I.

No, the Filtex’s contention is not correct.

Under the Rules on Evidence, Best Evidence Rule does not apply
when a document is offered in court as evidence not to prove its content
but other matters.

Here, the subject of the inquiry is not the content of the letters of
credit but the existence of such letters of credit which does not call for the
application of Best Evidence Rule.

Hence, the Filtex’s contention is not correct.

II.

The objection of the Plaintiffs should be denied by the trial court.

Under the Rules on Civil Procedure, an actionable document need

not be denied under oath if the inquiry of the action is not the genuiness
and due execution of the actionable document. Also, a mere specific denial
not under oath will not bar the raising the defense of forgery.

Here, the subject of the inquiry in the action is not the genuiness and
due execution of the deed of sale, thus, it need not be specifically denied
under oath and does not bar the raising of the defense of forgery.

Hence, the objection of the Plaintiffs should be denied by the trial

court.
 III.

The motion to dismiss filed by Manguila on the ground of improper

venue should be denied.

Under the Rules on Civil Procedure, a personal action involving a

juridical entity as the plaintiff may be filed in the city or municipality
where the principal office of such juridical entity is located or in the city or
municipality where the defendant resides at the election of the plaintiff.

Here, the action filed by Guina was a collection sit in behalf of Air
Swift, which is a juridical entity and having a principal office located at
Pasay City. Thus, the collection suit may be filed by the plaintiff in Pasay
City where Air Swift has principal office or in San Fernando Pampanga
where Manguila resides at the election of the Plaintiff Guina in behalf of
Air swift.

Hence, the motion to dismiss filed by Manguila on the ground of

improper venue should be denied.

IV.

The motion to dismiss filed by Rona on the ground that the ex parte
petition for a writ of possession contained a false certification against
forum shopping should be denied.

Under the Rules on Civil Procedure, certification against forum

shopping is required only in initiatory pleadings.

Here, it is noteworthy that the pleading that was filed by Metrobank

was an ex parte petition for writ of possession which is not an initiatory
pleading, thus a certification against forum shopping is not required.

Hence, the motion to dismiss filed by Rona should be denied.

 V.

My advice to Dencio would be to file a petition for relief from

judgment with provisional remedy for preliminary injunction.

Under the Rules on Civil Procedure, an aggrieved party on a suit

may file a petition for relief from judgment to the higher court on the
ground of Fraud, Accident, Mistake or Excusable Negligence for the
purpose of ordering the court who rendered decision to relieve the
aggrieved party from the decision and to lift the order as if a timely motion
for reconsideration or new trial has filed. Moreover, since the judgment or
final order is already final and executory the party should file a provisional
remedy of preliminary injunction to prevent the court from issuing a writ
of execution.

VI.

(a)

Yes, if I am the lawyer for the plaintiff, I could object to the

introduction of such evidence by the defendant on the ground of
inadmissibility.

Under the Rules on Evidence, as a general rule, evidence on collateral

matters are inadmissible as evidence.

Here, the evidence sought to introduce by the defendant that Jesus

Lim had no authority to negotiate and to obtain a loan, nor to sign the
promissory note is a collateral matter since I does not tend to prove the
probability or improbability that the defendant has obligation to the
plaintiff, thus, inadmissible as evidence.

Hence, as lawyer for the plaintiff, I could object to the introduction of

such evidence of the defendant on the ground of inadmissibility.
 (b)

No, the court may not grant the motion for execution on the ground
of the filing of the bond.

Under the Rules on Civil Procedure, motion for execution of

judgment or final order may be granted only when the period to file an
appeal has lapsed and judgment or final order is already final and
executory.

Here, it is noteworthy that the defendant appealed the judgment of

the court within the period to file an appeal and when the judgment is not
yet final and executory.

Hence, the court may not grant the motion for execution on the
ground of filing of the bond.

VII

(a)

Yes, the order of Judge Harbottle finding Atty. Vanilla guilty of

indirect contempt is proper.

Under the Rules on Special Civil action, indirect contempt may be

imposed on any person, officer of the court or court employees who
committed acts tends to put stain in the integrity and independence of the
judiciary, while out or not in the presence or near the court.

Here, the act of Atty. Vanilla of posting on Facebook which tends to

put stain in the integrity and independence of the judiciary is a proper
ground to hold her in indirect contempt.

Hence, the order of Judge Harbottle finding Atty. Vanilla guilty of

indirect contempt is proper.
 (b)

The remedy of Atty. Vanilla from the order of Judge Harbottle

finding her guilty of indirect contempt is to file a motion for
reconsideration on the ground that the evidence was insuffient to hold him
guilty of indirect contempt.

Moreover, if Judge Harbottle’s decision was tainted with grave abuse

of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, Atty. Vanilla may
file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

VIII

My advice will be to file an appropriate action for eviction on the

ground of forcible entry within one (1) year from notice to vacate was
served to Dong.

Under the Rules on Special Civil Action, action for eviction based on
forcible entry on the of stealth may be filed, by a party who was deprived
of the possession of real property, within one (1) year from notice to the
other party to vacate the premises of the subject property.

Here, the appropriate remedy is to file an action for eviction based on

forcible entry on the ground of stealth sice Dong occupied the property of
my client, depriving him of its possession and occupying it without his
prior knowledge or consent.

Hence, my advice will be to file an appropriate action for eviction on

the ground of forcible entry within one (1) year from notice to vacate was
served to Dong.
 IX

The proper remedy to avail to protect the interests of mu client is to

file a petition for declaratory relief before the Regional Trial Court which
has jurisdiction over the subject property.

Under the Rules on Special Civil Action, a party may file a petition
for declaratory relief asking the court to declare the rights and duties of the
parties in a statute, ordinance, regulation, title or contract which is
ambiguous or not clear. The petition for declaratory relief must be filed
before the Regional Trial Court since it is an action incapable of pecuniary
estimation.

(a)

No, the motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of

jurisdiction over the subject matter is not a prohibited ground to file a
motion to dismiss.

Under the Rules on Summary procedure, motion to dismiss on the

grounds of lack of jurisdiction over subject matter, res judicata, litis
pendentia and prescription is not prohibited grounds to raise in a motion
to dismiss during the proceedings.

Here, the motion to dismiss filed by Digong’s lawyer was grounded

to lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, thus it is not prohibited.

Hence, the motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of

jurisdiction over the subject matter is not a prohibited motion.
 (b)

Pinoy’s lawyer should counter the motion to dismiss by filing an

amendment to the complaint for forcible entry indicating how and in what
manner the unlawful deprivation of possession was made.

Under the Rules on Civil Procedure, filing of motion to amend the

complaint may be filed as a matter of right before the other party files his
responsive pleading.

Here, the lawyer of Digong filed a motion to dismiss which is not a

responsive pleading thus Pinoy’s lawyer may still amend the complaint for
forcible entry as a matter of right to cure the defect of the complaint.

Hence, Pinoy’s lawyer should counter the motion to dismiss by filing

an amendment to the complaint.

XI

The court should grant the motion to strike out the judicial affidavit
on the ground that the testimony of the character witness is irrelevant.

Under the Rules on Evidence, character evidence is generally

inadmissible as evidence sice it does not have a relation to the fact in issue.

Here, the character evidence presented by Subas is a self-serving

evidence and does not have a direct relation to the fact that the check
bounced upon presentment by Fagen despite his defense of payment.

Hence, the court should grant the moton to strike out the judicial
affidavit on the ground that the testimony of the character witness is
irrelevant.
 XVIII

The motion to quash filed by Eras on the ground of double jeopardy

should not be granted.

Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, to be able to apply double

jeopardy, it must comply with the requisite among others that the second
jeopardy must arise from the same offense to which the accused was
convicted or acquitted.

Here, double jeopardy will not apply since the first offense
committed by Eras was based under the Cybercrime Prevention Act and
the second offense was based from Anti-Child Pornography Act which is a
different and distinct law in which Eras’ second jeopardy was based.

Hence, the motion to quash filed by Eras on the ground of double

jeopardy should not be granted.

XIX

(a) The court should not grant the motion to dismiss filed by Vishy on
the ground of res judicata.

Under the Rukes on Criminal procedure, a civil action may be

instituted after the prosecution of criminal action if the party reserve his
right to file the civil action and decided to file it separately or when it is
filed as independent civil action.

Here, the complaint for damages filed by Gindra was instituted as

independent civil action.

Hence, the court should not grant the motion to dismiss.

(b) The court should not grant the motion to dismiss based on
prescription.

Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, a civil action instituted as

independent civil action will proceed separately from the prosecution of
the criminal offense even the period for filing of the criminal action has
lapsed.

Here, the complaint for damages filed by Gindra as independent civil

action will proceed separately from prosecution of serious physical injuries
and will proceed even after the period for filing the criminal action has
lapsed.

Hence, the court should not grant the motion to dismiss filed by
Vishy on the ground of prescription.