REMEDIAL LAW

QUESTION 1

A was a holder in due course of a promissory note issued by B. After maturity, B unjustly refused to pay
upon As presentment of the note.

Despite repeated demands B refused to pay and even dared A to sue him.

As a result, A filed a complaint against B for a collection of a sum of money. B believing that the
allegations against him were false, arrogantly refused to file an answer to the complaint.

You are the counsel of A, what will you do?

After the lapse of the allowable period, file a motion to declare the defendant in default under Rule 9
section 3 of the rules of court.

Section 3. Default; declaration of. If the defending party fails to answer within the time allowed
therefor, the court shall, upon motion of the claiming party with notice to the defending party, and
proof of such failure, declare the defending party in default. Thereupon, the court shall proceed to
render judgment granting the claimant such relief as his pleading may warrant, unless the court in its
discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence. Such reception of evidence may be delegated to
the clerk of court.

Now since the effect of default due to failure to file an answer is that all the allegations are deemed true
and correct, then after the order of default, file a motion for judgment on the pleadings under rule 34 of
the rules of court.

Section 1. Judgment on the pleadings. Where an answer fails to tender an issue, or otherwise
admits the material allegations of the adverse party's pleading, the court may; on motion of that party,
direct judgment on such pleading. However, in actions for declaration of nullity or annulment of
marriage or for legal separation, the material facts alleged in the complaint shall always be proved.
QUESTION 2

In a case for illegal possession of drugs, the prosecution called as a witness the wife of the accused. The
counsel of the accused objected on the ground that it was against the marital disqualification rule. Is his
contention correct.

Yes. Under sec. 22 of rule 130 on the rules of evidence, " during their marriage, neither the husband nor
the wife may testify for or against each other without the consent of the affected spouse, except in a
civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other
or the latter's direct descendant or ascendant".

QUESTION 3

A drew a check against PNB in favor of B in consideration for the sale of a tractor head in the amount of
P1,600,000. However, the check was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds in A's account. As B's
attorney, provide sound legal advice.

Answer: first and foremost, i would advice B to immediately inform A that the check he drew has
bounced due to insufficiency of funds. Second, i will give A 5 days from the date of notice to pay the full
amount of the check. Otherwise, we will be constrained to file an action with the MTC under summary
procedures. My client will pay the full amount of the check which will constitute as the actual damages
as the civil and criminal aspect in violations of BP 22 can not be filed separately.
QUESTION 4

Mr. A is a resident of Batangas. Mr. X is a resident of Muntinlupa. They had a dispute on their Contract
of Lease in Muntinlupa which was entered by Mr. A with Mr. Xs Father. Mr X told Mr. A that the
Contract was null and void since it was entered by his father and not him. Alarmed Mr. A filed in RTC
Batangas for Specific Performance against Mr. X to recognize the contract. Mr. X filed for motion to
dismiss due to improper venue. Pending motion, Mr. X subsequently filed for Annulment of the Contract
of Lease in Muntinlupa. If you were the counsel of Mr. A what will you do in (a.) RTC Batangas and in (b.)
RTC Muntinlupa

ANSWER.

a. I will file my answer to the motion to dismiss that venue is properly laid. The one filed is Specific
Performance and it is a personal action. According to Rule 4 Sec. 2 of the Rules of Court

All other actions may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs
resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-
resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff.

Therefore the venue is at the election of the plaintiff venue is properly laid.

b. I will file a motion to dismiss due to Litis Pendencia. Litis Pendencia is present in this case. The
requisities of Litis Pendencia are identity of parties, identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for
identiy of the two cases such that judgement in one , regardless of which party is successful would
amount to res judicata. In both action there are same parties and interest without a question. However
the subject matter in RTC Batangas would bar the others and a final judgement of one would constitute
res judicata. In borth cases the facts are identical. One is seeking to respect the contract and one is
seeking to annul the same contract which would be the basis of Mr. As filing. Consequently whatever
judgement will be rendered in the other case will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res
judicata.
QUESTION 5

Facts:

Jeffrey Frani is the Philippine Consul detailed in the Philippine Embassy in Japan. He was charged with
the crime of Malversation of Public Funds filed with the Municipal Trial Court of Trece Martires City,
Cavite.

Question: Whether or not the Municipal Trial Court of Trece Martires City, Cavite has jurisdiction over
crimes committed by a Consul or other higher official in the diplomatic service?

Answer:

As the counsel of Jeffrey Frani, we now thereby, question the correctness of the venue or the
jurisdiction of the Court over the subject matter of the case filed. The proper court where the case
should have been filed is in the Sandiganbayan, which has jurisdiction over crimes committed by public
officers in the diplomatic service under (Sec. 4 [c]) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 7975. The
Sandiganbayan is considered as a National Court and has only one venue at present, which is in Metro
Manila, until R.A. No. 7975, providing for two other branches in Cebu and in Cagayan de Oro, is
implemented. Assuming that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction, the proper venue shall then be the
first Regional Trial Court in which the charge is filed as provided for under Sec. 15 (d), Rule 110: Crimes
committed outside the Philippines, but punishable under Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code shall be
cognizable by the court where the criminal action is first filed.
QUESTION 6

Jonet Nopales was arrested and charged with murder, a capital offense for killing Bong P. Estrada. Can
she file a petition for bail?

ANSWER

The general rule is that all persons in custody shall, before final conviction, be entitled to bail as a matter
of right. The exception thereto is when the accused is charged with a capital offense or an offense
which, under the law at the time of its commission and at the time of the application for bail, is
punishable by reclusion perpetua, when the evidence of guilt is strong, which has since been ramified to
include the penalties of life imprisonment and death.

Thus, the grant of bail becomes a matter of discretion if the accused is charged with a capital offense.
Where admission to bail is a matter of discretion, a hearing is mandatory before an accused can be
granted bail. At the hearing, both the prosecution and the defense must be given reasonable
opportunity to prove, in the case of the prosecution, that evidence of guilt of the applicant is strong;
and, in the case of the defense, that such evidence of guilt is not strong. The prosecution must first be
accorded an opportunity to present evidence because by the very nature of deciding applications for
bail, it is on the basis of such evidence that judicial discretion is weighed in determining whether the
guilt of the accused is strong. In other words, discretion must be exercised regularly, legally and within
the confines of procedural due process, that is, after evaluation of the evidence submitted by the
prosecution. Any order issued in the absence thereof is not a product of sound judicial discretion but of
whim, caprice and outright arbitrariness.

In the case involved herein, the accused was charged with murder, a capital offense. Hence, it, is
specifically required that the prosecution must be accorded ample opportunity to prove that the
evidence of his guilt is strong. (Santos vs Ofilada. A.M. No. RTJ-94-1217. June 16, 1995)