or by some person on any qualified person or
file a petition.
his behalf [Sec. 3] entity in the following
order:
(1) Any member of the However, in cases of
immediate family extralegal killings and
(2) Any ascendant, enforced disappearances,
descendant or collateral the petition may be filed
relative of the aggrieved by (also successive):
within the 4th civil degree
(1) Any member of the
of affinity or
consanguinity immediate family of the
aggrieved
(3) Any concerned citizen,
(2) Any ascendant,
organization, association
descendant or collateral
or institution
relative of the aggrieved
party within the fourth
civil degree of
Filing by the aggrieved
consanguinity or affinity
suspends the right of all [Sec. 2]
others [Sec. 2
Where filed (1) SC or any member (1) SB, CA, SC, or any (1) At the option of
thereof, on any day and justice of such courts petitioner, RTC
Page 26 of 65
at any time where:

(2) RTC of place where the (a) Petitioner resides or
threat, act, or omission
(2) CA or any member (b) Respondent resides or
was committed, or any
thereof in instances element occurred (c) That which has
jurisdiction over the place
authorized by law [Sec. 3]
where the data or
information is gathered,
collected or stored
(3) RTC or a judge thereof, on
any day and at any time,
enforceable only within his
(2) SC, CA, or SB – If
judicial district [Sec. 2]
public data files of
government offices
(4) MTC or first level courts in
the absence of RTC judges in a [Sec. 3]
judicial region [Sec. 35, BP 129]
Q74: THE RESIDENTS OF MT. AHOHOY, HEADED BY MASIGASIG, FORMED A

NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION — ALYANSA LABAN SA MINAHAN SA AHOYHOY
(ALMA) TO PROTEST TH E MINING OPERATIONS OF ORO NEGRO MINING IN THE
MOUNTAIN. ALMA MEMBERS PICKETED DAILY AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE MINING SITE
BLOCKING THE INGRESS AND EGRESS OF TRUCKS AND EQUIPMENT OF ORO NEGRO,
HAMPERING ITS OPERATIONS. MASIGASIG HAD AN ALTERCATION W ITH MAPUSOK
ARISING FROM THE COM PLAINT OF THE MINING ENGINEER OF ORO NEGRO THAT ONE
OF THEIR TRUCKS W AS DESTROYED BY ALMA MEMBERS. MAPUSOK IS THE LEADER
OF THE ASSOCIATION OF PEACE KEEPERS OF AHOYHOY (APKA), A CIVILIAN
VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATION SERVING AS AUXILIARY FORCE OF THE LOCAL POLICE TO
MAINTAIN PEACE AND ORDER IN THE AREA. SUBSEQUENTLY, MASIGASIG
DISAPPEARED. MAYUMI, THE W IFE OF MASIGASIG, AND THE MEMBERS OF ALMA
SEARCHED FOR MASIGASIG, BUT ALL THEIR EFFORTS PROVED FUTILE.
MAPAGMATYAG, A MEMBER OF ALMA, LEARNED FROM MAINGAY, A MEMBER OF APKA,
DURING THEIR BINGE DRINKING THAT MASIGASIG W AS ABDUCTED BY OTHER
MEMBERS OF APKA, ON ORDER OF MAPUSOK. MAYUMI AND ALM SOUGHT THE
ASSISTANCE OF THE LOCAL POLICE TO SEARCH FOR MASIGASIG, BUT THEY REFUSED
TO EXTEND THEIR COOPERATION.
MAYUMI FILED W ITH THE RTC A PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE W RIT OF
AMPARO AGAINST MAPUSOK AND APKA. ALMA ALSO FILED A PETITION FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF THE W RIT OF AMPARO W ITH THE COURT OF APPEALS AGAINST
MAPUSOK AND APKA. RESPONDENTS MAPUSOK AND APKA, IN THEIR RETURN FILED
W ITH THE RTC RAISED AMONG THEIR DEFENSES THAT THEY ARE NOT AGENTS OF THE
STATE; HENCE, CANNOT BE IMPLEADED AS RESPONDENTS IN AN AMPARO PETITION.
IS THEIR DEFENSE TENABLE?
A74: No. The writ of Amparo covers enforced disappearances, which include an arrest, detention or
abduction of a person by a government official or organized groups or private individuals acting with the
direct or indirect acquiescence of the government [Section 1, Rule on Writ of Amparo] as well as cases
where the State refuses to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned or acknowledge the
deprivation of liberty, which effectively places such persons outside the protection of the law. [Sec. of
National Defense v. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906 (2008)] In this case, Masigasig was abducted by APKA,
which, although being a civil volunteer organization, is auxiliary to the local police force and therefore
serve as agents of the State, and may be impleaded as respondents in an amparo petition.
Page 27 of 65
Q75: RESPONDENTS MAPUSOK AND APKA, IN THEIR RETURN FILED W ITH THE CA,
RAISED AS THEIR DEFENSE THAT THE PETITION SHOULD BE DISMISSED ON THE
GROUND THAT ALMA CAN NOT FILE THE PETITION BECAUSE OF THE EARLIER
PETITION FILED BY MAYUMI W ITH THE RTC. ARE RESPONDENTS CORRECT IN RAISING
THEIR DEFENSE?
A75: Yes. Under Sec. 2(c) of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, the filing of a petition by the aggrieved
party suspends the right of all other authorized parties to file similar petitions.
Those who may file under the rule are: a) the aggrieved party; or, b) qualified persons or entities, in the
following order: any member of the immediately family (i.e. spouse, children, parents of the aggrieved
party), any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the fourth civil
degree of consagunity or affinity, in default of the former, or any concerned citizen, organization,
association or institution, if there is no known member of the immediate family or relative of the
aggrieved party.
In this case, Mayumi, the aggrieved party’s wife, had already filed a petititon. ALMA may no longer file the
same petition.
Q76: MAYUMI LATER FILED SEPARATE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL ACTIONS AGAINST
MAPUSOK. HOW W ILL THE CASES AFFECT THE AMPARO PETITITON SHE EARLIER
FILED?
A76: The Writ of Amparo shall be consolidated with the criminal action. Under Sec. 23 of the Rule of
Amparo, “when a criminal and separate civil action are filed subsequent to the Writ of Amparo, the latter
shall be consolidated with the criminal action. After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall
continue to apply to the disposition of the reliefs in the petition.”
Q77: M W AS ARRESTED AND DETAINED THROUGH A SEARCH W ARRANT ISSUED BY

JUDGE C OF THE RTC AND AFTER A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION BY THE
INVESTIGATING OFFICER. M FILED A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS ALLEGING
PROCEDURAL FLAW S, STATING THAT THAT THE ISSUANCE OF THE W ARRANT OF
ARREST W AS W ITHOUT SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION OR W ITHOUT A PRIOR FINDING OF
PROBABLE CAUSE, AND THAT THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION W AS NOT YET
COMPLETED W HEN THE WARRANT W AS ISSUED. W ILL THE PETITION PROSPER?
A77: No. Since her arrest and is virtue of an order lawfully issued by a judge, the writ of habeas corpus
was not an appropriate remedy to relieve her from the restraint on her liberty. This is because the
restraint, being lawful and pursuant to a court process, could not be inquired into through habeas corpus.
Moreover, the writ of habeas corpus could not be used as a substitute for another available remedy. Her
proper recourse was to bring the supposed irregularities attending the conduct of the preliminary
investigation and the issuance of the warrant for her arrest to the attention of the City Prosecutor,
following the transmittal of the records to it for appropriate action. [Mangila v. Pangilinan, G.R. No.
160739 (2013), Bersamin, J.; see also Sec. 4, Rule 102]
Q78: DISTINGUISH PEREMPTORY W RIT FROM PRELIMINARY CITATION

A78:
Preliminary Citation Peremptory Writ
Requires the respondent to appear and show A written document which unconditionally
cause why the peremptory writ should not be commands the respondent to have the body of
granted the detained person before the court at a
Page 28 of 65
time and place therein specified

NOTE: The peremptory writ is different from the grant of the writ of habeas corpus, as stated in In the
Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Alejano v. Cabuay, G.R. No. 160792 (2005), where it was ruled
that the order to present an individual before the court is a preliminary step in the hearing of the petition.
This order is not a ruling on the propriety of the remedy or on the substantive matters covered by the
remedy. Thus, the order to produce the body is not equivalent to a grant of the writ of habeas corpus.
Q79: W HAT IS THE PERIOD AND THE MODE TO APPEAL A JUDGMENT OR FINAL ORDER
IN A HABEAS CORPUS CASE?
A79: The appeal should be within 48 hours from notice of the judgment or the final order, by ordinary
appeal/notice of appeal. [See Sec. 19, Rule 102, and Sec. 3, Rule 41]
Note: By virtue of Sec. 1, Rule 22, the day of the act or event from which the period begins to run is
excluded and the day of the performance included. Hence, the 48-hour period starts to run on the day
after the notice was received [Riguera, citing Kabigting v. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-15548 (1962) and
1 Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium (4th ed), p. 303]
Q80: N FILED A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS INVOLVING HIS 9-YEAR OLD CHILD A,
W HO W AS TAKEN BY HIS EX-HUSBAND T. AFTER PRODUCING THE MINOR CHILD IN
COURT, THE RTC DISMISSED THE CASE, RATIOCINATING THAT THERE THE CASE W AS
MOOT AND ACADEMIC AND THERE WAS NOTHING LEFT TO BE DONE IN THE HABEAS
CORPUS PROCEEDINGS SINCE THE MINOR W AS ALREADY PRODUCED, W ITHOUT
PREJUDICE ON THE PETITIONERS TO FILE PROPER ACTION FOR CUSTODY OF THE
MINOR. THE CA AFFIRM ED THIS. ARE THE ACTIONS OF THE COURTS A QUO PROPER?
A80: No. The rulings of the RTC and CA were improper. In cases involving minors, the purpose of a
petition for habeas corpus is not limited to the production of the child before the court. The main purpose
of the petition for habeas corpus is to determine who has the rightful custody over the child. The RTC
should then conduct a trial to determine who has rightful custody over the minor. [Bagtas v. Santos, G.R.
No. 166682 (2009)]
Q81: W HAT ARE THE INTERIM RELIEFS AVAILABLE TO PARTIES IN CASES FOR W RIT OF
AMPARO, AND W HEN MAY THEY BE AVAILED OF?
A81: The interim reliefs are available upon the filing of the petition and anytime thereafter until final
judgment.
For petitioners: the interim reliefs for the petitioners are the following: Temporary Protection Order (TPO),
Inspection Order (IO), Production Order (PO), and Witness Protection Order (WPO). The TPO and WPO
may be granted upon motion or by the court motu proprio, while the IO and PO are upon motion.
For respondents: IO and PO are available upon motion.
Temporary Protection Inspection Order (IO) Production Order (PO) Witness Protection
Order (TPO) Order (WPO)
Petitioner or the Direct any person in Direct any person in Refer the witnesses to
aggrieved party and any possession or possession,
(a) The Department of
member of the
control of a designated custody or control of any Justice for admission to
immediate family shall
land or other designated the Witness Protection,
be protected in a
property, to permit entry documents, papers, Security and Benefit
government agency or
Page 29 of 65
by an accredited person for the purpose of books, accounts, Program.

or private institution
inspecting, measuring, letters, photographs, (b) Other government
capable of keeping and surveying, or objects or tangible agencies, or to
securing their safety. If accredited persons or
photographing the things, or objects in
the petitioner is an private institutions
property or any relevant digitized or electronic
organization, capable of keeping and
association or institution object or operation form which constitute or
securing their safety.
referred to in Section thereon. [Sec. 14(b)] contain evidence
[Sec. 14(d)]
3(c) of this Rule, the
relevant to the petition
protection may be
or the return, to
extended to the officers
concerned. [Sec. 14(a)] produce and permit
their inspection, copying
or photographing by or
on behalf
of the movant [Sec.
14(c)]
Q82: W HAT IS THE PERIOD AND MODE TO APPEAL W RIT OF AMPARO AND HABEAS
DATA CASES?
A82: Any party may appeal the final judgment or order within 5 working days from notice of the final
judgment or order (or MR/MNT denying it) to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45. The appeal may raise questions of fact and law, or both. [Sec. 19 and 25, Rule on Writ of
Amparo; Sec. 19 and 24, Rule on Writ of Habeas Data]
Q83: W HEN MAY THE PETITION FOR HABEAS DATA BE HEARD IN THE CHAMBERS OF
THE COURT W HERE IT IS FILED?
A83:
(1) Where the respondent invokes the defense that the release of the data or information in question shall
compromise national security or state secrets, or
(2) When the data or information cannot be divulged to the public due to its nature or privileged
character. [Sec. 12]
Q84: A, B, AND C, STUDENTS, FILED A PETITION FOR W RIT OF HABEAS DATA AGAINST
THEIR SCHOOL, K-12 MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL, A PRIVATE INSTITUTION, FOR
ALLEGEDLY VIOLATING THEIR RIGHT TO SECURITY IN COLLECTING COMPROMISING
PHOTOS ONLINE AND STORING THEM IN SCHOOL COMPUTERS. COUNSEL FOR
SCHOOL X ARGUES THAT SINCE THE SCHOOL IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF GATHERING,
COLLECTING OR STORING DATA, IT CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE ON A W RIT OF HABEAS
DATA, AS THE RULES REQUIRE THAT THE PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL BE “ENGAGED IN THE
GATHERING, COLLECTING OR STORING OF DATA OR INFORMATION.” IS THIS
CONTENTION CORRECT?
A84.: No. To "engage" means "to do or take part in something." It does not necessarily mean that the
activity must be done in pursuit of a business. What matters is that the person or entity must be gathering,
collecting or storing said data or information about the aggrieved party or his or her family. Whether such
undertaking carries the element of regularity, as when one pursues a business, and is in the nature of a
personal endeavour, for any other reason or even for no reason at all, is immaterial and such will not
prevent the writ from getting to said person or entity. Thus, the defense that the respondent is not
Page 30 of 65
engaged in the business of gathering, storing and collecting data is erroneous [Vivares v. St. Theresa’s
College, G.R. No. 202666 (2014)].
Page 31 of 65
UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK [EVIDENCE]
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Q85: DISTINGUISH AMENDM ENT OF AN INFORMATION FROM SUBSTITUTION.
A85: The 1st paragraph of Section 14, Rule 110 provides the rules for amendment of the information or
complaint, while the 2nd paragraph refers to the substitution of the information or complaint. Both
amendment and substitution of the information may be made before or after the defendant pleads,
but they differ in the following respects:
Amendment Substitution
May involve either formal or substantial changes Necessarily involves a substantial change from
the original charge
If before plea, may be effected without leave of Must be with leave of court as the original
court information has to be dismissed
If only as to form, there is no need for another Another preliminary investigation is entailed and
preliminary investigation and the retaking of plea the accused has to plead anew to the new
of the accused information
An amended information refers to the same Substitution requires or presupposes that the new
offense charged in the original information or to information involves a different offense which
an offense which necessarily includes or is does not include or is not necessarily included in
necessarily included in the original charge, hence the original charge, hence the accused cannot
substantial amendments to the information after claim double jeopardy. [Teehankee v. Madayag,
the plea has been taken cannot be made over the G.R. No. 103102, March 6, 1992]
objection of the accused, for if the original
information would be withdrawn, the accused
could invoke double jeopardy.
Q86: DISCUSS THE PARTICIPATION OF THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL DURING APPEALS

IN CRIMINAL CASES
A86: The authority to represent the State in appeals of criminal cases before the CA and the Supreme
Court is vested solely in the OSG. The OSG shall have the following specific powers and functions:
represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings;
represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, and all other
courts or tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any officer
thereof in his official capacity is a party. [Section 35(1), Chapter 12, Title III of Book IV, 1987
Administrative Code]
The Solicitor-General is the lawyer of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. Therefore,
service on the OSG is the proper basis for computing the reglementary period for filing appeals and for
finality of decisions. Service on the deputized lawyer is insufficient and not valid and binding on the
OSG. [Bersamin, Appeal and Review in the Philippines (2000), p. 157-158]
The respondent’s failure to have a copy of his petition [for review under Rule 42] served on the People
of the Philippines, through the OSG, is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition as provided
in Section 3, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court [People v. Duca, G.R. 171175 (2009)]
Page 32 of 65
Q87: W HAT ARE THE REMEDIES OF AN ACCUSED IN CASE THERE W AS A LACK OF

OR AN IRREGULAR PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION?
A87: [Leviste v. Alameda, G.R. No. 182677 (2010)]
(1) In cases of inquest proceedings, before the filing of the complaint or information in court, the
arrested person has the option to avail of a 15-day preliminary investigation, provided
he duly signs a waiver of Article 125 of the RPC. The decision of the inquest prosecutor is not
appealable to the DOJ, since such remedy applies only in cases subject of preliminary
investigation / reinvestigation.
(2) Once a complaint or information is filed in court, the accused may ask for a preliminary
investigation within five days from the time he learns of its filing.
(3) The accused may also move for a Judicial Determination of Probable Cause.
(4) In cases, however, where a re-investigation was already conducted by the prosecution upon
motion of the private complainant after the filing of the information but before arraignment,
and the accused failed to actively participate in such re-investigation despite his knowledge of
such, the accused is barred from praying for a conduct of preliminary investigation, there
being no substantial distinction between a preliminary investigation and a reinvestigation.
Q88: W HEN IS BAIL A MATTER OF RIGHT, W HEN IS IT DISCRETIONARY, AND W HEN

SHOULD IT BE DENIED?
A88:
Bail is a matter of right:
(1) Before or after conviction by the MTC;
(2) Before conviction by RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment. [Sec. 4, Rule 114].
Bail is a matter of discretion

(1) Before conviction of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment and
evidence of guilt is not strong;
(2) After conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment. [Sec. 5, Rule 114]:
Bail should be denied:

(1) After conviction by the RTC of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment
(2) After conviction by the RTC and the penalty imposed is imprisonment exceeding 6 years, and
upon a showing by the prosecution of the following or similar circumstances [Sec. 5, Rule 114]:
a. Recidivism, quasi-recidivism, or habitual delinquency or commission of a crime
aggravated by reiteration of the accused;
b. The accused previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence or violated
bail conditions without valid justification;
Page 33 of 65
c. Commission of offense while under probation, parole or conditional pardon by the

accused;
d. Probability of flight;
e. Undue risk that the accused may commit another crime during pendency of appeal.
(3) Upon finality of the judgment of conviction, unless the accused applied for probation [Sec. 24,
Rule 114]
Q89: DURING TRIAL OF A CASE FOR ROBBERY W ITH HOMICIDE, THE ONLY
EYEW ITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO APPEAR AND TESTIFY BECAUSE
HE CANNOT BE CONTACTED OR LOCATED. AFTER A YEAR OF POSTPONEMENTS,
THE W ITNESS REAPPEARED, SAYING THAT HIS CONSCIENCE W OULD NOT LET HIM
REST AND SO HE IS READY TO TESTIFY. THE ACCUSED MOVED FOR THE DISMISSAL
OF THE CASE ON THE GROUND OF VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL. IF
YOU W ERE THE PROSECUTION, HOW W ILL YOU OPPOSE THE MOTION?
A89: Under Sec. 3(b), Rule 119, any period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of a
witness shall be excluded in computing the time for trial. The absent witness must be essential and his
whereabouts are unknown or cannot be determined with due diligence.
Q90: W HAT IS A DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE (IN CRIMINAL CASES) AND W HAT ARE
ITS EFFECTS?
A90: A demurrer to evidence is an objection or exception by one of the parties in an action at law, to
the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law (whether true or
not) to make out his case or sustain the issue” [Pasag v. Parocha, G.R. No. 155483 (2007). It can be
filed by the accused after the prosecution rests its case with or without leave of court.
If filed with leave and the court denies the demurrer the accused can present evidence in his defense.
On the other hand, if filed without leave the accused is deemed to have waived his right to present
evidence and the court will render judgment based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. If
the court grants the demurrer it will dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. This
amounts to an acquittal for the accused [Sec. 23, Rule 119]
Q91: PETITIONERS A, B, AND C W ERE CHARGED W ITH VIOLATION OF RA 3019 IN

THE SANDIGANBAYAN. AFTER THE PRESENTATION OF THE PROSECUTION’S
EVIDENCE, THEY FILED A DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE, W HICH W AS DENIED. THEY
THEN FILED A SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR CERTIORARI TO ASSAIL THE DEMURRER
TO EVIDENCE. THIS W AS OBJECTED TO ON THE GROUND THAT SAID PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI IS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE AN IMPROPER REMEDY FOR THE
DENIAL OF A DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT SECTION
23, RULE 119 OF THE RULES OF COURT EXPRESSLY PROVIDES THAT "THE ORDER
DENYING THE MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE OR
THE DEMURRER ITSELF SHALL NOT BE REVIEW ABLE BY APPEAL OR BY CERTIORARI
BEFORE JUDGMENT." RESOLVE THE OBJECTION.
A91: Petition for certiorari may be the proper remedy. The special civil action for certiorari is generally
not proper to assail such an interlocutory order issued by the trial court because of the availability of
another remedy in the ordinary course of law. Moreover, Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court
expressly provides that "the order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or
the demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment."
Page 34 of 65
However, the Supreme Court’s constitutionally granted judicial power to correct grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of
the Government cannot be thwarted by rules of procedure.
Thus, notwithstanding the interlocutory character and effect of the denial of the
demurrer to evidence, the petitioners as the accused could avail themselves of the
remedy of certiorari when the denial was tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
[Macapagal-Arroyo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 220598 (2016), Bersamin, J.]
Q92: HOW IS THE JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE PROMULGATED?

A92: [Sec. 6, Rule 120]
General Rule
Judgment must be promulgated in the presence of the accused and any judge of the court in which it
was rendered.
Exceptions/Qualifications
When the judge is absent or Judgment may be promulgated by the clerk of court.
outside of the province or city
if the conviction is for a light Judgment may be pronounced in the presence of his counsel or
offense representative
If the accused is confined or Judgment may be promulgated by the executive judge of the
detained in another province or city RTC having jurisdiction over the place of confinement or
detention upon request of the court which rendered
the judgment.
If the accused fails to attend the Judgment may be validly promulgated in absentia by recording
promulgation even if he was the judgment in the criminal docket and serving him a copy
notified thereof, or if he jumped thereof at his last known address or thru his counsel
bail, or if he escaped from prison
Q93: W HAT IS THE EFFECT OF AN APPEAL IN A CRIMINAL CASE?

A93: An appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review and it becomes the
duty of the appellate court to correct an error as may be found in the appealed judgment, whether or
not it is made the subject of assignment of errors [People v. Calayca, G.R. No. 121212 (1999)]
Q94: W HEN IS A SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO A LAW FUL ARREST VALID?

A94: An arrest incidental to a lawful arrest is valid when:
(1) The arrest preceded the search;
(2) The arrest is valid
Page 35 of 65
(3) The search is confined to the person arrested, but as an incident of an arrest, the place or
premises where the arrest was made can also be searched without a search warrant. The
extent and reasonableness of the search must be decided on its own facts and circumstances.
Assuming a valid arrest, the arresting officer may search the person of the arrestee and the area within
which the latter may reach for a weapon or for evidence to destroy, and seize any money or property
found which was used in the commission of the crime, or the fruit of the crime, or that which may be
used as evidence, or which might furnish the arrestee with the means of escaping or committing
violence. [Sanchez v. People, G.R. No. 204589 (2014)]
Q95: W HEN IS A CONSENTED SEARCH, AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE SEARCH

W ARRANT REQUIREMENT, VALID?
A95: In cases of consented searches, it must first appear that:
(1) The right exists;
(2) The person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of such
right; and
(3) The said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right [People v. Nuevas, G.R. No.
170233 (2007)].
Relevant to the determination of consent are the following characteristics of the person giving consent
and the environment in which consent is given:
(1) The age of the defendant;
(2) Whether he was in a public or secluded location;
(3) Whether he objected to the search or passively looked on;
(4) The education and intelligence of the defendant;
(5) The presence of coercive police procedures;
(6) The defendant's belief that no incriminating evidence will be found;
(7) The nature of the police questioning;
(8) The environment in which the questioning took place; and
(9) The possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person consenting [Caballes v. CA, G.R. No.
136292 (2002)].
Q96: MAY AN INJUNCTION BE ISSUED BY A COURT TO RESTRAIN CRIMINAL

PROSECUTION?
A96: The general rule is that criminal prosecution may not be restrained or stayed by injunction,
preliminary or final. There are however exceptions, among which are:
(1) To afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;
(2) When necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity
of actions;
(3) When there is a pre-judicial question which is sub judice;
(4) When the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority;
(5) Where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation;
Page 36 of 65
(6) When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;

(7) Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
(8) Where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution;
(9) Where the charges are manifestly false; and
(10) When there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that
ground has been denied. [Brocka v. Enrile, G.R. No. 69863-65 (1990)]
Q97: W HAT IS THE RULE ON THE IMPLIED INSTITUTION OF THE CIVIL ACTION IN
THE CRIMINAL ACTION?
A97: [Rule 111, Sec. 1]
General rule: The civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged is deemed
instituted with the criminal action.
Exception: The civil action is not deemed so instituted if the offended party:
(1) Waives the civil action;
(2) Institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action; or
(3) Reserves the right to institute it separately.
Instances where reservation to file the civil action separately shall not be allowed:
(1) B.P. 22 cases [Sec. 1 [b], Rule 111]
(2) Cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan [P.D. 1606 as amended by R.A. 8249, Sec. 4]
(3) Tax cases [R.A. 9282, Sec. 7 [b][1]]
Q98: A INSTITUTED A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR LIBEL AGAINST THE ACCUSED B,

W HO PUBLICLY IMPUTED TO A ACTS CONSTITUTING VIOLATIONS OF THE ANTI-
GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT. PENDING TRIAL, B DIED. SUBSEQUENTLY, A
FILED A CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES BASED ON ARTICLE 33 OF THE CIVIL CODE
AGAINST THE EXECUTOR OF B’S ESTATE. THE HEIRS OF B MOVED FOR THE
DISMISSAL OF THE CIVIL ACTION, ASSERTING THAT THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF B W AS
EXTINGUISHED BY HIS DEATH. SHOULD DISMISSAL OF THE CIVIL ACTION BE
GRANTED?
A98: No. The claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the same
may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. An action for recovery therefor may
be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the
Rules on Criminal Procedure. The extinguishment of the criminal and civil liability arising from an ex-
delicto will not bar the private offended party from pursuing his claim for damages against the
executor or administrator of the former's estate, notwithstanding the fact that he did not reserve the
right to institute a separate civil action based on Article 33 of the Civil Code. [Villegas v. Court of
Appeals (1997)]
Q99: C PREVIOUSLY HAD A CASE FILED AGAINST HIM. SAID CASE W AS SCHEDULED
FOR ARRAIGNMENT, HE W AS ALREADY BONDED AND READY TO ENTER A PLEA.
THE RTC, HOW EVER, DISMISSED THE CASE EVEN BEFORE HE W AS ABLE TO ENTER
A PLEA BECAUSE OF A DEFECT IN THE INFORMATION. IN A SUBSEQUENT
Page 37 of 65
PROSECUTION FOR THE SAME ACTS AND THE SAME CRIME, CAN C INVOKE DOUBLE
JEOPARDY?
A99: To raise the defense of double jeopardy, three requisites must be present: (1) a first jeopardy
must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and
(3) the second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first. Legal jeopardy attaches only
(a) upon a valid indictment, (b) before a competent court, (c) after arraignment, (d) a valid plea having
been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of
the accused.
Here legal jeopardy did not attach. First, he never entered a valid plea. He himself admitted that he
was just about to enter a plea, but the first case was dismissed even before he was able to do so.
Second, there was no unconditional dismissal of the complaint. The case was not terminated by
reason of acquittal nor conviction but simply because he posted bail. Absent these two elements,
there can be no double jeopardy. [Canceran v. People, G.R. No. 206442 (2015), applying Rule 117 Sec. 7]

Q100: W HAT ARE THE INSTANCES OF A VALID W ARRANTLESS ARREST?
A100: 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;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; 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. [Rule 113, Sec. 5, Sec. 14]
Q101: MR. X W AS ARRESTED W ITHOUT A W ARRANT, ALLEGEDLY CAUGHT IN

POSSESSION OF 200 GRAMS OF MARIJUANA AFTER A BUY-BUST OPERATION.
AFTER BEING CHARGED BEFORE THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ILLEGAL
POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS, MR. X W ANTS TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR
BAIL PENDING TRIAL, BUT IS CONCERNED THAT HE MAY NO LONGER BE ABLE TO
QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF HIS ARREST. W HAT W OULD YOU SAY TO MR. X IF HE
COMES TO YOU FOR LEGAL ADVICE?
A101: I would advise Mr. X to proceed with the filing of the application for bail, considering that under
Section 26 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, an application for or admission to bail shall not bar the
accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or the legality of the warrant issued therefor, or
from assailing the regularity or questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation of the charge
against him, provided that he raises them before entering his plea. [Rule 114, Sec. 26]
Q102: W HAT ARE THE GROUNDS CITED FOR THE GRANT OF BAIL IN ENRILE V.
SANDIGANBAYAN?
A102: [Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 213847 (2015, MR in 2016), Bersamin, J.]
(1) The detainee will not be a flight risk or a danger to the community; and
(2) There exist special, humanitarian, and compelling circumstances.
Page 38 of 65
Q103: MR. X W AS INVITED BY POLICE OFFICERS TO THE POLICE STATION FOR AN

“INTERVIEW ” REGARDING AN ALLEGED CRIME W HICH MR. X IS SUSPECTED TO
HAVE COMMITTED. THERE W AS NO COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION FILED BEFORE
ANY PROSECUTOR OR ANY COURT AS OF THE DATE OF THE “INTERVIEW .” HE W AS
NOT ARRESTED; THE POLICE OFFICERS HAVE NO INTENTION OF DETAINING HIM. IS
MR. X ENTITLED TO THE RIGHTS OF A PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7438?
A103: Yes. Under Section 2 of RA 7438, custodial investigation includes the practice of issuing an
“invitation” to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have
committed, without prejudice to the liability of the “inviting” officer for any violation of law.
Jurisprudence also provides that custodial investigation starts when the police investigation is no
longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect taken
into custody by the police who starts the interrogation and propounds questions to the person to elicit
incriminating statements. [Sec. 2, RA 7438; People vs. Lara, G.R. No. 199877 (2012)]
Q104: R AND E W ERE CHARGED W ITH FOR THE SALE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS. HOW EVER,
THEY W ERE CONVICTED ONLY OF ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED DRUGS. IS
THEIR CONVICTION PROPER?
A104: Yes. Section 4, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court provides for the “variance doctrine” which allows
conviction for an offense that is different from the one charged in the Information when the offense
proved is included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is included in the offense
proved.
Since sale of dangerous drugs necessarily includes possession of the same, R and E can properly be
convicted of possession of drugs.
Q105: DOES THE NEYPES DOCTRINE APPLY TO CRIMINAL CASES?

A105: The Supreme Court has ruled that Neypes doctrine (“fresh period” after denial of MR/MNT)
should equally apply to criminal cases since although Rule 41 Section 3 of the Rules on Civil Procedure
and Rule 122 Section 6 on the Rules of Criminal Procedure are differently worded, there is no
substantial difference between the two provisions insofar as legal results are concerned. [Yu v. Samson-
Tatad, G.R. No. 170979 (2011)]
Q106: S INC., AS THE BUYER, ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT OF SALE OF REAL

ESTATE PROPERTIES W ITH B, INC., THE SELLER. AFTER THE CONTRACT OF SALE
BETW EEN S AND B W AS PERFECTED, S DEMANDED THAT B DELIVER TO IT THE TCTS
PERTAINING TO THEIR OBJECTS OF SALE. B, HOWEVER, REFUSED TO DELIVER.
HENCE, S SIMULTANEOUSLY FILED AN ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT FOR SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE BEFORE THE HLURB, AS WELL AS A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT BEFORE
THE CITY PROSECUTOR FOR THE CRIMINAL VIOLATION OF SECTION 25 OF
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 957. IN THEIR JOINT COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT, THE
DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF B FILED A MOTION TO SUSPEND THE PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE CITY PROSECUTOR, AVERRING THAT THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
HLURB W AS A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION W HICH WOULD W ARRANT THE SUSPENSION
OF THE CRIMINAL ACTION AGAINST THEM. SHOULD THE CRIMINAL ACTION BE
SUSPENDED?
Page 39 of 65
A106: Yes, although the rule on prejudicial question only pertains to civil cases, the rules on
prejudicial question may be applied in analogous situations where an issue in an administrative case
was considered a prejudicial question to the resolution of a civil case which, consequently, warranted
the suspension of the latter until after termination of the administrative proceedings. [Quiambao v.
Osorio (1988)] Here, the action for specific performance in the HLURB raises a prejudicial question that
sufficed to suspend the proceedings determining the criminal charge. The action for specific
performance in the HLURB would determine whether or not S, the buyer, was legally entitled to
demand the delivery of the TCTs, while the criminal action would decide whether or not B’s directors
and officers were criminally liable for withholding the TCTs. This is true simply because the action for
specific performance was an action civil in nature but could not be instituted elsewhere except in the
HLURB, whose jurisdiction over the action was exclusive and original. [San Miguel Properties, Inc. v.
Perez (2013)].
Note: Section 7 of Rule 111 clearly states that in the elements of a prejudicial question, the previous
action instituted is a civil action.
Page 40 of 65
EVIDENCE
Q107: W HEN IS JUDICIAL N OTICE MANDATORY?
A107: A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the:
(1) existence and territorial extent of states,
(2) their political history,
(3) forms of government and
(4) symbols of nationality;
(5) the law of nations,
(6) the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals,
(7) the political constitution and history of the Philippines,
(8) the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines,
(9) the laws of nature,
(10) the measure of time, and
(11) the geographical divisions [Sec. 1, Rule 129]
Q108: W HEN IS JUDICIAL N OTICE DISCRETIONARY?

A108: A court may take judicial notice of matters which are:
(1) of public knowledge, or
(2) are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or
(3) ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions. [Sec. 2, Rule 129]

Q109: W HAT SHOULD AN ACCUSED ESTABLISH IN ORDER FOR HIS DEFENSE OF
ALIBI TO PROSPER?
A109: For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must establish that:
(1) he was in another place at the time of the commission of the offense; and
(2) he was so far away that he could not have been physically present at the place of the crime, or
its immediate vicinity, at the time of its commission. [People v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 186528
(2011)]
Q110: DIFFERENTIATE EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION AND EXTRAJUDICIAL

ADMISSION.
A110:
Extrajudicial Confession Extrajudicial Admission
A declaration of an accused acknowledging his An act, declaration or omission of party as to a
guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense relevant fact [Sec. 26, Rule 130]
Page 41 of 65
necessarily included therein [Sec. 33, Rule 130]

In a confession, there is an acknowledgment of The term admission is usually applied to
guilt statements of fact by the accused which do not
directly involve an acknowledgment of his guilt or
of the intent to commit the offense.
A confession is an acknowledgment in express An admission may be express or implied, of facts
terms, by a party in a criminal case, of his guilt of pertinent to the issue and tending, in connection
the crime charged with proof of other facts, to prove his guilt
In other words, an admission is something less than a confession, and is but an acknowledgment of
some fact or circumstance which in itself is insufficient to authorize a conviction and which tends only
to establish the ultimate fact of guilt. [People v. Maqueda, G.R. No. 112983 (1995)]. Note however, that
under Section 3 of Rule 133, even an extrajudicial confession made by the accused is not sufficient for
conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
Q111: W HAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETW EEN A JUDICIAL ADMISSION AND AN

EXTRAJUDICIAL ADMISSION?
A111:
Judicial [Sec. 4, Rule 129] Extrajudicial [Secs. 26 and 32, Rule 130]
Made in connection with a judicial proceeding in Any other admission as to a relevant fact
which it is offered
Requires no proof, thus, deemed automatically May be given in evidence, thus, must still be
part of the case formally offered in evidence
May be contradicted by showing that that either Rebuttable
a) it was made through palpable mistake or b)
that no such admission was made
Verbal or written. Act, declaration, omission, or silence.
Q112: IN W HICH SITUATIONS MAY THE PRESENTATION OF AN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT

BE DISPENSED W ITH, AND W HAT MAY BE PRESENTED IN ITS STEAD?
A112:
Situation What to present instead
When the original has been lost or In the order stated:
destroyed, or cannot be produced in
(a) By a copy
court without bad faith on the
offeror’s part. (b) By a recital of its contents in some authentic document
(c) By the testimony of witnesses [Rule 130, Sec. 5]
When the original is in the custody or In the order stated:

under the control of the party
(a) By a copy
against whom it is offered, and the
latter fails to produce it after (b) By a recital of its contents in some authentic document
reasonable notice.
Page 42 of 65
(c) By the testimony of witnesses [Rule 130, Sec. 5]
When the original consists of The general result of the whole.

numerous accounts or other
documents which cannot be
examined in court without great loss
of time, and the fact sought to be
established from them is only the
general result of the whole.
When the original is a public record Certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof
in the custody of a public officer or is
recorded in a public office
Q113: DIFFERENTIATE THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE FROM THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
A113:
Best Evidence Rule Parol Evidence Rule
Contemplates the situation wherein the original

Presupposes that the original document is
writing is not available and/or there is a dispute as
available in court
to whether said writing is the original
Prohibits the introduction of substitutionary

evidence in lieu of the original document Prohibits the varying of the terms of a written
regardless of WON it varies the contents of the agreement
original
Applies only to documents contractual in nature

Applies to all kinds of documents
(Exception: wills)
Can be invoked by any party to an action regardless Can be invoked only when the controversy is
of WON such party participated in the writing between the parties to the written agreement,
involved their privies or any party directly affected thereby
Q114: W HAT ARE THE REQUISITES FOR THE ATTORN EY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE TO
APPLY?
A114:
(1) There must be a communication made by the client to the attorney or an advice given by the
attorney to his client;  
(2) The communication must have been given in confidence;  
(3) The communication or advice must have been given either in the course of the professional
employment or with a view to professional employment; and 
(4) The client has not given his consent to the attorney’s testimony thereon.  
Page 43 of 65
Attorney’s secretary, stenographer, or clerk are also covered by the rule and cannot be examined
concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity without the consent of
the client AND their employer.
Q115: THE ACCUSED MADE AN OFFER OF COMPROMISE ON DECEMBER 5, 2000. THE

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF BOUNCING CHECKS LAW W AS FILED
AGAINST THE ACCUSED ON 9 MARCH 2001. MAY THE OFFER OF COMPROM ISE BE
USED AGAINST THE ACCUSED?
A115: No. It is inadmissible. The Offer of Compromise dated 5 December 2000 was made prior to the
filing of the criminal complaint against her on 9 March 2001 for a violation of the Bouncing Checks
Law. The Offer of Compromise was clearly not made in the context of a criminal proceeding and,
therefore, cannot be considered as an implied admission of guilt. [San Miguel v. Kalalo, G. R. No.
185522, June 13, 2012]
Q116: W HAT ARE THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RES INTER ALIOS ACTA RULE?
A116:
(1) Adm ission by co-partner or agent. The act or declaration of a partner or agent of the
party within the scope of his authority and during the existence of the partnership or agency,
may be given in evidence against such party after the partnership or agency is shown by
evidence other than such act or declaration.
(2) Adm ission of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with
the party.
(3) Adm ission by conspirator. The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the
conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after
the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act of declaration.
(4) Adm ission by privies. Where one derives title to property from another, the act,
declaration, or omission of the latter, while holding the title, in relation to the property, is
evidence against the former. [Sections 29-31, Rule 130]
Q117: A DEED OF SALE OVER A REGISTERED PARCEL OF LAND W AS EXECUTED IN

FIVE (5) ORIGINAL CARBON COPIES. MAY A PHOTOCOPY OF ONE OF THE
ORIGINALS OF A DEED OF SALE BE USED AS EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE SALE?
A117: Generally, no. It is a well-settled principle that before secondary evidence can be presented, all
duplicates and/or counterparts must be accounted for, and no excuse for the non-production of the
original documents can be regarded as established until all its parts are unavailable. However, the
exception is when the opposing party fails to object to the evidence being presented, the same
becomes primary evidence. [Heirs of Dela Cruz v. CA, G.R. No. 117384 (1998)]
Q118: W HAT IS THE HEARSAY RULE? DIFFERENTIATE BETW EEN HEARSAY EVIDENCE
AND OPINION EVIDENCE.
A118: The hearsay rule is a rule of evidence to the effect that a witness can testify only to those facts
which he knows of his own knowledge or derived from his own perception, except as otherwise
provided in the Rules of Court [Sec. 36, Rule 130]
Page 44 of 65
Hearsay Evidence Opinion Evidence

Testimony that is not based on personal Expert evidence based on the personal
knowledge of the person testifying (Sec 36, knowledge, skill, experience of the person
Rule 130). testifying. (Sec 49, Rule 130) It includes
evidence of an ordinary witness on limited
matters (as enumerated under Sec 50, Rule
130).
Q119: W HAT ARE INDEPENDENTLY RELEVANT STATEMENTS, AND ARE THEY

INADMISSIBLE DUE TO THE HEARSAY RULE?
A119: Independently relevant statements are those statements or writings attributed to a person not
on the witness stand, which are being offered not to prove the truth of the facts stated therein, but
only to prove that such were actually made. [People v. Cusi, G.R. No. L-20986 (1965)] These are
statements which are relevant independently of whether they are true or not. [Estrada v. Desierto, G.R.
No. 146710 (2001)]
Jurisprudence has enumerated two classes of independently relevant statements:
(1) Statements which are the very facts in issue, and
(2) Statements which are circumstantial evidence of the facts in issue, which include the
following:
i. Statement of a person showing his state of mind, that is, his mental condition,
knowledge, belief, intention, ill will and other emotions;
ii. Statements of a person which show his physical condition, as illness and the like;
iii. Statements of a person from which an inference may be made as to the state of mind
of another, that is, the knowledge, belief, motive, good or bad faith, etc. of the latter;
iv. Statements which may identify the date, place and person in question; and
v. Statements showing the lack of credibility of a witness. [Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No.
146710 (2001)]
These statements are not covered by the hearsay rule [People v. Cusi, G.R. No. L-20986 (1965))
Q120: LETICIA W AS SEPARATED IN FACT FROM HER HUSBAND ANTONIO FOR OVER
A YEAR. SINCE THEIR ESTRANGEMENT, SHE STAYED W ITH HER BEST FRIEND, GINA,
IN THE LATTER’S CONDOMINIUM UNIT IN QUEZON CITY. THEREAFTER, THEY
DISCOVERED THAT ANTONIO W AS IN FACT HAVING AN AFFAIR W ITH ANOTHER
W OMAN. GINA CONTINUED INVESTIGATING AND FOUND OUT THAT ANTONIO HAD
FATHERED A CHILD W ITH THE SAID OTHER WOM AN. GINA CONFRONTED ANTONIO
ABOUT THE AFFAIR, INDICATING THAT LETICIA HAD BEEN STAYING WITH HER
SINCE THEIR SEPARATION. ONE W EEK LATER, GINA’S CONDOMINIUM UNIT W AS
SET ON FIRE, AND AS A RESULT, GINA DIED. LETICIA, W HO SURVIVED BECAUSE
SHE W AS AS A MERE MATTER OF CHANCE, NOT IN THE UNIT W HEN THE FIRE
BROKE OUT, CLAIMS TO HAVE SEEN ANTONIO IN THE LOBBY OF THE
CONDOMINIUM UNIT MINUTES BEFORE THE FIRE W AS FOUND TO HAVE STARTED.
IN A CRIMINAL CASE FOR ARSON AGAINST ANTONIO, THE PROSECUTOR SOUGHT
TO ELICIT THE SAID TESTIMONY FROM LETICIA. ANTONIO IMMEDIATELY OBJECTS
TO THIS, CITING MARITAL PRIVILEGE AND ARGUING THAT THE DECEASED GINA
Page 45 of 65
W AS LEGALLY A STRANGER, AND THUS NOT AN ASCENDANT OR DESCENDANT SO

AS TO FALL W ITHIN THE EXCEPTIONS IN THE RULES. RULE ON ANTONIO’S
OBJECTION.
A120:
Antonio’s objection is overruled. While it is true that as a general rule, neither the husband or wife,
during the marriage, may testify for or against the other without the consent of the offended spouse,
the rules provide for exceptions in the following cases: (1) In a civil case by one against the other; and
(2) In a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants
or ascendants [Sec. 22, Rule 130]. Since the crime of arson was also committed against the spouse (a
private offended party), the marital privilege rule should not apply in this case.
Moreover, in Alvarez v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 143439 (2005), the court stated that the marital
disqualification rule does not apply when the marital and domestic relations between spouses are
strained. The court found a situation where the security and confidences of private life which the law
aims to protect are nothing but ideals which through their absence, merely leave a void in the unhappy
home. Thus, there is no reason to apply the Marital Disqualification Rule.
Q121: W HAT ARE THE REQUISITES FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE DEAD MAN’S
STATUTE OR SURVIVORSHIP DISQUALIFICATION RULE?
A121: [Sec. 23, Rule 130]
(1) Defendant is the executor or administrator or a representative of the deceased or of the person
of unsound mind;
(2) Suit is upon a claim by the plaintiff against the estate of said deceased or person of unsound
mind;
(3) Witness is the plaintiff, or an assignor of that party, or a person in whose behalf the case is
prosecuted; and
(4) Subject of the testimony is as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such
deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind.
(5) Applicable only in civil cases
Q123: DIFFERENTIATE BURDEN OF PROOF FROM BURDEN OF EVIDENCE.

A123:
Burden of Proof Burden of Evidence
Duty of a party to present evidence on the Duty of the party to go forward with the
facts in issue necessary to establish his claim evidence to overthrow the prima facie
or defense by the amount of evidence evidence against him. [Bautista v. Sarmiento,
required by law. [Sec. 1, Rule 131] G.R. No. L-45137 (1985)]
Does not shift as it remains throughout the Shifts from party to party depending upon the
trial with the party upon whom it is imposed. exigencies of the case in the course of the
trial.
Generally determined by the pleadings filed Generally determined by the developments at
by the party. the trial or by the provisions of substantive
law or procedural rules which may relieve the
party from presenting evidence on the fact
Page 46 of 65
alleged i.e. presumptions, judicial notice and

admissions.
Q124: Z W AS ARRESTED IN A BUY-BUST OPERATION. THE PLASTIC SACHET

CONTAINING W HITE SUBSTANCES THAT HE SOLD W AS MARKED BY THE POLICEMAN
A W ITH HIS INITIALS “AA”. THE CRIME LABORATORY CERTIFIED THAT THE
CONTENTS OF THE SACHET W ERE SHABU. NO OTHER FACTS OR DETAILS W ERE
PROVEN BY THE PROSECUTION. CAN Z BE HELD LIABLE FOR SALE OF DANGEROUS
DRUGS?
A124: No, because of the substantial gaps in the chain of custody, i.e. the marking of the drugs or
related items was not proven to have been made in the presence of A nor immediately after A’s arrest,
and no records on the transfer of custody from the police station to the laboratory. [People v. Gonzales,
G.R. No. 182417 (2013)]
To secure a conviction of the accused charged with the illegal sale of dangerous drugs as defined and
punished by Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the State must establish the concurrence of
the following elements, namely: (a) that the transaction or sale took place between the accused and
the poseur buyer; and (b) that the dangerous drugs subject of the transaction or sale is presented in
court as evidence of the corpus delicti.
There is no proven violation when the dangerous drugs are missing, or when there are substantial
gaps in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs that raise doubts about the authenticity of
the evidence presented in court.
Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from
the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in
court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity
and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when
such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the
final disposition. [Sec. 1(b), DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002]
Q125: W HAT IS THE VALLEJO STANDARD?

A125: The Vallejo standard refers to jurisprudential norms considered by the court in assessing the
probative value of DNA evidence. In People v. Vallejo, G.R. No. 144656 (2002), it was held that in
assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, courts should consider, among other things, the
following data: how the samples were collected, how they were handled, the possibility of
contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper
standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst
who conducted the tests.
NOTE: The Vallejo standard was incorporated in Sec. 7 of the Rule on DNA Evidence, as follows:
(1) The chain of custody
a. including how the biological samples were collected, how they were handled, and the
possibility of contamination of the samples;
(2) The DNA testing methodology
b. including the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, the advantages and
disadvantages of the procedure, and compliance with the scientifically valid standards
in conducting the tests;
Page 47 of 65
(3) The forensic DNA laboratory

c. including accreditation by any reputable standards-setting institution and the
qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. If the laboratory is not accredited,
the relevant experience of the laboratory in forensic casework and credibility shall be
properly established; and
(4) The reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter provided.
Q126: ARE FACSIMILE OR FAX PRINTOUTS ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE ELECTRONIC

COMMERCE ACT? W HAT IS THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT RULE UNDER THE RULE
ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE?
A126: No, unless they are computer-generated faxes. According to jurisprudence, although fax
printouts or transmissions fall under the definition of an electronic data message since it is sent
through electronic means, it is not an electronic document since in ordinary facsimile transmissions
there exists an original paper-based information that is scanned or copied.
Fax transmissions therefore do not fall under the functional equivalent rule. The rule on electronic
evidence considers an electronic data message or an electronic document as a functional equivalent of
a written document for evidentiary purposes. A printout must thus first fall under the definition of an
electronic document to be considered a written document. In ordinary fax printouts, since the original
data is not made electronically, then it is inadmissible if unauthenticated with the original written
document [MCC Industrial v Ssangyong, G.R. No. 170633 (2007)]
Q127: MR. B W AS STABBED NEAR THE DEL PAN SPORTS COMPLEX IN BINONDO,
MANILA. HE W AS STILL ABLE TO W ALK TO THE HOUSE OF HIS UNCLE TO W HOM HE
TOLD THAT IT W AS MR. S W HO STABBED HIM. M R. B DIED SHORTLY AFTER BEING
ADMITTED TO THE HOSPITAL. CAN MR. B’S STATEMENT TO HIS UNCLE BE
ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE? IF YES, AS W HAT? IF NO, W HY NOT?
A127: Yes, it can be admitted both as a dying declaration and as part of res gestae.
As a dying declaration:
A dying declaration, although generally inadmissible as evidence due to its hearsay character, may
nonetheless be admitted when the following requisites concur, namely:
(1) that the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s
death;
(2) that at the time the declaration is made, the declarant is under a consciousness of an
impending death;
(3) that the declarant is competent as a witness; and
(4) that the declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in which
the declarant is a victim.
In this case, Mr. B communicated his ante-mortem statement to his uncle, identifying Mr. S as the
person who had stabbed him. There is ample authority for the view that the declarant’s belief in the
imminence of his death can be shown by the declarant’s own statements or from circumstantial
evidence, such as the nature of his wounds, statements made in his presence, or by the opinion of his
physician.
Page 48 of 65
As part of the res gestae:

A declaration or an utterance is deemed as part of the res gestae and thus admissible in evidence as an
exception to the hearsay rule when the following requisites concur, to wit:
(1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence;
(2) the statements are made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and
(3) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending
circumstances.
Here, the startling occurrence was the stabbing by Mr. S. Mr. B was on board a taxi on the way to the
hospital, and thus had no time to contrive his identification of Mr. S as the assailant. The test of
admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae is, therefore, whether the act, declaration, or
exclamation is so intimately interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it
characterizes as to be regarded as a part of the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negatives
any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony. [People v. Salafranca, G.R. No. 173476 (2012),
Bersamin, J.]
Q128: LATE IN THE NIGHT, X SENT A TEXT MESSAGE TO HIS MOTHER NARRATING
THAT HE SUFFERED A FATAL STAB W OUND DUE TO HIS CONFRONTATION W ITH HIS
DRINKING BUDDIES, NAMING Y AND Z AS THE PERSONS CAUSING SAID W OUNDS.
HE LIKEW ISE. BODE FAREW ELL TO HIS MOTHER, THANKED HER FOR EVERYTHING
SHE HAS DONE FOR HIM, AND TOLD HER THAT SHE LOVES HER SO MUCH. X DIED
SHORTLY THEREAFTER. IS THIS TEXT MESSAGE ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE IN A
MURDER CASE AGAINST THE NAMED INDIVIDUALS? IS THE MOTHER COMPETENT
TO TESTIFY ON THE MESSAGES?
A128: Yes, the text message is admissible as a dying declaration since it came from X who died
shortly thereafter and it concerns the cause and surrounding circumstances of his death. His belief
that he is dying is evident from his statement that the wound was fatal, the other contents of the
message, and the fact that he died shortly after he sent the text message.
Text messages (which are ephemeral electronic communications) are to be proved by the testimony of
a person who was a party to the same or has personal knowledge of them. As the recipient of
those messages sent from and to the mobile phone in their possession, the parents are parties to the
conversation and was competent to testify on them. [People v. Enojas, G.R. 204894 (2014) citing Sec.2,
Rule 11, Rule on Electronic Evidence]
NOTE: The coverage of the Rule on Electronic Evidence was expanded to include criminal cases in SC
Resolution dated 24 September 2002. [Sec. 2, Rule 1]
Q129: W HEN IS AN OFFER TO SETTLE CONSIDERED AS AN ADMISSION OF GUILT?

A129: In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses or those allowed by law to be
compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied
admission of guilt. [Sec. 27, Rule 130]
Note, however, that in one case the Court ruled that the testimony of complainant’s father that the
relatives of the accused made two offers to settle with the knowledge of the accused, should be
taken as an implied admission of the guilt of the accused. [People v. Salvador, G.R. No. 136870-72
(2003)]
Page 49 of 65
Q130: DIFFERENTIATE EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION AND EXTRAJUDICIAL

ADMISSION.
A130:
Extrajudicial Confession Extrajudicial Admission
A declaration of an accused acknowledging his An act, declaration or omission of party as to a
guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense relevant fact [Sec. 26, Rule 130]
necessarily included therein [Sec. 33, Rule 130]
In a confession, there is an acknowledgment of The term admission is usually applied to
guilt statements of fact by the accused which do not
directly involve an acknowledgment of his guilt or
of the intent to commit the offense.
A confession is an acknowledgment in express An admission may be express or implied, of facts
terms, by a party in a criminal case, of his guilt of pertinent to the issue and tending, in connection
the crime charged with proof of other facts, to prove his guilt
In other words, an admission is something less than a confession, and is but an acknowledgment of
some fact or circumstance which in itself is insufficient to authorize a conviction and which tends only
to establish the ultimate fact of guilt. [People v. Maqueda, G.R. No. 112983 (1995)]. Note however, that
under Section 3 of Rule 133, even an extrajudicial confession made by the accused is not sufficient for
conviction unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti.
Q131: W HAT IS THE EQUIPOISE DOCTRINE?

A131: The equipoise rule provides that where the evidence of the parties in a criminal case is evenly
balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in favor of the accused.
[Malana v. People, G.R. No. 173612 (2008)] In a civil case, when the evidence of the parties is in
equipoise, or when there is a doubt as to where the preponderance of evidence lies, the party with the
burden of proof fails and the petition must thus be denied. [Marubeni v. Lirag, G.R. No. 130998, (2001)]
Q132: DODI W AS CHARGED W ITH QUALIFIED RAPE UNDER ARTICLE 266-B(6) OF

THE REVISED PENAL CODE AND W AS COMPELLED BY THE COURT TO UNDERGO HIV
TESTING. THE RESULT OF THE TEST SHOW S THAT HE IS HIV POSITIVE. CAN THE
PROSECUTION OFFER SUCH RESULT IN EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE QUALIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCE THAT HE KNEW THAT HE W AS AFFLICTED W ITH HIV AND THE
VIRUS W AS TRANSMITTED TO THE VICTIM, DESPITE DODI’S OBJECTION TO ITS
ADMISSIBILITY ON THE GROUND OF HIS RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION,
RIGHT TO PRIVACY, AND FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE DOCTRINE?
A132: Yes, the result of the testing can be offered is admissible evidence. Firstly, the right to be
presumed innocent of the crime charged, right to privacy, and against self-incrimination of the
accused are not violated because the compulsory testing is authorized by law. The court may compel
the accused to submit himself to a blood test to determine whether he has HIV under Section 17(a) of
RA No. 8054. Further, the right against self-incrimination refers to compulsory testimonial
compulsion and does not include the body of the accused as evidence when it may be material. [Tijing
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125901 (2001); Sec. 1, Rule 28] Secondly, the fruit of the poisonous tree
doctrine applies only where the primary source is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, or was the
result of an illegal act. [People v. Alicando, G.R. No. 117487 (1995)]
Page 50 of 65
Q133: IS THE JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT RULE APPLICABLE TO CRIMINAL CASES?

A133: Yes, it is applicable to criminal actions in the following situations:
(1) where the maximum of the imposable penalty does not exceed six years;
(2) where the accused agrees to the use of judicial affidavits, irrespective of the penalty involved;
or
(3) with respect to the civil aspect of the actions, whatever the penalties involved are. [Sec 9(a),
Judicial Affidavit Rule, A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC]
Q134: W HAT ARE LEADING QUESTIONS AND ARE THEY ALLOW ED?
A134: A question which suggests to the witness the answer which the examining party desires is a
leading question. [Sec 10, Rule 132]
General Rule: Not allowed.
Exceptions:
(1) On cross examination;
(2) On preliminary matters;
(3) When there is a difficulty is getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is
ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is of feeble mind, or a deaf-mute;
(4) Of an unwilling or hostile witness;
(5) Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or
private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party; [Sec. 10, Rule
132]
(6) In all stages of examination of a child if the same will further the interests of justice [Sec 20,
Rule on Examination of Child Witness]
Q135: HOW IS AN OFFICIAL RECORD PROVED?

A135: The record of public documents when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an
official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or
by his deputy, and accompanied. If the record is not kept in the Philippines, it may be evidenced with a
certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country,
the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice
consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the
foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. [Sec. 24, Rule
132]
Q136: GIVE THE INSTANCES OF CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTIONS.

A136:
(1) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately
led to another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any
litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it:
(2) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of commencement of
the relation of landlord and tenant between them. [Sec. 2, Rule 131]
Page 51 of 65
Page 52 of 65
SPECIAL RULES
Q137: DIFFERENTIATE AND ENUMERATE THE PROHIBITED PLEADINGS UNDER
RULES ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR SMALL CLAIMS
CASES
A137: The prohibited pleadings are generally identical as to both rules, except that motions to dismiss
are not allowed in Small Claims, no matter the ground, as compared to Summary Procedure which
allows MTD if based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or failure to comply with barangay
conciliation.
Summary Procedure [Sec. 19, Rule on Summary Small Claims [Sec. 16, Rule for Small Claims]
Procedure]
(1) Motion to dismiss the complaint except on the (1) Motion to dismiss the Statement of Claims
[2016 Revised Rules prohibits any motion to
ground of
dismiss, unlike the previous rules which allowed
(a) Failure to comply with barangay an exception for the ground of lack of jurisdiction]
conciliation proceedings; or (2) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(b) Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter (3) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of
(2) Motion for a bill of particulars; a judgment, or for reopening of trial;
(3) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration, or (4) Petition for relief from judgment;
for reopening of trial;
(5) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
(4) Petition for relief from judgment;
affidavits, or any other paper;
(5) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings,
(6) Memoranda;
affidavits, or any other paper;
(7) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or
(6) Memoranda;
prohibition against any interlocutory order
(7) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or
issued by the court;
prohibition against any interlocutory order
(8) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
issued by the court;
(9) Dilatory motions for postponement;
(8) Motion to declare the defendant in default;
(10) Reply and Rejoinder;
(9) Dilatory motions for postponement;
(11) Third-party complaints; and
(10) Reply;
(12) Interventions.
(11) Third-party complaints; and
(12) Interventions.
Q138: A FILED A CASE IN THE MTCC (UNDER THE RULE FOR SMALL CLAIM S)
AGAINST ATTY. S, A MEMBER IN GOOD STANDING OF THE BAR, FOR A SUM OF
MONEY AMOUNTING TO PHP 199,999.99. S DID NOT FILE A RESPONSE TO THE
CLAIM THINKING THAT HE CAN CONVINCE A TO W ITHDRAW THE CASE AGAINST HIM
AND THAT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY A IS TOTALLY SPURIOUS, AND LIKEW ISE
Page 53 of 65
FAILED TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, FORGETTING THAT AN EXCEPTION TO THE

RULE THAT LAW YERS ARE NOT ALLOW ED TO APPEAR IN HEARINGS EXISTS W HEN
THEY ARE PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT. AS A RESULT THEREOF, JUDGMENT W AS
RENDERED AGAINST HIM FOR TH E FULL AMOUNT. HE NOW APPROACHES YOU, A
FELLOW MEMBER OF THE BAR W HO KNOW S MORE ABOUT THE RULE ON SMALL
CLAIMS THAN HE DOES, AS TO THE REMEDY HE MAY TAKE. W HAT REMEDY/IES
W ILL YOU ADVISE ATTY. S TO TAKE?
A138: I will advise him that the remedy available is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in the RTC.
The Rule expressly states that the decision in small claims cases shall be final, executory, and
unappealable. [Sec. 24]. Given that there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper, provided that
there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Observing the hierarchy
of courts, the petition should be filed in the RTC. [A.L. Ang v. Mondejar, G.R. No. 200804 (2014)]
Q139: IN AN UNLAW FUL DETAINER CASE IN THE MTCC, JUDGMENT W AS RENDERED

ORDERING RESPONDENT R TO VACATE PLAINTIFF P’S PREMISES. R APPEALED TO
THE RTC. IN THE RTC, THE COURT ALLOW ED PRESENTATION OF TW O MORE
W ITNESSES FOR THE RESPONDENT, IN ORDER TO PROVE AN EXTENSION OF THE
LEASE AGREEMENT. IS THIS ACTION PROPER?
A139: No. The RTC, in an appeal of the judgment in an ejectment case, shall not conduct a rehearing
or trial de novo. Section 18, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court clearly provides that “[t]he judgment or final
order shall be appealable to the appropriate Regional Trial Court which shall decide the same on the
basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or
briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the Regional Trial Court. Hence, the RTC’s
action are contrary to the rule by allowing further presentation of witnesses for its doing so was
tantamount to its holding of a trial de novo. [Manalang v. Bacani, G.R. No. 156995 (2015), Bersamin, J.]
Q140: W HAT IS A STRATEGIC LAW SUIT AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (SLAPP)?

W HAT SHOULD THE PARTIES PROVE IN SUPPORT OF A CLAIM OR IN DEFENSE OF
AN ALLEGATION OF SLAPP?
A140: SLAPP refers to a legal action filed to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle any legal
recourse that any person, institution or the government has taken or may take in the enforcement of
environmental laws, protection of the environment or assertion of environmental rights. [Sec. 1, Rule 6,
Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases].
To support a defense of a claim of SLAPP, substantial evidence must be shown that the acts for
enforcement of environmental laws are legitimate acts for the protection, preservation or
rehabilitation of the environment. The party against whom the defense of SLAPP is invoked should
prove by a preponderance of evidence that the action is not a SLAPP and is a valid claim. [Sec. 2
and 3, Rule 6]
NOTE: In a criminal case, the invocation of the defense of SLAPP is made in a motion to dismiss
rather than a motion to quash. Moreover, granting a motion to dismiss bars the refiling of a SLAPP in
accordance with the law of the case. In contrast, the grant of a motion to quash does not bar the filing
of a subsequent Information. [Annotation to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases,
Supreme Court Sub-Committee]
Q141: MAY A CITIZEN’S SUIT AW ARD DAMAGES AND OTHER FEES?
Page 54 of 65
A141: As to damages: No. The only recourse of a party or person who wishes to recover damages for
injury suffered is to file a separate action under Sec. 4, Rule 2. [Annotation to the Rules of Procedure
for Environmental Cases, Supreme Court Sub-Committee]
As to attorney’s fees, costs of suit and other litigation expenses: Yes. [Rule 5, Sec. 1]
Q142: STATE THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE, ITS APPLICATION, AND THE

SITUATIONS CALLING FOR ITS APPLICATION
A142: The precautionary principle states that when human activities may lead to threats of serious
and irreversible damage to the environment that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall
be taken to avoid or diminish that threat [Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, Sec. 4(f), Rule 1]
As to its application, the precautionary principle shifts the burden of evidence of harm away from
those likely to suffer harm and onto those desiring to change the status quo. By applying the
precautionary principle, the court may construe a set of facts as warranting either judicial action or
inaction, with the goal of preserving and protecting the environment. [ISAAA v. Greenpeace, G.R. No.
209271 (2015)]
It is a principle of last resort, only when application of the regular Rules of Evidence would cause in an
inequitable result for the environmental plaintiff, for example:
(a) settings in which the risks of harm are uncertain;
(b) settings in which harm might be irreversible and what is lost is irreplaceable; and
(c) settings in which the harm that might result would be serious
When the features of uncertainty, the possibility of irreversible harm, and the possibility of serious
harm coincide, the case for application of the precautionary principle is strongest [ISAAA v.
Greenpeace, supra]
Page 55 of 65
ANNEX
Comparative Table of the Writs Of Habeas Corpus, Amparo, and Habeas Data [De Leon]
Habeas Corpus Amparo Habeas Data
(1) All cases of illegal
confinement and
detention which any Involves the right to
person is deprived of his Involves right to life, privacy in life,
liberty liberty and security liberty or security
(2) Deprivation of violated or threatened violated or threatened
rightful custody of with violation by an by an unlawful act or
any person from the unlawful act or omission omission of a public
person entitled [Sec. 1] of a public official or official or employee, or
Nature, scope, employee or a private of a private individual or
function individual or entity entity engaged in the
Actual violation before writ gathering, collecting or
issues. storing of data or
Covers extralegal information regarding
killings and enforced the person, family,
NOTE: Villavicencio v. disappearances or home and
Lukban (G.R. No. L-14639, threats thereof. [Sec. 1] correspondence of the
1919) on applicability of the aggrieved party. [Sec. 1]
writ in case of constructive
restraint.
May not be suspended
Shall not diminish, Shall not diminish,
except in cases of invasion
increase or modify increase or modify
Limitations or rebellion when public
substantive rights [Sec. substantive rights [Sec.
safety requires it [Sec. 15,
23] 23]
Art. III, 1987 Const.]
Petition filed by the Any aggrieved party
aggrieved party or by any may file a petition.
qualified person or entity
in the following order:
However, in cases of
extralegal killings and
(1) Any member of the enforced
By a petition signed and immediate family disappearances, the
verified by the party for petition may be filed by
Who may file whose relief it is intended, (also successive):
or by some person on his (2) Any ascendant,
behalf [Sec. 3] descendant or
collateral relative of (1) Any member of the
the aggrieved within immediate family of
the 4th civil degree of the aggrieved
affinity or
consanguinity
(2) Any ascendant,
descendant or
(3) Any concerned citizen, collateral relative of
Page 56 of 65

organization, the aggrieved party
association or within the fourth
institution civil degree of
consanguinity or
affinity [Sec. 2]
Filing by the aggrieved
suspends the right of all
others [Sec. 2]
(1) At the option of
petitioner, RTC
(1) SC or any member where:
thereof, on any day and (a) Petitioner
at any time resides or
(2) CA or any member (b) Respondent
(1) SB, CA, SC, or any
thereof in instances resides or
justice of such courts
authorized by law
(2) RTC of place where (c) That which has
(3) RTC or a judge thereof, jurisdiction over
Where filed the threat, act, or
on any day and at any the place where
omission was
time, enforceable only the data or
committed or any
within his judicial district information is
element occurred
[Sec. 2] gathered,
[Sec. 3]
(4) MTC or first level courts collected or
in the absence of RTC stored
judges in a judicial (2) SC, CA, or SB – If
region [Sec. 35, BP 129] public data files of
government offices
[Sec. 3]
If SC/CA issued,
anywhere in the
Philippines.
If granted by the RTC or

Where Anywhere in the Anywhere in the
judge thereof, it is
enforceable Philippines [Sec. 4] Philippines [Sec. 3]
enforceable in any part of
the judicial region [Sec.
21, BP 129 which modified
the term judicial district in
Sec. 2, Rule 102 into judicial
region] where the judge sits
If issued by: If issued by: If issued by:
(1) SC/CA, or a member (1) SC or any of its (1) SC or any of its
Where thereof, returnable justices, returnable justices, before such
returnable before such court or before such court or Court or any justice
any member thereof or any justice thereof, or thereof, or CA/SB
an RTC before the CA/SB or or any of its justices,
Page 57 of 65

(2) RTC, or a judge thereof, any of their justices, or or the RTC of the
returnable before to any RTC of the place where the
himself [Sec. 2] place where the petitioner or
threat, act or omission respondent
was committed or any resides/has
of its elements jurisdiction over the
occurred place where the
data or information
(2) CA/SB or any of their
is gathered, stored
justices, returnable
or collected
before such court or
any justice thereof, or (2) CA/SB or any of its
to any RTC of the justices, before
place where the such court or any
threat, act, or justice thereof, or
omission was RTC (same with
committed or any of scenario: SC issued
its elements occurred and then returned
in RTC)
(3) RTC or any judge
thereof, returnable (3) RTC, returnable
before such court or before such court or
judge [Sec. 3] judge [Sec. 4]
None for indigent
Petitioner shall be petitioner
exempted from the
payment of the docket
Upon the final disposition of
and other lawful fees Petition shall be
such proceedings the court
docketed and acted
Docket Fees or judge shall make such
upon immediately,
order as to costs as the case
Court, justice or judge without prejudice to
requires [Sec. 19]
shall docket the petition subsequent submission
and act upon it of proof of indigency not
immediately [Sec 4] later than 15 days from
filing [Sec. 5]
Signed and verified either Signed and verified and Verified and written
by the party for whose relief shall allege: petition shall contain:
it is intended or by some
person on his behalf, setting
forth: (1) The personal (1) Personal
Essential circumstances of the circumstances of
allegations/ petitioner petitioner and
Contents of (1) The person in whose respondent
(2) Name or appellation
petition behalf the application and circumstances of (2) Manner the right to
is made is imprisoned the respondent privacy is violated
or restrained of his or threatened and
liberty (3) The right to life,
its effects
liberty, and security
(2) Name of the person violated or (3) Actions and
detaining another or threatened with recourses taken by
Page 58 of 65

assumed appellation violation, the petitioner to
secure the data or
(3) Place where he is (4) The investigation
information
imprisoned or conducted, if any,
restrained of his liberty plus circumstances (4) The location of the
of each files, registers, or
(4) Cause of detention
databases, the
[Sec. 3] (5) The actions and
government office,
recourses taken by
and the person in
the petitioner
charge or control
(6) Relief prayed for
(5) The reliefs prayed
for
May include a general
prayer for other just and
Such other relevant
equitable reliefs [Sec. 5]
reliefs as are just and
equitable [Sec. 6]
Court or judge must, when a
petition is presented and it Upon filing of the
appears that it ought to petition, the court,
issue, grant the same and Upon the filing of the justice, or judge shall
then: petition, the court, justice, immediately order the
or judge shall issuance of the writ if on
immediately order the its face it ought to issue.
- the clerk of court (CoC) issuance of the writ if on
shall issue the writ under its face it ought to issue
the seal of the court or - CoC shall issue the
writ under the seal
- in case of emergency,
- CoC shall issue the of the court and
the judge may issue the
When proper writ under the seal of cause it to be
writ under his own hand,
the court or served within 3 days
and may depute any
from issuance or
officer or person to serve - In case of urgent
it necessity, the justice - In case of urgent
or the judge may issue necessity, the
the writ under his or justice or judge may
Also proper to be issued her own hand, and issue the writ under
when the court or judge has may deputize any his or her own
examined into the cause of officer or person to hand, and may
restraint of the prisoner, serve it. [Sec. 6] deputize any officer
and is satisfied that he is or person to serve it
unlawfully imprisoned [Sec. [Sec. 7]
5]
Writ may be served in any The writ shall be served The writ shall be served
province by the (a) sheriff, upon the respondent by a upon the respondent by
(b) other proper officer, or judicial officer or by a a judicial officer or by a
Service (c) person deputed by the person deputized by the person deputized by the
court or judge. court, justice or judge court, justice or judge
who shall retain a copy on who shall retain a copy
which to make a return of on which to make a
Page 59 of 65

Service is made by leaving service. return of service.
the original with the person
to whom it is directed and
preserving a copy on which In case the writ cannot be In case the writ cannot
to make return of service. served personally on the be served personally on
respondent, the rules on the respondent, the
If that person cannot be
substituted service shall rules on substituted
found, or has not the
apply [Sec. 8] service shall apply [Sec.
prisoner in his custody,
9]
service shall be made on
any other person having or
exercising such custody
[Sec. 7]
A public official or
Respondent is a public employee or a private
May or may not be an officer official or employee or individual or entity
Respondent
[Sec. 6] private individual or entity engaged in gathering,
[Sec. 1] collecting or storing
data [Sec. 1]
The officer to whom the writ
is directed shall convey the
person so imprisoned or
restrained before:
- the judge allowing the

writ, or
- in his absence or
disability, before some
other judge of the same
court
How executed Respondent files the Respondent files the
and returned return [Sec. 9] return [Sec. 10]
on the day specified in the
writ, unless person directed
to be produced is sick or
infirm, and cannot, without
danger, be brought therein.
Officer shall then make due
return of the writ, with the
day and cause of the
caption and restraint
according to the command
thereof [Sec. 8]
Within 5 working days
When to file On the day specified on the Same as Amparo [Sec.
after service of the writ
return writ [Sec. 8] 10]
[Sec. 9]
Contents of When the person to be Within 5 working days (1) Lawful defenses
Page 60 of 65

return produced is imprisoned or after service of the writ, such as national
restrained by an officer, the the respondent shall file a security, state
person who makes the verified written return secrets, privileged
return shall state, and in together with supporting communications,
other cases the person in affidavits which shall, confidentiality of the
whose custody the prisoner contain: source of
is found shall state in information of media
writing to the court or judge etc.
before whom the writ is (1) Lawful defenses
(2) In case of
returnable:
(2) The steps or actions respondent
taken to determine incharge, in
the fate or possession or in
(1) Truth of custody/power
whereabouts of the control of the data or
over the aggrieved party
aggrieved party information subject
(2) If he has custody or of the petition:
(3) All relevant
power, or under
information in the (a) A disclosure of
restraint, the authority
possession of the the data or
and the cause thereof,
respondent pertaining information
with a copy of the writ,
to the threat, act or about the
order, execution or other
omission against the petitioner, the
process, if any upon
aggrieved party nature of such
which the party is held
data or
(4) If the respondent is a
(3) If the party is in his information, and
public official or
custody or power, and is the purpose for
employee, the return
not produced, its collection
shall further state
particularly the nature
acts: (b) The steps or
and gravity of the
actions taken by
sickness or infirmity (a) To verify identity of
the respondent
aggrieved party
(4) If he has had the party in to ensure the
his custody or power, (b) To recover and security and
and has transferred such preserve evidence confidentiality of
custody or restraint to the data or
(c) To identify and
another, particularly to information
collect witness
whom, at what time, for
statements (c) The currency and
what cause, and by what
(d) To determine accuracy of the
authority such transfer
cause, manner, data or
was made. [Sec. 10]
location, and time information held
of death or (3) Other allegations
disappearance relevant to the
(e) To identify and resolution of the
apprehend proceeding [Sec.10]
persons involved
(f) Bring suspected
offenders before a
competent court
[Sec.9]
Page 61 of 65

Return or statement shall
be signed and sworn to by
Respondent shall file a
the person who makes it if Respondent shall file a
verified written return
Formalities of the prisoner is not verified written return
together with
return produced, unless the return together with supporting
supporting affidavits
is made and signed by a affidavits [Sec. 9]
[Sec. 10]
sworn public officer in his
official capacity [Sec. 11]
(1) CoC who refuses to issue (1) Contempt without

the writ after allowance (1) Contempt without prejudice to other
and demand, or prejudice to other disciplinary actions
disciplinary actions
(2) A person to whom a writ (a) CoC who refuses
is directed, who: (a) CoC who refuses to to issue the writ
issue the writ after after its
(a) neglects/refuses to its allowance, or allowance, or
Penalties obey or make return
of the same according (b) A deputized person (b) A deputized
to the command who refuses to person who
For refusing to thereof, serve the writ [Sec. refuses to serve
issue or serve 7] the writ [Sec. 8]
(b) or makes false return,
(2) Contempt punishable (2) Contempt punishable
(c) or upon demand by imprisonment or a by imprisonment or a
For faulty made by or on behalf fine fine
return of the prisoner,
refuses to deliver to (a) A respondent (a) A respondent
the person whorefuses to whorefuses to
demanding, within 6 make a return, or make a return, or
hours a true copy of (b) A respondent who (b) A respondent who
the warrant or order makes a false makes a false
of commitment, return, or return, or
shall forfeit to the party (c) Any person who (c) Any person who
aggrieved the sum of otherwise disobeys otherwise
P1000, recoverable in a or resist a lawful disobeys or resist
proper action, and may also process or order of a lawful process
be punished for contempt the court [Sec. 16] or order of the
[Sec. 16] court [Sec. 11]
No, not even on highly Yes, for justifiable
meritorious grounds. reasons [Sec. 10]
Is period of
return Note: Motion for Note: Motion for
extendable? extension of time to file a extension of time to file
return is a prohibited a return is a prohibited
pleading [Sec. 11] pleading [Sec. 13]
Is a general
Not allowed [Sec. 9] Not allowed [Sec. 10]
denial allowed?
Defenses not Deemed waived if not
pleaded raised in return [Sec. 10]
Page 62 of 65

Court, judge, or justice
shall hear the motion ex
parte, granting the
petitioner such reliefs as
the petition may
Court or justice shall
Effect of failure warrant
proceed to hear the
to file return
petition ex parte [Sec. 12]
Unless the court in its
discretion requires the
petitioner to submit
evidence [Sec. 14]
Summary.
Summary.
However, the court,

justice, or judge may call With possibility of
for a preliminary preliminary conference
conference to simplify the similar to Amparo [Sec.
issues and look at 14]
possibility of obtaining
Nature of
stipulations and
Hearing
admissions from the Hearing in chambers
parties. may be conducted
where respondent
invokes the defense of
Hearing shall be from day national security or
to day until completed state secrets, or the
same priority as petitions data is of privileged
for Habeas Corpus [Sec. character [Sec. 12]
13]
As specified in the writ,
As specified in the writ,
not later than 10
Date and time As specified in the writ [Sec. not later than 7 days from
working days from the
of hearing 8] the issuance of the writ
date of issuance writ
[Sec. 6]
[Sec. 7]
(1) Motion to dismiss
(2) Motion for extension
of time to file
In custody of minors: a opposition, affidavit,
motion to dismiss, except position paper and
Prohibited other pleadings Same as Amparo [Sec.
on the ground of lack of
pleadings 13]
jurisdiction [Sec. 6, Rule on (3) Dilatory motion for
Custody of Minors and WHC] postponement
(4) Motion for bill of
particulars
(5) Counterclaims or
Page 63 of 65

cross-claims
(6) Third-party complaint
(7) Reply
(8) Motion to declare
respondent in default
(9) Intervention
(10) Memorandum
(11) Motion for
reconsideration of
interlocutory orders or
interim relief orders
(12) Petition for certiorari,
mandamus, or
prohibition [Sec.11]
Substantial evidence
• if respondent is a
private individual or
Substantial evidence
Burden of Clear and convincing entity, ordinary
required to prove the
Proof/Standard evidence [Dizon v. Eduardo, diligence
allegations in the
of Diligence G.R. No. L-59118 (1988)]
• if public official or petition [Sec. 16]
employee,
extraordinary
diligence [Sec. 17]
Public official or
Yes. Consonant with Sec. 13,
employee cannot
stating that if warrant of
Presumption of invoke the presumption
commitment is in pursuance
Official Duty that official duty has been
with law, serves as prima
regularly performed [Sec.
facie cause of restraint
17]
Upon filing of the petition
or at any time before final
judgment, the court,
justice or judge may grant
any of the following
reliefs:
Interim reliefs - temporary protection
order
- inspection order
- production order
- witness protection
order [Sec. 14]
Page 64 of 65

Within 10 days from the Within 10 days from the
time the petition is time the petition is
Judgment
submitted for decision submitted for decision
[Sec. 18] [Sec. 16]
Within 48 hours from notice 5 working days from the 5 working days from the
of the judgment of final date of notice of adverse date of notice of adverse
Appeal
order appealed [Sec. 39, BP judgment to the SC under judgment to the SC
129] Rule 45 [Sec. 19] under Rule 45 [Sec. 19]
Institution of
Separate Not precluded Not precluded
Actions
Consolidated with a Consolidated with a
Consolidation criminal action filed criminal action filed
of actions subsequent to the subsequent to the
petition [Sec. 23] petition [Sec. 21]
No more separate
petition shall be filed.
Effect of filing Same as Amparo [Sec.
Reliefs available by
criminal action 21]
motion in the criminal
case [Sec. 22]
Page 65 of 65

UP Preweek Remedial 2017

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

UP Preweek Remedial 2017

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

UP LAW BOC REMEDIAL LAW PRE-WEEK

Q2: W HAT IS THE SLIP RULE?

Q4: DISCUSS THE CONCEPT OF RESIDUAL JURISDICTION, AND DIFFERENTIATE

Q6: STATE THE RULE W HEN IT COMES TO SPLITTING A CAUSE OF ACTION.

Q7: STATE THE RULE AS TO MISJOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION.

Q8: W HAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF A CLASS SUIT?

Q9: W HAT IS “ADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION” IN RELATION TO A CLASS SUIT?

Q11: W HAT IS THE EFFECT OF A FAILURE TO IMPLEAD A PARTY?

Q14: W HEN IS A COUNTERCLAIM COMPULSORY?

Q16: W HAT IS A CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING?

Q117: W HAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO COMPLY W ITH THE

False certification Constitutes indirect contempt, without prejudice to

Q18: W HAT IS AN ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT?

Q20: W HEN DOES DENIAL NOT NEED TO BE UNDER OATH?

Q21: W HAT IS THE EFFECT OF FAILURE TO DENY AN ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT UNDER

Q22: W HAT ARE THE THREE MODES OF SPECIFIC DENIAL?

Q23: W HAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AN AMENDED AND A SUPPLEMENTAL

Q24: W HAT IS PERSONAL SERVICE?

Q25: JOE BOMB OW NS A COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN. HE

Q30: HOW SHOULD SUMMONS BE SERVED ON A FOREIGN PRIVATE JURIDICAL ENTITY

Q31: W HEN CAN THERE BE RESORT TO SUBSTITUTED SERVICE?

Q32: HOW DO YOU EFFECT SUBSTITUTED SERVICE?

Q33: DIFFERENTIATE BETW EEN ACTIONS IN PERSONAM, ACTIONS IN REM AND

Q34: W HEN MAY EXTRATERRITORIAL SERVICE OF SUMMONS BE RESORTED TO, AND

Service of summons is effected, by leave of court, in the following modes:

Q35: HOW IS SERVICE OF SUMMONS DONE TO A DOMESTIC CORPORATION,

Q38: W HAT IS THE EFFECT OF FAILURE TO FILE A PRE-TRIAL BRIEF?

Q40: DISTINGUISH PRE-TRIAL IN CIVIL CASES AND PRE-TRIAL IN CRIMINAL CASES.

jurisdiction over the person of

If the plaintiff fails to file said motion

Q41: W HEN MAY DEPOSITIONS OF A W ITNESS BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE?

Q43: W HAT ARE THE REQUISITES FOR INTERVENTION?

Q44: W HAT IS A JUDGMENT COGNOVIT ACTIONEM, AND IS IT VALID?

Q45: W HAT IS A MEMORANDUM DECISION, AND W HEN CAN IT BE CONSIDERED

Q46: W HAT ARE THE GROUNDS FOR QUASHING A SUBPOENA?

A46: [Sec. 4, Rule 23]

Q47: W HAT IS THE VIATORY RIGHT OF A W ITNESS, AND IS IT APPLICABLE TO BOTH

Q48: W HAT ARE THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF CONSOLIDATION?

Q49: DISTINGUISH A JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS FROM A SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

Other differences are as follows [Riguera]:

Q50: DISTINGUISH THE FINAL JUDGMENT RULE FROM THE DOCTRINE OF

3) Collateral order exception modification in order to harmonize the

Q51: HOW MAY A FOREIGN JUDGMENT BE ENFORCED?

According to jurisprudence, the requisites are:

Q54: W HAT IS A STATUS QUO ANTE ORDER, AND DIFFERENTIATE IT FROM A

Q55: ON W HAT GROUNDS MAY A PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT BE GRANTED?

Q56: W HAT IS THE LIFETIME OF A W RIT OF EXECUTION?

Q57: CAN A FOREIGN ARBITRAL AW ARD BE ENFORCED UNDER SECTION 48 OF RULE

Q58: HOW MAY A JUDGMENT BE EXECUTED BY MOTION, AND W HEN MAY IT BE BY

Q60: DOES FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BAR RESORT TO A

Q62: W HAT IS INVERSE CONDEMNATION?

Q64: DEFINE “GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LAW OR EXCESS OF

Q64: W HAT ARE THE ESSENTIAL REQUISITES OF AN UNLAW FUL DETAINER?

Q65: W HAT IS CONTEMPT O F COURT?

Q67: ATTY. ANDREW BOGADO W AS CHARGED OF INDIRECT CONTEMPT OF COURT, ON

Q70: MAY DISMISSED APPEALS BE REINSTATED?

Q71: EXPLAIN THE DUAL FUNCTION OF APPELLATE COURTS

Q72: STATE THE HARMLESS ERROR RULE IN APPELLATE DECISIONS

at any time where:

Q74: THE RESIDENTS OF MT. AHOHOY, HEADED BY MASIGASIG, FORMED A

Q77: M W AS ARRESTED AND DETAINED THROUGH A SEARCH W ARRANT ISSUED BY

Q78: DISTINGUISH PEREMPTORY W RIT FROM PRELIMINARY CITATION

time and place therein specified

by an accredited person for the purpose of books, accounts, Program.