- EMEDlAL 1

REMEDIAL LAW

CiliVIL PROCEO"U R·E

GEN1ER&L PR
INCIPLES

1. What is tho Prln.clpla of .JudicialHierarchy?

The principle provides lhat loJNer courts sha il initialJy decido a case before Lt is considered by a higher
court A higher court wilI not ente;tai n direel r&SOrt to It un'less tile redres°S desired cannot be obtained in
the appropriate courts (Scmtiago v. Vasquez. G.R. No. 992·89-90, January 27, 19.93).

2. I tha Prtnclpl& of Judicial Hierarchy absolute?

s
NO.rn sa-...Malcases, Ille court has allowed direct invocation of the Supreme Court's migina·t jurlsdr,o\ion
an the tallowing grounds (SWINE)
1. ecial and lmportanl rea:sons dearly stated in the petition;
2. Whendictated by publlc W01fare and lfle of ublic policy;
3.When demat1ded by the broa ·
4_ When th ha enged orders
5.When ana oeption
dirncl ha case (R

3. Differentiate e.,.....n¥11,
An error of judgl"l1l:i'i1tfiib . rction and reYiewable
by appeal . When •Jl''!ll · judgment cannot be
oonsidered a nuW ty '-"11111...., D""' on U-1e parties unless
reversed or annulJ

hi error of jlJrlsdicti ·
jurisdiction.or "Wi'lh g
which error is corre
the proceeding .is an a..-..... ·,,..,,
'lllDtd tien coTlateram"1

4. What 1·s the Doctrine ma.o119D1

It provides that courts...,,...-...._ w t each othet:s orders.• This,
bars a court from rev rE:avcourt over whtch ilt has no
appellate j!.l nsdictian oitil!:ittl§1JI ,._.."""''p,I""''.. e 'fo admmistrative bodies
(Viflamor v. Salas, G.R.........;;sv-- ''UnlDn'"'a therd-party.or a stranger to
the action. asserts a d ._............ y vindicate his claim by am
i:ndependent action in the- fll'CIM .1{ · ,µf the judgment on property not
belonging to him (Samos v. A!f11 '

5. How is jurisdiction detefll111ined?

Jurisdiction o\l'er he subject matler Is etermi11ed by allaga1ions of lhe comph:iil't regatdless of
whether ltre plaintiff js eritied tol. he daims asserted therein (Sunny Motors S1e$,Jnc. v. CA. G.R. No_
119900, August 16,2001}. ft is not dtermtned by (CEDE)
· Ce>nsent or agreement· of Ure parties;
2.By Ille Evidence n the trial;
3. The .Qefenses in tt\e ansv1er or motiof! to dismiss. (e:x:ceplioo:defonse of tenancy)'; or
4.By Estoppal (Tolentmo v.. CA. G.R. No. 123445, Oclobe:r 16, 1.997).

5. What does the Doctrine of Adhere1tce of JursdicUon (Continuity of Jurisdiction) mean?

The·doctrine pro\lides that once a oourt has acquimd iurisdidion, such jurisdiction cannot be ousted by
subsequent events aHhough they be of a character which 'tNOUld hav prevented turisd1ctlorn fram
attaching in the first instance. Once ;insdiction has been acquired . it oonilinll uotil the court tinaUy
ai;sposes of the case .(Ramos v. Central Bank of th.a Philippines,. G.R. No.L-29352. October 4·, 1971}.
7. AIs the registered owner of a parcel ofland where a school building Is built A bought tti.
property In an extrajudtcial foreclosure sale becau$e the former owner, 81 faHed to redeem it. A
allowed B to continue to operate the schoolon the property ona month ly rent of P40,000. When B
failedto pey rentals,A asked B to vacate the property. Although B wanted to comply,he could not
immediat&ly close the schoolwithout clearance from the DepEd. Hence, in the same year, A filed a
complaint for recovery of possession before the RTC against B. B argued that the complaint
patently shows a case for ""Lawful detaillef. Does RTC have jurisdiction?
NO. Although file complaint bears the caption "reOOVef'f of possession." tts allegations contain the
jurisdictional facts tor an unlawfuldetainer case. Under R.A. No. 7691, an action for unlawfuldetainer is
iction regardless of the property's •llS8Ssed value.The allegationsin the
within the MTC's excluslv• jurisd
corrplaint deterrrine the nature of an action and jurisdiction over the case. Jurisdiction does not depend
on the complainfs caption. Nor is jurisdiction changed by the defenses in the answer. Hence, RTC does
not have jurisdiction (Sps.Eroriia v. Sps.Dumlao. G.R. No. 195477,January 15, 2016).
8. X filed a complaint before the Barangay.Lupon Tagapamayapa.She sought to collect from Y the
sum of 1'500,000. The parties enteredinto i ble settlement (kasunduan) whereby Y agreed
to pay X the amount of 4 ed that the kasunduan was not
repudiated •t in a period ame. Thus, X returned to the
Barangay who issu d with th M a Motion for
Execution a u.nduan. e an appeal with the g th.at t does not have
jurisdiction.R he appeal. C::: I\ 1\1 t:l A
The appeal sho
amicabl
the
e settfe
Local Govern ea
enied. The
· (i:lrC .
1
3s,.exbd rfsatction over a ·
anal , Section 4inaillttWv
s 0 of''!he LG es
enforcement of an
nt to Secon417
that of
an amicabl
e
setUement shall ha for urt expiration of 10 days
from the date of its oc a petition to nullify
the award has bee • Ng, G.R. No. 164594,
Aprii 22, 2015}.

. A complaint for r J:;7gsalnst Y for Y's alleged

encroachment on and had an assessed
value of P2,100. A ught from X's brother.
Despite knowing >11,.;fWw,ever, Y constructed a
perimeter fence tha iefo're the MCTC. Y claimed
that the MCTC had n accion publiciana. Is Y
correct?
NO.Itis nolonger g cion publicianalie with the
RTC,regardless of the title to or possession of real
property with an asses anila, fall under the original
jurisdiction of the MTC. edetermined by the assessed
value of the disputed land, xation purposes. In the case at
bar, the assessed value prop .Hence,Yis not correct. (cal)ling
v Dangcalan. G.R. No. 187696,
X filed against Y a Compaint for cl o Documents,Reeovery of Shares,and
Partitionwith the RTC. Y filed a Motl ending that the RTC has no jurisdiction to
1Jy the case on the ground that, as the caseInvolves le to or possession of realpro1X1rty or any
interest therein and since the assessed value of the subject pro!Xlrty does not exceed ft20,000.00
(the same being only 1'11,990.00),the action falls within the jurisdiction of the MTC.The RTC
granted Y's Motion to Dismiss. Is the RTC correct?
NO.To determine if anaction is one capable of pecun iary estimalion,the nalure oflhe principalaction 0<
remedy sough!muslbe ascertained. IIiis primarily for the recovery of a sum olmoney,lhe claim is
considered capable of pecuniary estimation. However,where the basicissue is some hing other than the
rightlo recover a sum of money,(i.e.where the money claimis purelyincidenlalto,or a consequence of,
lhe principal relief sooght), the Court has considered such actions as incapable of pecuniary estimation,
·andlhus,cognzable bylhe RTC.Here,iis a case of joinder of causes of action which corehends
more than the issue of partition of or recovery of shares over lhe realpropertyin question,butindudes an
act on for declaration of nullity of contracts and documents whichis incapable of pecun iary estimation.
iction is wilh lhe RTC (Genesis Investment v. Heirs of Ebarosabal, G.R. No. 181622,
Therefore, jurisd
November 20. 2013).
11 X Inherited • fr'H-patan_tland1 Which he tater su:bdivlded and s,old to Y. After 3 yaars, X. flied a
complalnt fo1repurdulse again.s.t Y !befor,a 019 RTC anchortrng his caus• of ac.tion OJI Sedion, 1i'9
of Commonwealth Act No. (CA) 1 1,rtUherwise· known1 as the IPublic Lend Act. Y flied a Motion to
1 1

Dismls>& , o:n the gf'Ollilld that t'he RTC hn.no juriadictlo:.111 ove:r the complaint ntha property X
seeks to 1epurdlase is below the IP2D,DOO Jmltsdh:tlonal C8Ulng. Shoud the IMo'l.ion tQ DiS'llTtli&S be
grianted?
NO. The· cornplalnl io' redeem a land subjecit of a free pa.toot I& a clVll a.di.on rincapable of pecun iary
estimaU011.The reause of adiion lri the oof"lllP1unlis to ef!force tile right to re.purchase IDts formelrily awned
pursuant to hn9ht ofi a free-patent holder Ullder Sec. 199.CA 141.An action to fOOeem tne land Is orie
for pecific perforrnanre. er '1 nol strictly sLJCh adi.on, Che.., ft Is alk.&n or analogous ta. Ol16J of specific
perlormanc:e . SUch being ltle· case, this action for 'Spedfic performanceis Incapable oJ pec1..1niarry
estilll&tio111 alld cognizable by the RTC.The motioo la dlsmlss sholLlld not be granted. (Helm of Bautista v
,LJnefo. G.R.No..208232, March 10• .2014)

12.

13. Be,pnment AAA dltDri 1119111\Bion.Several petitions

underr Rule 65
!Department AAA ea1·' UICI
Ircase or can·
itself rup as a revia
s.e;paration, of powe.5.....,.ioo:'
VES.Artide· 'VIII, Se,...,.·..,........
juslice not only to
enforceae.. but also
·to t or excess of ju·
justice determine die n
rograrn. hi 1resporme.
.·rp
;-ned unless, thera· is an
ni lzance of situ:tl,it will1 se1 "-
il'INii•""'artion of 1ha principle of
..si..case'?
,.,.tMJE ·tine duty or the courts ,of
i':"l"i rni7legally 00.mandabl!e and
HLY', a.uu.,... of d1S<d
ielion 1!11001..mfing
Uie Government.Courts c·f
'intlf'll'Arafl!lme-nt as MIJ as lflose of ns

o Leers. Ht H
ie Sup. ·ml'J'o•A.JW".'R. No. 209281, July 1, 20 4.
Bersamin, J}.
14. X i· nstituted before the .· _ ainst Y X cla med lhat Y was
the registered owner or a e handwritten doeument. Y .sold
uld land to X for P&;,OOD. l 1heland. Y tate.r · reasserted his
own.erslhip over said land!,dlus. an adverser claim. X prayed that Y be
atdetred 'bJ1 axecute a fihaJ deed of · perty and h'auter fhe same t·o X. In an
Ametlded Compla nt, th.ls 'time for _ _ c Perfo i corweyanca X lmplead8d Z n
ca and R:e
addidonal defandent clalmlng1 that Y s.t1bsequenUy sold the subject property to Z. Y a:nd Z moved
for dismiasal of the case, ca mng lack ·Df jurisdiction over rthe subject matter.The RTC dismlssed
Ute action.arguing that x·•. •CBBe WH not f·or sptcific performa1111ce but was ifrl nrality Ii r&al acti'OI\,,
i11 which cue the v,,;tue of the propeny 11houf d be alleged in ltle GO:mpla nl.. SI.nee U. valHof th.•
land was 1not alleged In tlhe Amended Complaint, the can should be di1mlssad.Is lhD RTC
conrecr?
NO. Since the case is a real action made so by the Amended Comp,aint l'afer filed. ,X should have
1

observed the requirement under AMi. No.04.2..04-sc 1relalM! to cteciaring 1he fair manret value of llie
property as stated in me D.Jrrenllax dedaratoo or zonal valuation of ttwa Bl'R. Since no such allegation
was made in lllle Amended COlahU,'Ulefil 1he value of Ille subject property as. stated in Ife
1
i hand'Mitten
doc.Jllllllelll Suecl upoo and restated in lhe Amended Comp[ai.nt should be ti"te basis fur d&terminlng
is amRJnt of PS.ODO should be the stated value or the
jurisdiction. for purposes of filing the civil case . lh
propertyin the sbse!llce rof a ourre111t blx dedarafioo or zonal valuation of lhe B11R. Hence, The RTC is not
correct i(Sps . Tra illa v. Sejas. G.R.No.204970, February 1, 2016)
1:5_ Wlltat is the totality ru
ie?
This is eJiiempli6ed by Section 33 (1) or B,P_ Big. 129 which states lhat where there are several clarrns or
ca1Jses of aQO'fl between the same or different parties, embodied in fhe same oorr Jfarnt, the atrK'.ltmt of
hdemal'Jd shall be Hie rolality of !he c:lalms In al tne causes of action. irres.pe<Ctive of whether the
causes of adion amse out of the same ot dirterenl ttan:saciians (Pantranco North Express, ft?C. v,
Standard Insurance CCmpany, Inc.., G_ R. No. 140746. March 16, 2005)-

16. X fied before the RTG a Complaint for Damages. against Y for uttering mal'rc-fous word'.s and
1

accusing her io be coddling suspects fn a kill ng. X pta}-ed that Y be hefd liabre to pay morai
1
damages in tfle amo11.mt cf P300,000: P50,DOO as exemplary damages; P50.,£100 attorney s feesj
P20,000 litigation ekipertSes: andl costs of suit Y flle-d a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that 1it
was the MTC that ha:d jurisdiction over the case.Y argl!led that ttie amount of ttie claim for morar
daftlag" was not n:iore than the jurisdictionaJ amount of P400,000, because the claim for
exemplary damages :shcukl be e;ii;duded in compubng the total claim.RTC denJed the motion to
dismiss citrng that the total clarm of respondent amount.ad to ?420,000 which was above· 1he
jurisdlc.tional amount. ls the RTC corr "'.lil!!! ,,,_
YES. n cases where Eh claim · ·on, or one of the causes of action,
the amount · such claim shall ·on of lh0 court. It is dear, based
o:n ltis ,aJle-g ! orlfle co I - ges. Hem: ottier forms of
damags em fll$d by X, . .. e.xempla 1 damages, attorooy ,and Illig xpeniset>, arie oot
merely .1nc1den 61 0011S0quences n . u ·.. . strtute· the pli -ta prayed for in tha
c<>mplar f!t Cons1 g1tlat I a o . 91.d 1rp ,tf4)0.00Q ·Tc has jurfsdictian
ovQr llle ease ( S }CJa - 'Utfat fWiYl'Y iiJ&!fflV

occupancy btJ.it tile 'kl wrred that the MTC had

no jur:isdictfon ov· lld..1
posse5sion, conve"'°".,
e.Sitlmation, thuta uolth!,itu.e.
ordered Y lo vacatWh
j urisdi'cfion to rulle ove
property. Oid the
YES. Seciior'I 22 1of
decided by first e .--....u_
or any interest therei..-..i:tt..ui6
action.or theinterest
m1.1s• be clarified fhat '"'....,,u...
jutlsdlcUon. n Uia preseq:
cognizance of X's appa "'oCI,_..,..... .......
stJbject properzy whicll woatd
jurisdiction over the case. (.HeJm
, , ' se is owneni:hip, not
... ,..,_.. Incapable of pecunrary
r , ·y_ On appaal,rha RTC
}lJJed tnar the RTC had nc
.t-ri"e assessed value of the
2unsdlciioo 0•1er all cases
r,11ossession of reat property
al property subfeci of the
. jtJrtisdiction over the action, it
, e exercise of their original
-""""--"'gin-cd , jurisdiction when irt took
-e any amounl or vaJue of the
' "'".'JJMR§diciion_ Th0refore, trie RTC tlas
f.'1
--- I n/ (J, 2016)_

18. A filled .an action for damages aga nst JI. .on the - 1{!19-. f the oomp1ant. A pi . the docket feesas
,assessed by the clerk of ·court. Howe'ver, it was latel-d1sco.vared that 1he or1g11nal assessment of
tlie fees j5 mosufficient considering that the compl'a,int dkl not specify the amounts of moral
datnlilgH, exempary damages1and a:ttomey 's fees that are sougf-.t to be recovered by ttu• pl1;1 ntiff.
1

B claims that ,as a resul1of .A's failure to pay the correct amount of docket tee, the tria court was
prevented f'rom acquiring jurisdretion ever the case. Tlius. B flfed a moUon to dism lss on the
ground that tile court had failed to acqurre jurfsdiction! over the subject matter of the action.ls the
contentJnn of B ten-able7
NO_ Whell'e t'ie clerk of court rails to make a deficiancy ass(lssmallt, and the deficiency is not paid as ai
r:e.slill. he U'ial (l{ltll't nonetheless continues·ta have ju risdiction over the complaint, unlessIha party lrable
is guilty of f rai..d in that regard.oonsieie;ring tha the daficiancy wW be collected as a fee in lten wittlin the
oonternpl.ation of Section 2, Rule 141. To penalize the party for the omission of the clerk of court is noifair
If the J)Brt'tJ has .acted in good faith. Her.e, the docket mes. paid by A were Insufficient considering that the
com;:ifa1nt did' nol specify Ule amounts of moral<famagas, e:Kernplary damages, and altomey>s fees. A 's
payme11t negated bad faith or intent to defraud lhe Govem.nt Nonetheless. A must still remit any

Jlt/ Bi:El.A CoE OF W.w

 dockel fee deflciency lo the RTC's detk of court.Thus.the contenllon of B s not tenable. (Fedman DeV'r •
Corp. v. caaiJ ,G.R. ltlr.tJ . 165025,. August 31. 2011. Bersamin, JJ.
1

F0RIJM.SHOPPING
1

19. What s f<m1m sheicllg?

forum shopping c-ooslsts or lhe fil ng of mul pte suits involving lhe saroo part1es ror lhe same cause of
action.either samutteneously or ooccessi'Yehj,for Ute purpose of obtaining a farvorabl1e jidgme ru Thus.
forum shoppil"lg may arise

case "°'
a. by fi1rng muttlple cases, based on Ille same calJSe of aciion .and with llle same: prayer. ane previous
l'lavingi be@mi resolved yet (wh@r t"1e grourtd for dlsmissa1 r'S lftis pendant/a}
b. by fi1ing multiple cases based on the same cause· of adion and with the same praye.the previous
case h3YIng been tinal(y 11esdlved (wtlere lhe gtound ror dl9tnissalis res jtldicata}
c. by filing _mtillipfe cases based on the same cause of action bLJt witn different prayers [spl!Wng of
causes of ae0011.where I.he ground ·for d1srnissal is also eilller rms pendentia or res judicata) (Asian
1

Canstmd'ion Development· Corp. 11. · ,R', No. 1,9672. Augl'Jst 2, 2D13}.

Whal is tru ·
cause<i to ·t.rre;1<mllrts
agencies to
the prooese ere
same iss.Je (Lrncmrc--

20. A died teaving 4 --·"'·

1
Hllid,,ft'-te SC reg:affltng tbe
properties and a'U 1 tJe 4 cases deahh wi..:
(1) z·s redemption ,, 5:i!l(l19i" 2-) X's action to annu
her waiVer of rig!h _ · over he 4 pmparties i
(3) a cenlorafi on t
heirs of A be COJ11s ;
t.o re-q 111ira Z to tu
was filed by fhe sucrai11ran
Their action was r11_r.tma:•1
dismissa: of the a -
lhe· .aciicn sha11 be d1mrel!E wrl!rl.IWM.111:1 111-tnterest tn irrsiituting th&
1iiftt1 ca<&e ch art, oo - IS. a QfOtJl1 (j for the Wmmary
cUsrrissa of the case . J 9691, February 17. 201·4.
Bersamin. J).

21. D1s-tingu sh Rfg'.lrd.of Actionl"fr.PIRll'

The djs nctlort:s are tne foll
a. A caU$8 of action refers to defendants;Whereas rig t of action
refers to Hhe rfghlot the plaintiff ' t1 u '
ti. A cause of aclion rs determined · . whereas a righl of adion f<S determined by
si.:ibstantive aw;
c. A right of action may be taken away by ·the runnrng of the s1awte of llmitations.by eslOppe or other
circumstances which do not affect the cause of ,action.

22. What are the tests to ascertain whath1n··two or more sui1s rlfste to a 'Sl'1gle or comm.on cause of
atfion?
The testsare the ronowing
1

a. WOOtber the same avJdence 'WOLJl'd support and sustain. bolh the first and sond causes of actic;m
(also known as the "same evildence" lest);
lL Whethltr 1hlll defenses in one aise may be useel to suostan'tlale the C00'1)1alnt In'the otner; or
c. Whethet the·1cal.l6e of adion ln Iha second case ex sted at the time of 1ne fil n of lha nrst coalnt
{Umaw - Canoga Park Develbpmem Corpomllon, G.R. No. 167248, July 20, 2011}.
23. What .,.the llUNts in detennlning the s ingleness ofi .a cau:se of adion fn breach of contract?
Gener.al rule:. A con.tract embraoeSi only orie tal)$a of action because it may be violafed onl y ance even U
it contains several stipulabans (Or.lirogf: v.Ga.r.11t"'sta, G.R. No. ·t:J159.February 2:8, 1'962).
&c@ptlon:A contract ilD do ooveral things at severaltimes is divisible lri its nature.This klfllcJ or olgation
a!Jtt\ori:J:es successive aclJon.s and a judgment recovered f0r a single breach does not bat a suit tor a
subseQuent bread'! (Blossom & Co.• lnr;. v. Manila Gas. G.R. No. 32958, November 8. 1930).
MISJOINDER OF' CAUSES OF ACTION

24. A. s.. C, D, and E. are theirs ,of X who owned HYeral part::ms cf land upcmi her death.D aUegedJy
took possenion of said 1parcels of land and appropriated for he.nself the Income from the same.
utet. A. B. and c mad a" action for partition .against D. During the pendency of the caseF D
donated parcels. of land to ·e.. Tho petitlonen;; flied .a1 Suppleme:nhll Pieading praying that the said
donationin favor of the Te5pondent be resc·iooed. Tha RTC ruled upon both hels&ues on ,partf111).n
and rresCii!ision.rts there a join.de-r of eauses of actron 1n fho pres.ant casa?
NO.The actions fo.r panit on .Sl'lld resci · rn a single action.Wltile parties to mi action
may assert in one pleading, in - uses or .aclion as they may have

t .
agair'f!it an ·ng party, 5'\I · e condition ttla1the joinder slhall
notindude civil action partltlan j al civil action
governed b 9 f the ir:e an action for r(lscission ,Is nary civil governed by the
ord!nary.ruleo
thelf being lOOd
rooedure_ The
gle rf\g
SAN A". edtJ their · i
g..ss · t\Qf1"7!P -df fW.11119
ooe CXlf.'·ll plain.t. Qf
s shall govern the
oondtJCt of t p · s "11Jl W:lutielalQJ.Sui 'lft: fW p · r oausa of acltoo (Ada
v. Baylor1, G.R. N 5, .A..Jllllliill_.YIWiilililllillll•

25. Should .animal1i ot " •n..i.-.rure courts. of Law?

NO. Section 1•.Rt.Me . ..ir»'- Ior juridical persons. or
entiti9S al.l'lborlzed ll_......,.... ror a ucitizen suti•, ai(ll)j
permit ·11 , iii in tt'-.QP"QtlTerwtro111menta1 laws. The
provision an citizen s....,·,......,..,,... ,o;l\l;i...,,,..._ntal Jaws and collapses
1l"te ttadrtional rule o ns .are stewards of nature.
Th.tis. the SC ru ed INUl!'flJ>
. ·I legal standlng has beef!
ielimlnated by a\Jt R<1,1ti ,
our en\lironmental laws:wt.,Sr'Gfe,
.-""IL--"'--. to bti !'lg a .euit to enforce
" G.R. ND. 180'!11, 21.
2(}'15).

Note:In the Resident M-- .dW f..eat partiesin the Pe·fioon .aiid
noC ust jn represelltation Petilioners R.afllOs :and EiSl'T'la •
OSOfio) hns shown In the !l or
s laws oonceming the tlabital
of the Residenr Marine Ma:mmwm.i d_, ess the legal 51anding to f\le I·
petition.In other wordt>, the ·ca-... remai11S vested In natural persons..
Such legal capacitis not possess unl'l"...,W lat are atleged. to be advors.ety alfected b
the ()OSSibl'e YiolBl:ioos of erwJromnental

26. Can a juridical person be comddered •S •n indJgent litig.1nt?

NO.Th11 Cc>n IJn has explicltfy premised lhe free access clause on a fJ!lU'SOO"s poverty . a oondmoo
lhat ooly a nahHai persi!n ·can- suffer . There are other reaso.ns th.at warrant the .reiect on ot the request f°'
·axemt>1)cm fr1 fawir of a jJnctical per:Son, For one. extttnding the e'.IC9mpUonlO· a ju.ridicel persoi!l on tne
'QJOUnd 'that ii works for lndigenl and underpnvileged1 1peop1e may be prone to abuse (even Mtih the·
imposmon ofi rigid documenlatioo requ ·rements) partlC\Jlady by oorporalions and enties be!lt on
1
,

·Cifttjm'r'enlng1 e rule tJn payment of tho tees (Re·: Qwiy of Mr. Roger C. Priore.scm Re &enrplion from
legal Fees and FmrlfJ· Fees of fhe Good She(KH(J Foundation, Inc., A.M. Na. 00-6-...J..SC. August H. 2009..
BetsamirJ.J).
 I

,Rei.11 Party in lnt nest Loi::us Standi

•• - - I

As to Natu.-e

A roo I party in ;interest is the party who

st.ands to oo oonaflmd or injllJred by the II Is iill ri!jht of appearance in a court of
judgmem: In the suit. -or the party entitled Jus ioe- on a given questicin.
to the avails of ma ull

28. X iS.tS-li.IQd by
Wa$ .,,JtF.,_,,.,u r..fR]itl] _ ariager m. Howav·er,
when said appoln SfD:.,.,.,9'Qlonal Office. it Wa5
clis.a,pproved beca'"-Llln"' _.,......,.. e liittef ad the
Regional Office'G UliJIVlil he CA ruled that on
the appainting ·offlo- m-..,:11, - o CSC. CA held that X
did not have 'egal Sllllldllll . It also added that X
was not tna raal p csc:•s approval.Does
X have a tegal standJlt!Bll...-1:
YES_ X !has alegal ""@ll'l'W'':i:l.I standingis whether such
parties have alleged · Y!lfSY - Here; while X had rm
vesled tlghl le lhe •. ·· Cl........., ._
.,. He shod, U1erefofe, be
granted lne opportuni -..._J.l"Z'' - n9e lhe CSC's a(:t- On the
o1tter lland. the qt1estio . ...,. ,.... -- who would 'be benefited or
injured by the jLJdgmenl-. if lega stanrnng is. granted to
chal1enge the OOr"tS01tJlio_ rT31llf9rJr ta: the lack 0-f personal in)Jiy,
then more so sho1.1ld X b@ll:ath1 ..,W&S pte]udK:ed 'by the disapproval
(Abeita, Jr. v. CSC, G_ R. No.. ...-..vr.

29. A, owner of XYZ Enterprises. filed fer tepllevin andJor sum of money wi1h
damages.. In his Answer B alleged a ·a special affi live defense that ·the complaint stated no
cause ·of action since A was not a party to the 'Leaso .Agreement with Option to Purchase upon
whicn the etron is based nd hence. not a real-party-hi nt&.s.t. The RTC d.ismissed the case on
tile ground that the complaint did not state a cause of actlon1 :si,nce A's :husband C, who 5gn.ed the
Laa&e AgrHment as manager.is unimpleaded. Is. the dismissal propor?
NO..See1ion 11, Rule 3 of th.e ROC provid s that neither misj:)incler oor ncmjoilillder of parles is a ground
ror the dismissat of an actio11,. Any claim against a misjoined party may ba severed and procce·ded with
separately. For rnonjoinder.Ule proper remedy islo irnplead me lridlspansab'le parcy al any s ofthe
action. Tile court. either motu proprio or upon hhe motion of a paJtv, may order the lnciusion of the
lndlspensabl.e party or give the pla•ntifif opportu n · to amend his. complaint In order to include
indispensabl'e parties_ n is only upori unjustified failure or refusal to obey the order lo mnohude or ID amerid,
will Ole actioo be dismissed_ Thus, tile RTC's dfi&missal is i roper (Navam> v. srobido. G.R. No.
153788.November 27, 2Q09)_

:&Mr. BEDA Cm.LEGE or LAw

7
ao 11cZEo BAll 011n11UlW
 CLASS SVIT

30. Pte!iid•nt x aig.Trllld an UKutiVll agrftfiMnt 1run.o\llng Ole •x·cluslve juriscUdlon or ABC
govemmen1 agency ovell' the printing someH requiQK'!'MIOW of 9orv.emment agenen. 11mt
lnslrumf)lntalllln. P•rceM111g the tE.O as ·• •hrvat to lhmr- "S-eeurity of 1erlure as employvew of th•
ABC government· apncy. 67 peUIJone;rs tl1od a petition, to chaHenga ha constHutionallty, 'The
Solic:i1M Gen.-.1, as. ·co1.uwe for respondems. rpo,nted out that there waire· abou1 149 emph:>Y • In
the ABC g,overnment aeancy.Dul at lhe ·67 petitioners, ·si.Jb11HquenUy,32 of 1fle orig-lnal rpetilione.._
1

•KKuted an Aflldil\llt of Deslst.TIG while 1ona .51gn&d a Har- 4'Jl)'log eve, slgn ng n1e petition,,
osten1U:iiy n1du[T\Q llhe nUlll'lbar ef peltf.o:ncrs to 3.t.A Man1festatlon1of Desistance was ·filed by t:ho
Pl"e&.Kient of 1hf MC WOf'ke-r.s Association ABCWA .ls the, a proper clan auit?
NO Whe11e the m!erest10 ot U'iie. plBinUffs anr;I the 101her members ,cf he clas.si Uiey :se11k l.01 represent are
diainetncaay oppesMJ• .00 class still wm not ,plO&'P"!r. Here, the nifeslation of Deslstance wa filed by
tho President of the AIBCWA.. llie said TJ'l3nEfes.t.-atio11 expireued A'dCtNA's opposition to the fffi_ng or lhe
rlnsent peiilion in any aiurt. Said pl.cad ng l a cleSir l'ndic;.atioll &he• "therels a dfr'lle'rge111ce Qf optn:lans and
views among the membets of the d sooted. There is, here an apparent coJiflict
be.t'WM!n p.utiUoners' interests m to represent Since U carirniot l)e
said that p ·· uflicie _ s. the instant e cetH'ilOl bo
pmpor1y tma cfass sull ,2010),

31 If one of tho pa-llQfa_ 0 sdlction?

NO. S1Jilctly speak!IQ WJsa'1·llf.1ot1,btJt a requlrnmenl of
CIOO proosss. The - 0 Q\re proce . It 'W.fl:S
desi911ed1 to ensure i!M:llir.1-11ntedin die suit ·lhrough
Ills heirS j tt'le
i) d ...- . ,..,...._ Jeaita[Nnll•J41f ft'll!t, 1!191IJl rxm!!r' n-w nce wi'tll the
Rules 1'6SUl•:s In the fffCJ•c..o ll10t du1y M'lifie<l of 'the
1pir:oo9edinw>, would .f -.....,,..us, It is orily wtiel!1 Ulcm
Is a Glonlal of due pr._.. ·al representaiL-ve or heir,
th9 the ClOUrt 111ull1f U'\i::l.ll6;!U' (Sarsaba 11. 70, G.R No..

'759 to, .July 30, 2

32. X tiled '" $e tor th&lfKlilJO rl\)ll1 i(-tW""PclIMI J.

Attar X fin.Indilhe 1DNl9tl\1
c.aH;, cont.end ing ;n1•1A1-
evmention eorJ"eCt?
INO.Whether an .EliClitm ·J-nalllra of the aciiQllJ and the
da 5UiMI f.a.r. In 111'1.a Ca! .,..-lr\00 or aft"e(;ts prtrnariJy and
fltin<Oi(:Ja property and PIQPACW. merely 'ncideli"lla-1, wlnlile in the
causes ·of actiofl Which do nor..!Uil'llWC"Ul WUTl>t·ilr1perso111. lhe 1p-r'Clpl rl)! anti n9 ol
property affected beingioolden..ii.,.;amhl q'tf111\fll.C!ell DeOO of Salo, R.eoonveyam e. and
Daes fs ooo relating to pro . on su111ives ·1t1e death o1X.·anerefo:l'S'.
Y"s contenlion is inCOl'Teci (Cruz v. · ember 1.201,0).

33. Dis.tlngulsh Jurt1dlctlon1 fmm v.enue.

a Jurisdiction ks lhll aulbor11y to near ,;:md determine a ca&e:\!eruJEI·1ie. lhe· place vmere1 1tte·case, is, to be
hear or tn&:t.
b. .Jurl<SCOC:1ion Is a mauar or sl.Jbmntlve law; 'Yerrue.of prooeel1Jral aw:
c. Jurtsdic on eslabllshes a1 rela1ioti between the coufi'l and the s!Jbj.sct imaltef ;ve:rrue.a relation betwean
1

p'lalnttrr 8Rd de&:indanl, or ooer and! .-&s:Pcmdenl: and

d. Jul'lsr:hc:tion is xedl bylaw and ca.,oot be ®n.ferr;e<J by lhe ?Rf"lle;venue may be contend by the ,ace
or agreemeril O'f ltie parties {Nocum v. Tan. ·G.R. No. 145022 Ss,plemoor 23.2005).

34. 'WhatIs the ..Doctrine ot· Complemmtary.Cota..C:on51rued-Togeth• ff ?

The Oodnne pro'rll®s tli.al an assory conb'ad mu:st be raad In il.5 1enllrety 11100 togg,thD.r wt.th iJile
prindpati agrHl'liBtnt Thfs principle is u&ed n oonstru'lng con,,.ad.tllal 51lpllllations In order to arrive· a-t llieh:'
true 1rnearm1g:certain gtlpulatioos canl'l(][ be segreQd!U ancl then made lO oon rol. Thus, ltle· Suretysb1p

,su :aa Cau.oo:E: OF LA

9
n1 7 r.! .1.n1un Bu OHfAnmo:
 - ----
___ --

Agreement ,c;an only oo enforced in COl!ljtmotioo witt"l lt!e Promissory Note. Therafore. th venl!le stiplllatiorn
in ltle Promissory N.ute also applies to ·tne S\ltety$ohl,p Agreem9nt as an aru:::itlary contract of 1he
promissory note (Phil. Bank of Communications v. Lim, G.R. No_ f 581.38, April 12, 2005).

J5. X f'led a complaint forthe revtvaJ of judgment (rendered by RTC Makatij with RTC MunHnupa. His
com,plaint ,alleges that a fi11ral !;U1d t!xecutory judg1me1ilt hes o;dered Y to e.JtKute a deed ,of sale
ovar a parcel· 0,f land. Tlho same judgment ordered X to pay Y a oerta1n wm of moaey upo·n Y''SI
1compliance with the af10'remeotioned ordf:ll'.Y filed a motion to dllsmlss on the grounds t·hat th&
RT'C Muntrnlupa has no urlsdlctlon over the persons of the parties and that venue w.as impmperly
lard, contending that the suit to reYiive Ute judgm•nt therein is personal! in nature;and that,
oonsucmtly, the venue of the action for re\l\l'Val of judgment Is ,altnar Mak.all City or P:a ramaque
Cty where X and Y m,peetjvel resid.e. at the electkm of X.Is Y's contention marttotkllil& ?'
NO. Rule 39 Qf the Rules 0f Court does not specify in wh c:h court the action for re\Jivalof judg,mml should
1

oo 1iEed. Nonetheless, he Rules of Procedure which bes the venue of actions in gerieral must be
consirered. Thus, 0"le proper venue in an action for re\ilval of judgment depetids on wtlaU'ler sttch action
is a rea1 action or a personal action. B
1
ations. in lhe present Jalnt, X has an
iatillshed ·intEu0st over a lot · b'roughlsuilto rnvive the previous
juidg ment ' s e reason for menlof X's adjudged righlS oYer
a: piece of ing ,a real a with thB R c e place where
the- realty is d. ence·, . ntentian is unrneTitorious ( n r.an Buif: .R No. 156596.
Augus1 24, 200 SAN BEDA
36. A and B ente...,.•---- 1sion that "any su:lt
arising from thi ,Aft:l'- '.cu''".-.. Makati"'. After the
deliwry of Hl8 rwah..,....,." :irn .rrt'll'l9!!nt of the contract as
A was allagadly m•· B filed a motion to
dismiss d"9 civil rJU5'111ltitfi lould have been filed
1ln RTC r.tak;itl p . GQ'llt!Jet of sate. RuJe on ttle
motlo" of B.
B"s motion to dlismi..,..,---.._......--. Ji1'1aint directly assail ng
the validity of ttle wn · ._...,.-•.,,clus1ve venue stiplLllalJon
con:tained ltlerein a , on venue_ Lt 'MJUld be
inhereinlly inacms1ste .,. ...-u.r- · e venl!le stipulatioo when it
pH:clsely ass,ajls the 91'..-o .. -.1Knt.6'11necl (Briones . ..._ GA, G.R
No. 204444, January , _,,.

37. X fried an action for resides.In response,Y

invoked Ula stfpulation rises whidt states that ••an
court UUgaUon proce rts of VahH1zuala City1.._ Y
resides in, Valuenzuela
The action sha£1 be filed ei , lty_ B.y way of exceptiion to the
general rul'es on venue, Ule P- e venue. ·sut 11'1.e mere sli-pulatlon
1

on tfle venue of an ac.1io n is not lngirig a case ijn otfler venues. ·lt must
be shO'IOn ttiat such stipulation is ex lifyi11g or reslrictive wonts.ltle stipula1ion
s.hoold be deemed as merely an agree rorum. Here. the stipulation evident'ly lack's
lhe. res.mc;tive :and qualifying words that Iimit venue e· _ sively ta the RTC of Valenlueta City, Hence.
Ima Valeriizuela oourts sl'lould only b'3 co11sidered as an addi onal choice of venue to lbQsa mBOtioned
Urlder Sedlon 2, R.ufe 4 of tile ROC 1(Audrbn m Matinta. Jnc. v. Luyaben. G',R. No. 173919, FebNa/Y 12.
2007).

• PLEADINGS

38. What are· the ·effects of filing unauthoriud complaints?

If.a corr_,latnt is fi ed for and in behalf of Ille plalntm by one Mt authorized to do so, Iha o:Jn1)1aim ls not
dee11fl9d med. An unaulhori:.zed aim dc::ies oo produce anylegal efleet. The oourt :shQt.L'd dhs.miss Ile
co01Mainl on the gmund that it has no· urlsdlelion over lhe complaint alild Ihle plalntliff (Pafmiano-Salvador
v. Ange-las. G.R. No. 171219, Septsmber 3. 2012).
 39. 8, despite demands,defaulted on h s payment of the remain nt1 balance for the house nd lot ho
bought from A. A filed a compla nt for the outstanding liabHlly.B d i not raiMt any defense of
paymentin !\Is Answer and ca lims therein that B still owed P200 ,000. During the presentation of
evidence,B submitted a race ptto prove that he had a ready paid the rema ning balance.Both the
RTC and CA concluded that B has a ready paid the remaining ba ance. A claims that the court
shou ld have mainta
ined the jUdicial admiss ons of Bin his Answer.Was the defense of payment
that was not alleged in the Answer deemed wa ved? .
NO.Wl'Yle Section 1,Rule 9 states that defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dSJ!liss
or in the answer aredeemed waived:Section5,Ruta 10 allows the amendment to conform to or authorize
presentation o evidence . Hem , w!l le B judicially admitted in the An""9f that he still owed A P200 .000,B
daimed later and,in act.submitted an evidence to·show that he already p.00 the w!lole amount of h s
unpaid ollfigation. When B presented the evidence ol payment,A did n<>t object thereto. S ince there was
an in.,iied consent on the part of Alo try the issue of payment, even if no motion was filed and no
amendment <>f the pleading has beenordered. the RTC cannot be fau ted for admitting B 's testiinonialand
documeniaiy evidence to prove payment (Sps. Dela Cruz 11.Concepcion, G.R. No. 172825, October 11.
2012).

40. A sued B e payable onDecember 5,2016.

The Compla served o B December 7,
20 f 6. B int .,,...,rv<#' s no cause of
action. The tri ting Section 5,
Rule 1o of the n to be cured by
evidence pre,.ftit! order.
The order of the has.not yet ac:aued
cannot be cured accrual of a cause of
action wb le the ca nly if a cause of action
In fact exists at t or faiJure to allege the
essential facts. Here as filed on November 30,
2016. Hence, the mo · a n ·to state a cause of
action (Swagman

41. What are the remed

A defendant wno has 1t:
1. file a motion unde er discovery of the defaun
but beforo judg to aud, ccldent, mistake or
!cusable J.!891ecl(
2. if jucJgment has al , bt1t before the same has
become f111al and ex. )of Rule 37:
3. if he discovered the utory, file a petition for relief
under Section 2or Rul
4. appealfrom the judgme vidence or to thelaw,even if no
petition to set aside the (B.D. Longspan Builders. Inc. v.
R.S.Ampeoloquio Realty De moor 11. 2009).
42. In compla int for unlawful detainer, .a
ltege it was the owner of a condominium unit
which was lea&ed to A by verbalag men A had tlnuousty failed to pay rent;thus,BInc.
decided not to renew the·ease agreement anymore.A had until August 21 1 2017 to file her answer
but failed to do so.BInc. fi ed a motion to render judgment; thus,MaTC cons idered the case
subm itted for decision. On September 4, 2017, A den ed the aUegations against her;that there was
no lease contract between them.Mele treated the oppos tion as A's answer to the complaint.
However, BInc. argued that presentation of evidence was undertaken through subm iss on of
posttJonpapers but was already dispensed with when A failed to fl e an an.swer.Rule onthe case.
The case should be decidedin favor of B. The Rules of Summary Procedure is dear that in case the
defendant failedlo file his answer. the court has no aUth0<lly I<> decl;ue the defendant in defau t Instead,
the COWi sllall render judgmen motu proprio or upon pla ntiffs motion. based solely <>n tho facts alleged
·Jn the OOfll)faint and limited to what is prayed for. He<e,the failure of A to timely fi e his answer constitutes
his acqu escence to every allegation stated in the complalnt. Log cally.thereis nothing to be done in this
situationexcept to render judgment as may be warranted by the facts allegedin the compla nt (Fairland
Knhcrafl Cotp. v,Po, G.R. No. 217694,January 27, 2016) .
 4J What aro the reqailsita11 for a cauntetclalm to be considered oompul&-0ry?
A om.mterdetlm is colsory lif:
1. H afi!1es out gf or is nacas.sarimy oon_nE:ictea with the tral'loni ot oa:::urrenoa Whieh i:s IJiie $til:)ject.
matter of die opposing party's dalm:
2. It does nol require tor ts .adjud caelon ttle p1QISC noo of lhir<:I partias. of 'Whc1rn the court can oot a.oq1J1ire
p.Jrlsdrdlon: and
3. file Oo1Jrt has Ehe j.Jrlsdicdon to entertain the dmm both :as. to it's ammmt and nature, except thal ltt an
.arigi.nel ac1ion before the RTC, Ch0 counlercl@lm rna:,i be considered compulsory regardlle-ss of Ui.e
amount (Metr'Qb(l.nk v. CPR Pro.tttt)Jloni>, G.R. No. 200557, June 22t 2015). -

.44.. The hairs of Y filed a eomplaint fo·r injunction a.gaEnst X for Oll awfully entefii.ng Uw r hacienda,
cutting ba r:nboos. .and harvesting fruits .a,..d vegetabies hre-1n. Tne heirs prayed that X be,
enjoined ·from oomrnitting 1ihe !Hidl acts. X filed an Ans.wer with a CountefC'lat-m d sputing; the
ownership tiy heil rs of' Y ass11nin9 tbat X1s mother h:atl been in po.s ;oo of Ule said property
since· i1950s.RTC di5mi-s.s.ed the complaint fi'ad by heirs. ·of Y oir fallure to prosecute tbalr caufor
an unreasonable length of time. There_ - of Y fi 'cMI a Motion for Rns deration to
SH-k dismissal of the antire dlsmlssad the Counterclalm of X.

ule on tll.e

S
EIJ
caus.e ·Of a
The IRTC's . s · issing t unterdaim of X mlJS:t be r·ev rider S ,.Rule 17 of the
Rules of Court, 'ssal of the
iMl
eA3 1rc . ··, · Teafiuh I snaJI be witJno\Jt
prejurl1oe to tlle he 11 - · . cw.,tftis tg,tpli!rw'l 1n rate action or to haw
the same resolve same a • in Should he o t for the first altemativ , urt should reflder Ole
correspornding or ng e :s.eparaie oomplaint.
Should he choose f his :nte rein 'lhe oom plaint had
been dismissed,the · hat.her hls counterdaim
is compulsory or pe ·• 2006).

45. ABC Corporation Qt;rdttl1 n ABC treated the sa es

discol!lnts granted as
BfR a claim foJ!' tax Alll!ll!JIO
ABC to file " petlt·lLHS•
elevated the matter bell
CA held t:hat the pe
president of ABC,fI
the signature of X su
YES. A President oJ a
behalf of the corporation ' "",'
a roJ11l ete listing of aulfl!ilLll9
detemination of ttie suffid&m"'11.'.lli:at
Court dedan d, that it a1so ha!!
the general manager or actirig c _
in a rabor case (Cagayafl' Vfley D.....
tMfi-=t·' sales .and-fi ed witti tt.e
·m for refund compelled
-"-'-...."··aro· n forlack of merit. ABC
on procedl:lta'Iground$.
a ainst fo1um shopping X,
&m11Uh: tha t»an:I of dlreetors. 's
l'llTJR1 of nonforum shopping?
r.1tiHRW.".rin agai 11st forum sho5l?lng •n
,......,.....,,,..jurisprudence da not provide
.li!'!ill ion requlred by the rules, lhe
Niiililll"il•a.JF..ase basis. In some caSEis, ths·
,JMIF JJ- , rson of lhe board of directors (b)
cer. aJld (d) an 001)1oymenlspecial.1st
'En..I · ""'1·4.13, February 13, 2-00B).

46. What are dle conditions that must be met in order to availof .Substituted Seirvice of Summons?
Only when ct1e defendant can.nal be served perscma11y · Uln a reas.onable time may substitutod service
be resorted to. Hence, the impossibility of pmmpt persol)a service should be shown t>y stating tile f1fforts
made to find the defendant himself and the fact ttiat sudl efforts faiLied, whiollstatement snould be found
111 the proor of servk:e or sheriffs relum (Macasaet v. Co, G.R.No. 156759, JI.me 5, 2013,Bersamin, J).

47. ABC Corp.filed a case against X. The .sheriff proceedad to ttte prlncl,palplace Gf business of X to
serve the complaint but fajlad to serve it The sheriff •ater resoned to siubstltL!ited s&rviett by
having U.e summons and the compla n.t received bV V, a security g1uard of X. X fa led to fie his
answer which caused him to· be d!9clared In default by motion of ABC , wbich wa& allowed to
present Its ev dence. ex.pane.X cl'aims that the service was not effected 1correctly hence he shouid
be giwflll opportunity to present ·his evidence.is the conteatJon of X correct?
1
 YES.The person receiving sumfllOl1s ln case of substituted summons must have a reta.tlon of confide11ce
with lhe defendant whioh ·fact should be irrdicatedin the report The seourity guard has no such relatioo, or
confidence ta X. Hence, he should be given lhe opportunity to be heard. The contendon of X is thus
mnect (Chu v_ Mach Asia Trad;ng Gorp., G.R. No. 184333, ApriJ 1, 2013).
48. The defendants A and B are husband and wife In a complaint for part ition fi11ed by X. They are· both
residing ini Ontario. Canada. A, 1he husband, Is a practicing lawyer in th& Philippines. Service of
summons was served upon, A who was lilt tli!e' ttnw in Makall C tty but refused to accept the
summons for his wife, B, o.n th..e ground that ha was not a 111thoriz.ed to accept the process on her
behalf. The .sl1'eriff 'left without eavinb a copy of summons and compla.int for 18. X tl)en filed a
motion to declare defendant In defautt.A made a special appearance as counsel for h"i&· wi.fe.1 B1
and1 opposed the motion.The trial court denied X's motion to deeiare B in default. Was B validly
served witlilr summoRS?
NO. B is a nonresldenl who is not found in the Ptiilippines. Service of summons must be i1n accordance
with extratenitorial service, wherein, summons may be served by (a) personal service (b) publication and
mamng of sumn}ans and order- of the co - ii,and (ie). any manner deemed sufficient by
the aourt The service of sum · ln the ambit of third mode.f :irst.
service of 11s on A wa and cerrla1nJy was not a mode
C!leerned su - y the court eel are the darilIn def aull.
Second. t e u;pon r leave of court. Third, the hus as not a: as an attorney·_
i n.,'fact of _11ie · was not authoJ.8 fie.ft- summons for , s thus not v;;dOClly
served wdh sum _ ame!tl)tl.1t<.1EVQOOFaLA2V'J 96)
49_ A van which X C ed fi ger bus resulting in
the daatti of the orp
:before the RTC.
Y, one of X Corp.1 orp- filed a Motion to
Dismls.s claiming tion to dismiss s-lnce
there was actual t at the sammons was
received upon the I .Did the court acq,u;ire
Jurlsdlction over X Knl'IM.',,
NO. It is a wetl-estab '1s dornesdc private juridical
entity r:oost be strlclly aoq ired jurisdiction over
lhe person of Ile def ccountant, Whrch is not one
of lhe designated pe s;dent !n-house counsel.
General manager . trial court drid not validly
acquire jurisdtotion o Hy received tne summons
(Groon Star Expre·ss v_ 1 6. 20 H5)_

50. What fs the Omnibus Motto - .11'111:·

ltl is the r.ule embodied in Sect · · u1e 9, of tlie ROC vvhtch d'emands
H\St all available objections, aeking a pleading. Othel'Mse. said
objections shall be- deemed waive • - ·e 1Jrt ooutd tak.e cognizance or. evan if not
l'Jeaded in said molion are: (a) lack of · subj mattar;(b) exastance of another a.c1ion
pending, between the same parties for sarne cause; _ d (c:) bar by priQr iudgrnent or by statute of
limitations {ReLPS - ms
judicata, Litts pandentiai . 12.ffiSCripUon, and lack. of jurisdiction over the §.UbjecJ.
matter) (Pilipinas She/J AllroJeum Corp. v. Romars Inn Ga·ses COIP-. -G.R. No. 1B:9669r Ftilbruary 16,
2015)_

51. X Hied a case for Yiiolation of BP 2:2 against V befoq the MeTC Qf ManUa.AftEtr more than 3 ars.
X fl ed an action f·or coH&Ction with application. for a writ of preliminary attachment befote the
MeTC of Pasay City, alleging U.at Y employed fr.aud, deceit, and :mlsHpresentalio11 when he Issued
the clteck. Y moved to dsmlss the civil case o:n the ground of litls pendentia. X op·posed the
motion to dism,tss, citi·ng a.s bases ArUcles 31, 32 33, 34,and 2177 of the· C •vu
Coda ·which allows
an Independent civil action entirely separate and disti Pct from the orim11nal. action and whlch may
be. brought dun ng tlile pendency of tha cnml nal case 1proViidttd tM right to file tu
civU action is
re$erved.Should the trf.al court dismiss the case· Ofl the ground of UUs pendentia?
 YES. A perusar of the civim case an.d crimlna case lnelucrabty -shOW5 thst .afl the e1eme of m is pendentia
are atteridant. First of all.lhe parties in lhe civI action invoi"e<1• that is,X and Y. ars Uia same. Secondly,
the information iboth sl e d 1tiat Y hadi!!isued ttte check ria:.iabte tG cash. th!lto'by Lndlcatitig U'lal the rights
a'ssertetl 1;11nd the reliefs prayed for, as wellas the facts upon Whlcll lhc reliefs sought wore founded. were
idlen.heal tn all respocts. And. thitdlt any jlJdgl'l!Ent randered in eine case would necessari1y bar the ottier
by res 1udicala: othmw1sc. X would lbe recovering twlC9 upon the same claim_ Tiiell'efore, tne tfial1 court
shClllkJ dismiss d1e CfJ/Se ,(Heira of Simon I/. Cf sn, G.R. No. 15'154'l,Febru 23, 2011, Bersamin, J).

52, What 5 tl'le remedy from an Order Denying a Motlon tc· Oismin?
Arf'I order denying El motion to d:ismss Is an lnrork1c'L.Uory t>rrler which 111eilher terminates toocase nor flneily
d.-Spcses of mt. .Cl!S it lea!Jl}S somethlngi ro be dooo b'.)' Ute cour1 before the Cilse i:!) ·fil'lslily declOOd oo tt'le:
merls- The general rule is 1tiat tltle denial of a motion lo dicsmiss a.mriot be queslio11ed •n a spgciat clvi.t
action ror w.•tioran·whlc:h Is a remedy dMlgned to oorrect errC>111 of j,!riedio'tian and not .ar of judgment.

An order denying a motion to dismis:S may ony lbe reviewed in the ordinary ooul"Se of law by an appeal
from the judgment after trial. Ttte crdin:a fel owed tn such cases is to ·file fl answer, go
ta 1lia'I.and if ttie decision is I from the Iin.aJ iudgment (Sps. De
Gvzma11 v. , G.R No_ 16

53. Dlsin.guish-
Failure to state_,,,.,_,.. .. "'2J1 toN pleading and
no from eviden , ... ..-..-solved or\ly on the
.b asi:s of lhe eVid z, AM. No_ RTJ-02-
1696, JunQ 20, , ""°

54. DJscuss the duty .o, ""'1"" -t'Qifiinference.

A11.t OJ·1-[)9wSC pro .. pane ""'° me plal MUf must n10Ve ex
tl\at the case U'I:::-w- the d l'l'Kltion within the period,
Branch Olerk of Ci'ftl'lllh rnor · l'QI""'·for failure to prose<;uU:is

the result .stared 1 li''"'!i!:ll\.liH"'IP'll' tough I.he notioo of ;pre--

trial aoo setting the _,..........,, f Sdltoon v. Fernandez, G.R No_

176652, Jure 4, 2014

56. What Is tha eff9Ct of ,inm..rtn , .

When defendant faUed'llh'k ir -,,.;-.,,,, . s aLrnady acquired tl'lB risk

of not being able ro d1 . The, legal ranrmrcati.cn of
deJendaof s failure to .a Wbefleficia1 to the plaimiff_ The
1Pla.irttiff is gi en the privil"." .,T'"il'i ...."".l:n::. - m
. llhe defendant.the likelhood
!being that ttie court will de:?"lIE ·flM16tfii0 ddoor.=M1
1
vi11g forfeited the apportunny to
1reoot or present its O!Nll ev, . · . FarJcor1 Inc.. G.R No_ 197970,
,_
January 25, 2016)-

56. &fore the trial court has set the date of the hearing, ltloners A aod 8 served a notice upon the
counselof X. that they wuld tak the latter upon oral exam nation.0n the date set for the tildng of
1

the deposffion. X ,djd not appear. A end B fifed a motion citing X for contempt The trial court.
denied such motion and directed A and B to &ubml1 Instead written intenogatories. 'Dtd 1he bia1
coun exceed it9 jurisdiction or authority when it fssuod the Order dlriectlng A and B to submit
Instead wdttenlnhtr,Fogatories 1 ·who havo served 1notlce for deposmon upO'n oral ex.aminatlon?
NO. The cholce as to the mode of taking U,e tesllrMny of a deponent. whether upon ora examination or
writt en .nterrcgatori.es,rests e:xctusively upon Hie pas1y exe:rclsing such right.carmot be subscribed to_ H
thJs were to be .adopted, the ex.erc}se or lhl.s right Is bound.to be abused arid LfUlized for harassment. It is
rm Ulis reason lflal SectiOfls 16 and 1a.
Rule 2.3.of Ule ROC., wer·e incorporated to serve as safeguards
and ,prot.ec-llon from abuse.A lrlal Judge mt1st possess a oena n measure of oon rol over the light of
partiesin Hie taking of deyositioniS ·in order to prevenl abuse. Hence, the court it'll Whicfi ttle actoo is
perldil'l!} mary make an iarder 1tlat the deposition be laken cdy on writte n inleoogatorles. (De os Reyes v.
CA G.R. '1Jo. 27253, March 17, 1975)
 57. Is there a Nie that lim it.dapoaitlon-taklng only to tho period of pre-trialor beforeIt?
NO.The Rules of Court and jurisprudence do not restricl a deposition to the sole function of being a mode
of discovery before trial.Under certain conditions and for ceria nlimited P<J<poses,It may be taken even
after trial has commenced and may be used withoot the depanent being actually called to the witness
stand. Thus.depositions may be taken a1any time after the institution of any action.whenever necessary
or conVenient Thereis no rule that limits depos tion taking only to the period of pre trialor before it: no
prohibitioq against the taking of depositions after pre trial. There can be no .valid objection to allo'Mng
them during the process of executing final and exee<1tory judgmenls. when the materialissues of fact
have become numerous or oomplicate<I (Dasmsrillas Gannents v. Reyes. G.R. 108229, August 24,
1993/ .
58. After the conclus on of the pre·trial,A filed a MotnforIssuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum and
Ad Testificandum to requ re ABC Corp.'s officers to appear and testify as A'sinitialwitneues.
ABC Corp fUed an Oppos tionalleging that ABC Corp Officers may not be compelled to appearand
te5tify in court for A since they were notinitially served with written intenogatories . ls the
contention correct?
YES. Asfishi
preven1 .
a 1\1\e, in dici1v.iilons
cases
and • .. • 'I>; >- . rty .
dertoa.nthe
d fa\Nitness
'lit stand
the is not
conduct
of the purposes of the ruleis to
of
allowed,un ss itteninterrog

trial. It will that . ..

' i\-<\ " ·'
ragatorle e adverse party
beforehand wil kely be unable tftqts IJJ P\tnase if it later o e adverse party
to the witness its wltnest.-' Br rt.d&r '1:1' 'iM rule is tha1 u ring prior written
:at a m1J b @.9. ·S! t 1 11i J
;n: o
Metrob•nk.G.R. N . 5. l!!lli" iift"

59.

The order of dismi

appealable.

efendant may adduce his evidencein his

If the demurrer is den ed. the defendanl will
proceed to presenr his evidence.
defense if h s demurrer was filed withleave of
court.
If the demurrer was filed withou1 leave of
court, he is not allowed to present hts
evidence because heis deem&d to have
waived h s tight to present his evidence and
ha submits the case for judgment onthe basis
orthe evidence of tne secution.

The court cannot dismiss the case motu proprio The court may dismiss the action motu proprio
intiff restsits case.There sh<lu d be after giving the prosecution the ct\ance to
after the pla
a demurrer by the defendant. presentits evidence.

$.\. BEOA COLtECE or LAw

 JUDGMENTS
60. What is a memorandum de-cision?
IIis an ncorporab.on by reference of a doc1sk>n, or a lar oou rt or portion theraof ir1 ttie decisiori of a
higher ,oou:rt if on1y 11.0 iJvoid the rA.Jrn oots0me reprQdiuction or the d@cision of Ule lower court. The
11"!emorandum decision aulhoriz.ed under Sec;ticm 40 of B.P. Big. 129 hould acrualt'J' Qmi:Jody th.e findings
of facii anKI: c.cindusio!'ls of law om ltle lower oourt in an anr111:;ic attactied :to and ma.de all indispensable part
of the dcision (Solid Homes Inc. v. f..51semu, G.R. No. 166mH, Aprif 8, Z008J .
61. . What are the dlstf nctlons betwc&n Ftnal Order and lnte-rlacutory Ord&r.
The first disposes or the subjeot matter in ils enUrefy or terniinales a particu1ar :proceeding or actiori,
leaving nottiin-9 more lO be done eii:oer>t to enforce by execution what the court has determlned , but the
latter does not completely dispose of ttie case;, but eaves somiettii ng €Ilse f.o be decided upon.Ari
interf!ocutory order deals witll prelirranary ma ters and lhe tria'J on ltla, meriits Ls yet to be 'he1d and the
judgme nt reodered. The 'leis co ascertairi wttrer: 01 not an order or a judgnit I 1nt.at1ocutory or firtal
.is:dres tl-,e QtdtN or jt.Jdgml) J'H leave· BOmelhing to be done in the triat COtJtf ' wfth respect to the merits of
the se? If it does.'the order a fina (Pahfia·Garrido v. Tortog-0,
G.R. No. 156358. August 17. 21

63. ABC, Corporation.·i orporation . denied 111for

lack of knowledge th a"d lah;ity thereof
inasmuch as tne aJildHra """"'1ol11"a11m of office of the past
offr.cers of ABC Co Vlt.Cl•Wrx_\ tA nat:cific denial and does it
preclude a judgme
NO. Gonsfdenng that tre:DMD Aotl.-;;;7.ght to know or aou d have
easily kno'wfl, the <ins Ls. settled that dentals ba
on lack of knowl'edge or .w1raj..,. or ough' to be 11<nown to rt,or
could! have easily been n tllEj\1Uief1.11:!lt.tive or sham denia1s. Tlnere
being an ineffective denial•..itlrt. Jrt Kat..MlliliB'Hlings upon motion of ·lhe dai.ming
party 'Mlefl he defending ·H'll:I•·-... otherwise admits he mater•a
allegations of the adverse pa l r"ihi s.r- eadlngs of the partiesin the action
are ooAsklered (Fernando Medi"octll Phrls., Inc., G.R. No. 207970, J ntJiiii)'
20, 2016, Bersamin, J) .

Based so1ely on the pleadings

- -- - - -
As to who rr11a y fHe - -- - - -

Flierl by a daimi11g party May be filed ther by the claiming, -0r

defending party
 If the motion is filed by the plaintiff. it must
be filed at any time after the answer is
served
There is already an answer fited
If \he motion is filed by the defendant.it may
be filed at any time, even before there is an
answer

65.

1.E,raud.
!!eglige· "
prudence t toiustify
against a
aggrieved
impaired i
2. Newly disco
coold not,
have disco
and If so

66.

Rule 40 Notice of MTC 7 RTC Questions oflaw or fact or both

appeal/
Rule 41 Reoord on RTC (original) 7 CA Questions of law and fact
a I
Petition for MTC 7 RTC
Rule 42 Questions oflaw or fact or both
Review a Hate 7 CA
Quasi-judicialagency Questions oflaw or fact or both.
Petition for exercising quasi· Note: Unlikein the other modes of
Rule<l3 Review judicialfunctions appeal.an appealunder this Ru le
enumerated therein shallnot theaward,
 ·--
CSC, and judgment, final order or resolution
Ombudsman - unless the CA dire°'.s otherwise.
{administrative{

CA
--- ·
Petition For RTC (ariginaJ),CA.
Ru 45 Revii&\v on Samii'garbayan. Q1i0f!s of law only
and Certiorari CTA en bane 7 SC

67. To what court are otders. dlrscth.reos, and decisions of the Ombudsman appealable?
1. An appeal in adrntnlswatlve dlsclpllnry cases - R1Jle 43 to the CA
2. Ani ap;pe.AIIn criminal or non-administrative caoo - Rrute 65 to the Supreme Court

SS. X filed an action for specific performance before the RTC agajnst Y. Y riled a n»tlo111 to dismiss,
·s.tal!lng thatthe complaint was already barred by prescription and H did not state a cause of action.
The RTC granb:!d the motion . X move • -· n but was denied by the court. Aggrieved,
X appecaled to the CA, which .Y broug ht an appeal before
the SC, co n . ing that the .:>f an a:pl)eal considerir-g that
Section
motion for 1 o ' 41 of the
dwation. s conitentlon pr'? ken fTom err deny,f ng a
NO.Under the (Jdgm&nt rule n . ,' , ·
S
tsf i' , 4.1 a.fthe R ,
from a judgment , n · d · . ·_ - ep.5j_ C\f g_f parti£- lll'll1·r-filil
daciarad by t:hes to . C;:l! c:!itliY¥no . reconsideration of line
order of dismiss.al c.onfi e di>smissal of the civll
case. .An appeal order ·Or iudgment is
effec1lvely an ·appe· miinst appeal ng an order
den)'ing a motion · _ reconsidOratian of an
m nter1ooutory order_ : · No. 158239.JanuCJry 25,
2012, BersaminJ J )_
•
69. What $ Fresh Per
ilp,?ly?
In Nas v. GA (G_ - a. party-migant should be
alro-wed a fH:l&h parif"l;-I t e RTC. counted from tile
receipt of the ard et di f,_ d::xlltf;iCIWaliori,w as to standar'W z.e
1he appeal period's pro ' bfiillQ.lt(l nil) to appeal liheir cases.
F1urttiermore, U'le SC dee• ...u,_.-,,... procedure, must be gven
retroactive effeel :and a111,.....i,zn;,- . . Damaso, G.R. No. 162518,
Augusl 19, 2DrJ9).

Aside from Rule 41, Die· 40 gov,eml ng appea,s from the

Municipal Tlff:al Courts to tihe glll-J
Courts to Ute Court of Appeals; , Q llllil
and Rute 45 governing appeals. by
October 23, 2013). It shal I aJso apply to
6. Ru,e 122 (Yu v. Samson-Tatad, G.R.
· tns ror review from the 'RegionalTrial
IWl!i-iajoial aqe11cies to the Court of Appea s
._......,J;.,... .._._..-.ourt (Gagui v. Dejem. G.R. No, 196036,
cases,notv.iith.standing the wording of Section
ry 9, 201')'.

However, it sna11 NOT APPLY to ,Rl.Jle 64 as to COMELEC (Pates v_ COMELEC. G.R. No. 184915, June
30; :2009), to COA (Fortune Life Insurance Co_ , Inc. v. COA. G.R No. 213525, JanWN}f 27, 201'5,
Bersamin. J) and in administra ve appeals (San Lorenm BulJders v. Bayang, G. R. No. 194 l<Yl. April 20,
2015).

70. What is the partlcfpation of the SoUcltor General during appeal?

The Solicitor General is the lawyer of the Government of Uie Repub1ie: of 1he Ph11 pp1nes.On the So,iditor
General can rn ng or defend actions in benalf of the Repuhlic o'f the Phtlippines;henoe, actions 1Ued in Ute
name of the Rapubli . if not initlated by lhe Solicitor General. snould be summari1ly cflsmissed_ The
Sqliat:or General represents ttle· Goverrnnem. Ln land registration a11d related proceedings (Repubic v_
1

Register of Deeds Of Quez.orJ. G.R_ No- 73974, Muy 31, 1!i95).

:rt . X fi ed a plaim lbafore the RTC for damages against Y by vErtui of an accident involving
jeep owned by tt:1e tatter. Th& RTC ruledin r.avcr of :X. Y tlled a n.otice of a,-ppeal before tne CA. The
RTCls.sued! ani order appr.oving Y's recor'd Ql!I appea1. X ft1ed before·th& RTC a motion to di:5miH 1

the appeal for faltura of Y to prO.lJeC:UW, whicih was gnnte<t. V fil&cl iii petition for C81tiarnri.
contending 1hBt 1he RTC aiClJ.!!d without. jurisdiction whan It d1smissed his appeal.Deit:ide.
Tile conlantlon or Y ::: tooa. Rule 41, Sec::tlr;m 9 of tile Rules of Court pro\lities Wit OlllC.ft an appeal has
been perfected, the iriel court loses its jurisdidion over the case. But, notwithstanding the perfection of an
appea , lhe ·tJial cow1 does rtOt lose its jJrsdidion to iSStJe orders for tho proteciloo and preservation of
the rights o-f the partias vdlich do nom inrVOlve any mafttli llirlgated by the appeal. Here, U1e otder rir.anling
X's motion ro dlsniss appeal for failure 'Of Y to prosectJte his appeal is not merely an ordet for the
f)ro1eciion oflfile rights of the partias but l.s an order which diS()OSes of ftie case. Ru1e 41, Section 14
provides. Jor lne only if15la11oe- vilfiari 100 RTC dismiss an appeal. i.e.• wherl 01e rnotioe of appea1, or
too appa:al bond or lhll record on appeal was n:olfiloo on llme. In all theSe (:1}'$(!16,the appealhad not yet
bee'n perfectect In lhe nstan.t casa.the notice of appeal,the reooro- on appea1, and lhe ap,peaE bond were
filed on time and the appeal had already been perfected (Aguffie v. CFI, G.R. No. 535-"ili. Deoomber 20,
19QQ}

72. Mm Ch
Too appefJat:
1. Revi&'W ·
has been d 11.1-::r
2. l nstlkltiona•,.,•..tJ111. JJid'le aw for general
·application in ""'Gl!D"-.1 · u tioo of OJ11 1ilutiona1
pnt\ciflles.1tie ""'""_,,..LG ..,.....icy wilhln lhe proper
sphere of the j rn Rinst Presiding Justic
Ar"dffil.. 13. Rel"l;>Q-11!11"

·ect in any rul ng or order

or in anything dooe · for1grar'lllng a new Ul.at or
""11.. -
1 1
_,

for saning aside, modf llJRlll!iO.:ifusal to take su.ch action

appears to tile court LDst ·\(_a.,,tQe of Ule prooeeding must
disregard any ell'fOr a;·-.dfll parties (Velasco v. CA,
G.R.No. :31018, June 'ffl

74. X was a pr l'val8 co

1 Prosecutor dismissed the
1charge,and It was ICk _ J).X filed a new ·compfaint
allaglng the same fae • • Tihe SOJ .also denied the
ubsequant petition for A, 'W"ich dismissed the case.
Hance X filed a petition • Y counters that the petition be
ismissed on the grout1d
d 1
· s of ·law. Should the· petition be
dismissed?
YES. The p€ltitioo for review projects i. s. the Court to undo ·the lindtngs of tact or the
Prosecutor.1ha Secmtary of JusJioo the CA on basis of the documents -submiUed with ihe
petition. iBut 1he Court Is not a mer oHacis, and cannot analyze andl weigti 0\lioonoe. ndeed,Sectie>n 1of
Rule .45., HOC expJiciUy requires ha peti fon for review 011 oor1ioran o rnlse o'Y questions or !law, \vhicti
musl be dlsinctly set forth. AcoordiJlgly, tile peUUon for review ·med by X stiouldi be dismissed, (Limson v.
Gonzales G.R. No. 162205, M8rdr 31, 2014.Bersamin, J)
PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM J UDGMENTi

75. ls the period for ftlln.g a petition for reller extendible?

N'O.A _ party filing a petition for rellef from judg rnen must s-tridly comply with 2 re{lernanlary periods:
'- The peUtioo m1Jslbe filed within 1611 days from knolhlledge of the- judgment, order or othet proceeding
to be sat .aside; aoo
b. Vllittiin a fixed period of ·6 months from entry of suc:ti judgmant, Ofder or other proceeding.
- -- T .,....,..
 Strict compl ance ·w.llh these period's is req1.1ired beca1JSe prosio111 for a petion fur- relief from judgmer1t s
a final act of liooralny on 1lhe part of the State, vmi.ch remedy cannot oo albwed to el'Ode any further the
fundamental pfiiriciple of .immutmlity of final judg1Mnts ( Ilg v. Sps. Marales. G.R. No. 199283.
Jtmft !), 2014)1_ i

PETrTION FOR ANNULMENT Of JJJDGMENT

-
76. X fiCed a petition for uuance of writ of habeas corpusin the RTC to recover parental u!5tody l)f
his minor chCl'd from his mathet-in-law. Y. X alleged tha.1; Y deprtved him of the lawh.11 custody of
ms chitd upon the death of his wife, W.Y coun .er&d that X abandoned his son. The RTC dismissed
tne J>e'1it4on.X f iled a petitio.-. for reUief f1irom judgroont to seak nulllflcation o,f the RT·C's rull"ng. ilt
was. hver, den ed on tht\11 gro11ind that rtt w.as in the nature of a second motion for
r$oCOAS1Jderation. X then filed a petition for annulment of judgment before the CA on !the grounds of
exbim,;1;;: fraud and denial of due process.The CA dismissed the same. Declde.
The CA OO!lectly dismiS:sed Ule petition_ The petition for annUlmenE. of iudgmenf initiated uooer Rule 4.7 of
the ROC is a t.1 ;u1'1Eldy granted only under · . . msblne@s provided. the petiliooer has rililed to
avail himself of the urdinary 01
oft.en been . 1hal such · !& pa ftwl \v1d'ioulfault on rus part. It has
or H'1€: petitio!lef's own neglect in

Secondly, Ole g . r. f exhinsk: a

nol promptly . · ,g himself s.Here·, no longer a\'an

himseU of . simply use he had already broug etiUon r. from judgment
hiS. IJEifi.tio nt of judgment
ts.ila teC. · e
was avai able to -
wa.s juslifiabfy p
reposililg ·the ous
·f
11i
•m h.
,is minor on to "[)$
. )
tUt
· mJl1'19i;ve.n.t If

Augwst 24, 2016, ·
Qf Mm A Pl lJVil
uillo v. r.
ot rai'se it then. he
rul ng of ttie RTC
<>, G.R. No.·19 7356,
. · . J )_

77. X a.icquired a pronlii fd'lflm c1mi.-..tas made by Y declaring

that said pwperty ·' -."" Glq! ..., pay• .a complaint was

flied by Z for the 00;.•..,_. ... tt°".:"lniosure of the m.ortgage.

For failure to file arra-t
owner of the pr,opa_ , _
was dfsmissed.Is f"'l)Jljpbd
NO,A judgment of a Y.
in Interest by U11e am9l'!Jln
judicad by a rul;ns-d re
conforms to ·1ne .oonslit
cannot be prejudiced · et «J.ejcM1. foc quieting of tttle or all
action Jor l'econvayance_._...,.,
.24. 2012, Bersamin, J}.
ilX! , e.ndered declaring z as
J'4!ml1Ant bafora th& CA. which
.• rae1 d"those wno are stJ:ecessors
'lllllJOCtle lllal a person canllilot be
s not been made a party
:,,#. was not a party, hence,i'
-=-.wllol" G..R. Ml. 15112i, Sef)l.ember

78. WhenIs an execution a ma matter of discratlon?

Normaliy. execution wi lissue as en the j ment has beool!W3 ftnat and
exeoutory; (b) vmen the Judgmenl debtor waived his. tight of appeal; (c) 'Wtiet' lhe od
for ap,pea haslapsed wJlhouf an appe.Jll ving been file r (d) when, harving been filed, the appeal has
'been resolved an.d the records of the case Jmve been rnb.Jrood tQ ttm court of origin.

Execution pending appealis the ex:ooptiofl to the generalrule.As ·sucn exception, the courts discretion in
allowii-.g it rrwst be stnott)' construed and rmly grounded on the existena! of good reasons.Good
reasons consfslof compelIirig circumsta nces thatjustify immediate execution IE:St lhe iudi;lmenl becomes
illusory. The circumstances must be sU!p6rior, outweighing Ille injury or damages lha might result should
the· losing party secure a reversal of lhe judgment (Florendo v_ Paramount Insurance. G.R. No. 167916,
J81W8ry 20.2010).
79. 1May an execution peru:lilllg appea be granted in Land Registration proceedings?
NO. It is fraught with dangerous ronsequences.. nnooent pu11ctiasers may be misiled ,into purchasing real
properties upon reliance an a jJ.Jdgrnent wflich may. be reversed 011 appeal. A Torrens till& issued on the
basis of a judgment Uiat is nol final is a numty, as il s v olative of the explicit provisions of he Land
 Registration At=t. whH:h requires that a d'ecree shalr be ,issll8d onty after the decision adjudicaliMQ theliUe
!becomes fi llal and exectJtmy.and ·it 'is ·on the basis of srud docree that too R.egJster of Deeds conCe.med
lssues the corraspoll.(fing 1certifica1:e of tiUe. Hel'llr:e, execution pending a,ppeal is not applicable in aland
regiSAration proc€!ooiflg and the certificate of title thereby issued is null and void (Top Mamig.ment
Programs Corp. v. Fajardo, June 15, 2011).

80. A and B entered into a comproml&e agreement involving parcels of land wh c.h the court approved
.and a judgment based 'lheroon W111s entered. Later· on, A commenced an action to recover the
possessio.n and ownership 0,f the parcels of land.The judgmen1 was not executed within ttiie 5·
1

year period tor Its. execution.Are the parties antitied to be· heard of'1heir claims?
YES.A!llf'iough ommenced ostensibly for the recovery of possession and ownership of real ·property, the
case was rea11y an action to revive Hle jlJdgman.t by compromise because the uUimale oucoorne woul:d be
M otoor than to order 1he ex.eaution of lhe judgnt by OOnlJromise. Trhere is no substantialdlfferenoe
ootweel'll an action expressly called one ror revival oJ judgment and an action for recovery of property
under a right oojudg(lld undsr and evidenced by a nnal, judgment.In addition, the parties lllemselves have
tH aledIha plaint for re::covary as on • ' ly.lhe part4es should be fully heard ·On ltielr
mspective daims nke in any . CorJoepoon. G.R. No. 159508,
August 29, · , 12 BBrsamfn, ).

1. ·ect of a writ of
execution.
flt is a basic prin· . :;iserty incontrovertibly
beloflQing to the kenly levied 1.1po11 to
answer tor anothanrm&J>'!.1 ·ecml&rf·rle levy through any of
U:ie following reme<11- l:I '
a. Terceria, to om1111e
belonging ID Ill
b. An independent.:".'iim:i lilH.
foredased propernio;o-.-
c:. other legar remef!lm:!)iitQ,P,PI
d. Invoke ltie· superrv1s
G.R. No. 192813, ..._..,. .

82. What s the doetrl"'o are tne exc:eptions?

.nm1.i'lli1t?ANhat
A decision at nas a may no fonger be modiified
in any respect, ·even if _. ,..,._..,<Y'-1 -·clusions of fact and law, and
whether it be made by tie..C.alrtl\a la net Any act Mi chviolates
l'i s prirricipfei illl,Jst tmmedi· teft' 11JiiJ! TC of MakJJri, G.R. No. 181282,
FebruaJY 23, 2011).
'lihe only exceptions to the gene -
a. he correction of clerical er.-.r1r1•'--''Jllil::l-
b_ ttle so-called nunc pro flinc enm·
c. void judgm1mts;aind
d. \i\l'henever circumstances transpire a - the fina11ty o , Judg1rnents rendering *lXectJtion unjust arndl
inequitable (Sofio v. Valenzue/8, G.R. No. 157810, February 15, 2012.Bersamrn, J).

8,3- May a writ ,of execution be appealed?

As a general ru'le, an order of execution i:s unappealabfie (ROG, Rule 41, Sec. 1}. However.there are
,Instances wt'iefe a w.rit of oxecuticf'! may be appeal@d, to Vilt:
a_ The wrtt ,af exeautioo varies 1he Judgment:
b. Thllre has been a change n the siltlalion or lhe parties making e.x.ecullon Inequitable or unjust:
c_ Exec:ution1 Js sougllt lo be enro.rced against propmty e;icampt from execution:
.d . n appears that Ille oorttro¥ersy has never beel'I subject lo h'0 judgment of tna court
e. Terms of he judgment are not dear enough and there remains room for Interpretation thereof; or
f. It .appears lflat tile writ or execution has been improv denUy issued,m that it is defective in substance,
or FS issued against the wrong1 party, or ttlat the judgnilent. debt has been patd or athe'rMSe satisfied, or
he WTlt was isst1ed without aufuarity.
 In these eJCoept onal aira.imstanres , considerations of justlee arid equity dictate ttiat there be some mode
avai able to the party agglieVQd or elevating the questiof'li to a higher oourt. That rn:xle of elevation may be
either by appeal (Wril of error Qr ce.rt/orarl), or t;iy a SJX!oial civil action of oortlotari, proh.ibiitioll. or
mandamus (Parel v.Heirs of Prudencio. G..R. No. 19221 7, March 2, 2011).

84. Dlffe.nmtiate 'fesjudicatain the funn of bar by prilor judgment from conc1usivenes.s of judgmen,t.
Tne ptinuip1e of .re·jtJd bata [ays down two main rl.des, namel}':
ai. Tile judgmerril or decree of a court of 0ompetent jurisdict1on un the merilS coriddes the litigation
between the parties and their prirViss amt ool\Stitukls a bar lo a new action or suit •nvolving the sarne
cause of aotion either berom infl same or any other tribunal; and
lb. Any right, fa.cl, or matter inissue direc11y adjudicated or necessarilyinvolved in the deterrnrnalio11 of
an aclion before a oonipetenl court in wniT h a .judgment m decreeis rendered on I.tie mertts is
com:ilusiv-el·y .sensed by ·the judgment therein and cannot again be liUgated bet.veen the partles and
their pnivies whethef ·IJlf :not the claims or demands, purposes, or subject matters ·Of the two suits are
the same.

These two main mies mart; the ming Ule two typical cases in which
ai judgment ay d,and vAl ich corresponds to Uie
afore quot.e raph (b) of __ ' is referre to "bar by form,g:r
ju<lgroont": 'Ull te oond g
.- - rnle, which s embodied in ph (c) ·me soction and
rule, irs known " ndusiveniess o . ' " .· . · . bizo·Directo, 178495 July 26,
2010) .

85. Slate th& :rule on llMl:t;CI

Coorts. are not alto.....ar..,..r;
and prioven in a PH--
'urisdiction.want of'
reviw embodies th._........
jur sdm ciion of other st
njl!d9ma11t Is admitted
·"'
-·--
-0 its merits, i.e. want of
F' ?t::l r fact. The rule on imtt.ed
, as \1181 as respecting the

86. Dlstlnguish between onam.

Far an aciiorn in rtJm, ·'8 to the ltling. wtri e in an
action, in personam , con lb 'lte, of a right as between the
parties and their suooe; rs O· , · both cases, the forelgo
judgment is susoeplb1e . o want of ju risdlciion or notk:e
to the party, corlusiorn, 1DC11.... - , · I that thc;re should be an
opportunity to challen his. jL.Jrisdiction to property
determine its .efficacy . "1 order to ernforre a foreign
ju.dgmerit, ev0n if such Jtl(J.iJaffllll a.>Ca'Ml :;;tn rem actions.if only for tlle
purpose of allowing tie o· .nmi . ...,...,. , judgment.and n order for ·the
court to proper1y determine .t'tlJ. mg a foreign judgment has he
burden of over.coming ttle pnasur re)f1 r'f r_orp. v. Guevarra, G.R. No. 167052.
March 11r 2015).

87. 1.he property of Bank XVZ was attached by its creditor.In an .attempt to ds.:tharge the attacnment.
Baok XYZ volunteered to· deposit r·eal propen In Heu o·f cas'h or counrmr-txmd . Bank XVZ arg,ues
t'hat Sec. 2 of Ru:le 57 only mentions the term ndepos.it''1 not 'cash''.Should Bank XVZ be allod
to deposit re property?
NO.Pursuant to Rule 5·7, Sec. 5, once lhe writ of attachment has boon issued. the onl_v remedy of lhe
petit olilers In ·lifting lhe same is UirotJgh a cash deposit or the filng of the cournler..OOnd.While 1!is U-ue
that Hie "WO rd deposit cannot onl'i be 0011nned or construed to refer to cash a brooder interpretation
thereof is noljustified for the· reason that parrty seeking a sta)' of the atl.actllment under Section ·5 is
required to make a depostt in an amount equatlo the botld fixed b)' the collrt in the order of attachment or
to tt'le value of the property to be attaciled. The proximate relation or the word "deposit" and "amounr is
unmistakabte tn Section 5 of Rule 7. P ain1y, in consltuLrtg said 'WOrds, U can be safely conduded that
Seot on 5 requires tile depos.U of money as the word "amou11r commonly refers to or is 1"€gular1y
assoaiaLed with a sum of money (Luzon Developrrnmt Bank v. Kflshman. G.R. No. 203530, Apnl 13,
2015)
88. A flf«t against B a complaint for sum of money wfth praliml nary attachment. The RTC gran*I 1he
wnt upon appl cation anc:I after the poslng of bond.Thus, B's propertfes went levied upon.A few
months later, the partles entered into a compromise agreement wherein 8 promised to pay on
nstallmen1basis. Tiha sam& lnd·uded a provision 1hat shoutd B fa:U ID pay, the whole of
oblig·ation shoul be lmmed atety demandable.The corn;promlse ag1 ernent was apln"oved by the
ftTC.B then sought a p&tlJon t 0 lift th.e· Mi o# prel minary attachment on ms TCT. Should flis
1

rnotron be grantedr?
NO_ By its nature, pre!;ininary attachment urtder Rule 57 of' tile ROC is an ancillary remedy applfed fO< not
tor its own sake but lo enable tha aUactiin-gi party f o realize up011 the relief sooghl arnd expected to be
granted in the ma1n or 1principal action Itis a measure auxiliary or inoiderital o the main action. As such, it
Is availabl'e duriingits pende111cy which maJ' be resorted to by a litigant IO ,presef\te and protect certain
rights and interests during theinterfm, awai_ling th.e ultimate effects of a final judgmenin the case. lo sum.
-preliminary attachment is notlifted by execution of comprorrise agreement. even If ll'!e same has been
approved by l e court. eS,µecially where the obligaoons ttlunder have not yet been saUsfred. H'eoce,
B's rootion should not be gran.te<J. (Lim, Jr. vs. t..amro. G.R. No, 18Q.734, Juty 3', 20 3'

89. What ·is tile manner of attachl

The provJsi dy of att . urt issues thB order grantil'llQ the
applcation;s r fhe writ . granting t · ; and third,the
vmt isim;>Je . . r Uie in wo st.it is oot necessary. . risdicfio e person of the
defendarrt _be Ii . · .ined. Howe\l A· f imliil· A .o ttl :mu · . the 0ourt niuSt
haive acquired JU ·· e n n. 1bc. [_ h . l(l¥! pn, th has no power and
auth.ority •·o 9ct J . nW ' n . 0 '81fro ourt will not bi·nd the
defendant.(Torre satin, 'f.!e:r...2.5..• .·
90. What are the grour
For the issua11ce o - 11d all a ppfficar1t's borKll
m.JS:t be filad with 1hW"'l.t1un .'l.lltt...,_v.f tne ROC stams that an
aider of attachrnAnt $•--._._.. - plica.nt, or ot soroo other
pe-fS.Ofl vklo personalW't.-r\jl'S ;(b} that the ·case is one
of thos-e mentioned i11._:::il;i.flfl tt..:Jl!IOU·)m
·y far the clafm sough to
be enforced by Hie a_ ...-- vaJue of Hle property lhe
possession of wiljch iwe1o1111"rI the order is granted above
a•I LegaJ counterdaims "N'llli9trr.rn·n
1
tember 9, 2015)-

91. HowIs the order ·Of atl'Si!Fennan

Rufe 57. Seon 2 p 5S\.B)o-S parte or u;pon motion v.ifu
notire :and hearing by - .nowere'f, when issued 1e.x parts, ttie
prelimlnary wrtt of attach'M
. <!tlmJlf'i e service of summons on lhe
defendant whether !by mli - ..._.!i tion as wan.anted by the

92.
circums:tanoe.s of ltle case_ (

Spouses A and e O'.btained

U»ilA/1
----
. . .' 2002)

obligation,, they ·e.xecuted

re tbe1r
promissory no1es and ¥eal es ion ballooned o P17M;yet, they we11e
only able to pay P13M. Because of quired them to issue postdated eheclcs
otherwise, it will foreclose the mo ag(t. Spouse and e. then filed a writ of preliminary
Injunction to stay the forecl sure. Should tnelr petition be granted?
NO. The oond tions tor the issuance of s injundive writ are: ·(a) U'lat the right o be protected exists primB
1

facis; b) Hlat l:he act sought to be enjoined is violative of that r ghl: and (c)1 that there" is an urgent and
paramount nec:asslty for the writ l.o prevent serious damatre. A right. to be p11utecmd by injunct on.rmans
a ri:ght dearly foUJld·oo on or granted by law or is enforceable as a matter of law. Here. the first and
seeond oortdioooo 8J·e absent. Considering that the spouses cansfituted the real &.state mortgage lo
s.ecure lhe perf0rma:nreof their lo.an ob igalioo to too bank,tll were h.Jlly aware· of U'le coi'ilsequences on
their rights i'1 the properties givenas ·CQHaterals should tihe loan secured be unpaid.Tne f-oreclosure of tile
nnrtgages woutd be Hie remedy pr·ollided by law Jor lhe 1nvngagoo to "*3:icacl payment. The U1ird cond•tion
1s rikewise absent becatJse Oie spouses failed to establish die ln-eparable injury!hey woutd surfer should
the writ of pirE!limillacy injunction not be issued. Hefloe, the peUtlon should ool be granted ( BPJ v.Judge
Honlanosas G.R. Ho. 157183,, June 25, 2(H4, BerSBmin, J ) _
1
93 Spou5e$ A anl!i .B i'ncecuted a rpromlssory note with chattel moa in favor ,o,f Bank. xyz. For f-
.nura of thfl spousos to pay the amount, Banik XYZ sent a demand letter decltaring the entre
amount due and dernandable. Slnce Bank XYZ 1:s d nd was. left unhaadM, the bank nled an
i!Ction f"cr raplwin , which thtl' cQurt gran1ed. .spouses A and B now argue that the ntplevJ n cannot
be iS$Ued, iii1$ the·y cannot ibe onsidered to have dofa.ul,ted n payment for
1ack cf com;petent proof
ht tney ree&MH:I tl!la demand Lntar.Is tbaoir mntontil')n tenabr:e?
NO. Pr,ior demand is not ·8 oondition. preoedent to an action ror a writ of replevln_ There is nothing n
Section 2.Rule- 60 or ltle ROC ttlal rnqu rcs tho applicant lo make 8 demand on the pass@ssor of the
property before tm aC1 0t' fo:r a wril of tep1ev ln ooukf be fifed. Toornforn. the spouses' ooritentton is
lnoorrecl (Agner v.. BPI' Family Bank, June 3, 2013).

SPECIAL CN L ACTIONS

·IN.TERPLEADER
-

94. X obtained a 'loan from ABC B.a nk seri::u late Mortgage c:ver a land. When X fai1ed to
settle his obl gat1i.on, ABC B me proceedings andl eventuaUy
emerged a th highest bidd by X to redeem the property,
ABC Baok c 'da
,ted jt1; 0 ly, ABC B k ·ma.nded rental
ni.u1 -. X instituted an
dlliUJ;<"for lnterpleader
against X and .. _.,._..,.:. Bceive the rental
1paymeots.The ....- ;..,. " -=:-:.c._ac'k rentals. Did the,
MTC Decision o iarnUl!.l lnterpleaderr action
lnstlitutad by Y?
YES- ln·an jnleffplea.,..!OI...- subject matter are or
may oo made again wn:Ml! rin the subject matter-or
an interest lr\!hich i ·..11a=oo·uedsion in the Unlawful
Detaj11e1 case· reSDlv':i'U!I...,..., rat:aaMr-a ooncemed. Henoe, ltie
reason for the interp111:1.......,. X whatever rentals that
may nave accrue<!. Pre l<"lllrrtar'A was no tmra reason to
continue Mth the i .e ' 'QAtton. G.R. No. 127913,
Sepember 13, 2001

95. Is declaratory reJJlef t iJIY Board?

NO. Dedarato:ry ,reUef i ,....cnr Cl!IL1 1 , deed,will, oonttact or other
written instrumen t. exec : lll!!"Je rWibn of coosltuction or vaJid ty
arising from Uleinstrumenln!!IUtllUI! a d laration of his ngllts and
f
dutiies thereunder _ The dedst _!loll""'"a proper ·srub-jeel: matter for a
pistition for ·dedaratory relief W'<l"'•r:r Board in the exercise of its quasi-
judicial powers or functr9ns (r. PhNippN'Te V:eterans Bank. G.R. No.
199571, January 21, 2015).

96. Whatis the Scope of Rule 641

RtJe 64 col\l'ers onty the judgments, final orders, or resolutions of lhe COMELEC and COA Lssued in the
exercise of their adj1.rd1icatary and qtJasi j dioial powe rs_ :nter1ocutoiy orders and rulings tn the exercise of
admin stralive paweirs of the COMELEC and COA are covered by Rule 65 (Section 1. Ru 64, ROC) .

97. X fled an erectora priotest alleging elecUon irregularities .Y raised the defeni;a that X did not make
1he reqtdslite cash deposit on time, but .such defense w.as de:niod by the COMELEC 1first Divis·on
&1atlngr that X substantfally complied wUh such rule.Y moved, tor reconsideration and prayed tllat
the matter be raised to COMELEC en bane: wlfich opposed arguing that the order, being mere'Y
lnten·ocutoiry, oould' not be etevated to COMELEC en bane. Moreover, it .appears that the sub. ect
con-tro-versy is not 0.ne of t'.he caw-s Wherein COMELEC E111i bane may sit. Can the SC take,
1

cognizance of the case'?

 NO. The rrK>de by which a docisioo, order, or ruling of ttie Cooielec en baflc: may be elevated lo tMe
Supreme Court is by way of certiorari under Rule 64 of the ROC '!.lllhereirn a motion for reconsldeia•lon is a
plafn and adequate remedy pro\llded 'bry law. Failure to abjde by ths procedural 1requtrcrnent constitutes a
ground for dismissal of the petition.The instant case cannot be referred to COME .EC En bane bec--ause
no final decision or resolution has yet been made which will necessitate the elevation of fhe case fmdl its
reoords to COMElEC en bane. In a sll.Uatlon like this, Y may avail of Rule 65 of 'ROG on the Interlocutory
orde.. of a division of COMELE.C provided lhere e:K srs lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
djre-\ion. Such elem&nld<X;is not exist in ttie case (Cagas v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 194139, Jt)rWar/ 24,
2a12, Bersamm. J).
98. Does the fr&s.h-period rule 11pp to petition under Rule 64?
NO. A petition \lflder 1Rule 64 roost be filed within 30 days from notice or the judgmel"lt or nr.a.1 order or
resolution <Sought 'o be re\liewed. If motion for n co11Sideratio11 Es denied, the pe•ltlo11 must be flied within
t remalnin.g p.miod. but vdiich shallnot b lass than 5 days in any eve11t, r&ekoned fmm notioe of dellial
of th£t MR (Lakin v. COMELEC, G. R. No. 193808, June 26, 2012. Bersamin, J).

99. (
I

Errtity or person 1s allew:o_...t1 - or person ls alleged to

-·
acted: nlawfully:
1.Without jurisdicii:on; le<:ted a rnin,lsterial duty:
2.lin excess of junisd,ctio 1,

3.Wilh grave abuse· o ri,.ided anottier from a tignt

amountiflg, l:o lack tt1-...C.. ia!"-F'? office.
urisdcction.

remedy is affirmative ()f

This

This .ram00y s 001rective - to oorre.............,

M and posijive
duty is
(if the performarlCe of a
ordered} or it is negative
prevent
usurpaiiori of jurisd ction. , 'on. (if a person is ordered·«> desist
from excluding aflother from a
nghl GT affir:e}.

100. X filed a specialcivil action for certlorarJ in assailing the ord&.r 6'&Ued by the trial co111rt whereb
the trial cc-urt declared the prosecullon to have terml.nated tlle prese-ntaUon of fur1her evidence in
'Che libel ease commenced by X. X clalmed that the Judge commltt&d gra\re abuse of diseration for
not issuing subpoena to require Atty.Y to testKy In the hearing1. CA tHsmissad the p&titlon for
certiorari.Did the CA. correctly dl&mls& the petition?'
YES.A caruorari does nol lie to reYiew an interlac.uto order. but only a fin81 judgrnent or order th.a,.
temlinatss the proceedings. Indeed, a. writ of certiorari Is not tfi11ended to correct e'Very c-0n·er&lP1
interlocutory ruling unless. lhe rulingis attended by gra...a abuse of discretion or tainted by wtiimsic:a'
exercise of judgme nt equivalent to •ack of j.urisd1c::tloo.Here, the trial oourt"s assailed order to l:errrunal@ ll:'ie
Prosecution's presentation of evJdence was merel inte.rloclJtory ,justl ng CA's dismissal of U'le petili011
fOf certiorari. Instead, he proper remedy far X was to prooeed In the action um Judgrrent, which.once
 ifend9rOO , might then be re\liewed on. Eippea1,along 'Witfl the assailed inter1ooulory oitder (Golfmgoo v_
Fung, G.R. No. 157952. Sepl<Jrnbar s, 2009, Bersamin, J).

101 What are th exceptions to the- filing of the petition for certiorari wlthom first fiUng motion for
rec:onsideradon?
Jurisprude11ca h.as laid down axcaptians ta 1t1a requlramant for the fi1ing of a petilion for CtJltkJmri wiltlout
first flUng a ,fTIQtion for moonsiiertlliion., io wit
.a. wf'lerc tlie or'der Is a pattl-nltml..dlity, as where lh01 catJrt a QC.IQ has nojurisdiction:
b. wne·t© the QUe5tiori:!;> raissa jn the oertiorafi pr0¢eeeft5 flave been duty raisecl and pas. 1,1pon by
·the lo'it'er oourt, Qf .a.re the same as those raised and passed upon in tllfi: iower caurt;
c::. where lharnis an urgent necessity for d'i0 msolulion of the qlJQStion, and a11y tut1her delay would
prejudice ltieinrerasts of too Govern1l'IM!l. or or the petiti.(H"ler.or iltle :subject ma\terr of the petitioo is
perishable;
d. wtlcre. under the circumstances. a motion for reconsiderat on woolld be 1.JS&ess·:
{t. whE:Jli'e me pei1itloner was depriYed 0-f due process, aJid thereis extreme urganey forr relief

f. where,in .e c!irninal case, re!ief fram an order arrest is. urgent and the grant ng of sLJ.cn retief ny the
11ial rourt is 1mprobable::
g_ wheM , e prooeedirigs in,
h. where tti ding was
l w-hrie- t rai:seij is o y of aw or publ c. in sm
JSEDA
=i 11::;,r. ••"'"r"'af-t$lt.Ct"JtF.l!hA<:\'W! d
No.19913 . fnber Q, 2015,

1()2_
within the elec:tio
violation cf tba
compl\ant for lac
dirme<I tfie· findin
discrm.ion en aflinn
sllould be dismi
r;ertiorari prosper?
NO. rhe· wel-establi........,
a11 aggrieve.di party caTf>f!ll,r:t
for rnconsideralioo
opportunity to oorrect ..a..."n'"'..._..--.-
factuel aspects. of the
was applicable herein.
1l'here was nothing in ,
reconsideration in efectl
Bersamin. J).
103. A, the tactical officer, re
Honor Committae <HC) for a
appe-al whon he .safd that bis c
and his family members ciaim tha
tex.0 9o
e Cv"Jl!Ar"'Y"". was Hlega•
and in
d the dismi55aJ of ·the
. COMELEC En bane
ttted grave abnse of
petiti:o:n for certio1tati
n. WiU Y's. petition for
sab1€1 condition before
JallLe-t.J5 . The fi ing of ttle motion
mTOErt1::wtne puDlic respondent tile
xamination of I.he I and
" al nong of the exceptions
eration.. especially because
rlruYthe ftling of lhe r1iDtlan for
i.7 1991'39, September 9, .2015,
1""1itriill'i ilitary Academy. to the PMA's
. A•ktgedly. B lied in his writteo
- i$ a- ulti he waslat,e for his nex.t class, 8
e -11""1::1,rtm&g in the lnvestlgatlon done by the HC. 8
1

filed a petition for manoamus befo - e Suprem un. PMA opp0sed the said ;petition as it
argued that the court shou Id av old interfering with mt: - ry matters. Wiii mandamus pro,sper In th1e;.
CaM·?
NO. B's prayer ttiat PMA should be compell'ed to reinstate h im as we11 as to giv,e him h supposed
acadell'M.t awmd'S not !PfOp.er. The Court c.annot compel PMA to do so because the act of r·estoring B's
r ghts .and enlitternenrts as a cadet. a wel I as his awards Js a dl:seretiQnary act. Mandamus canoot be
availed against an official ar gavernmerit agency. in this case PM.A. wtiose duty requires 1he exercise of
discretion or j dgment FurU1r. such i:lCl \JAltcn PMA was sougllt by B to perrom is within PMA's
academlc freedom as an educational institlllion - anc:I sl.!Joh performance Is beyond U'le j risdiction of
oourts (Cudia v. PMA G.,R. No. 211632, Felm.Jary 25, 2015).
104. What should be the remedy of B in the foreGOing case?
Tiie petia111 for certiorari is a11owed because the issLJe tiernin is 'M'leltler or l'lOlPMA and its responsib1e·
officers acted 'Mth grave ab1Jse of di cre.tion When it dismissed B.Under lhe Constitutioo, that is too duty
of lhe ooLits. to decide actual oonrtroversies and to determine wlleltler or not a go,vemment brancii or
1
 inS'ttUrneritality acted witf:I grave abuse of discretion. Thus, PMA cannot argue tllat judicia.1 interventioninto
mil tary affairs Js oo't proper as a mart\'a,of policy. Suffice it to say that judicla nan-interference in military
i not an absolure rule {Cudia v. PMA, G.R. No. 211632. February 25, 2015)
affairs

105. X owned a parcel of land in Cebu Clty 1 half of whichIs uged for 1re.sklenoe1 half he ranted out. The
land was his rO.fdy prroperty al'!ld SOUl'08 of income. rn 19941 the Sanggunang Penglunsodl of 'Cebu
1

adopted Rasoludon No'. 552 to authorize tile Mayor to· expropriate the land for the ,purpose of
developing it for row cost .hous•ng.Ala.rrne-d . X filed a petition for cer1orart and 1prohibition forIla
dlsmi&sal of the Resciutioo but the .RTC dismissed the petmon on the ground that cerllorari was
only· ,avallabf.& to asu11 Judrcial or quasi..judic:J.aJ am. Is an action for certiorari and P'fohlbl11on
1
proper to assailthe fssuance of a resolution by the Sainggunlang Panglungsod7
NO. For certiorari andl prohibition fo prosp€r, 'the requisijtes to ba e:stab11shad r'S:( 1) the writ is against a
'ribunal, board . or officer Ql(erdsiog judicial or Q1Ja$i-f l).ldicial fu11c ions: (2) such has acted without or in
exss of jurisdiction or wi1ih grave abuse of discralion; and (3) here is no appeal or any plain, 5.'l)eed;r.
and adequate remedy in tile ordrnary course of law. In this case. certiorari does not llie against the I
Sanggunian as it is a legislative and poli -m · and rwt a part o1 Hi1e jtJdiciiary setuing an. aa.1
canlroversy involving l'eg;arly
d scretion i. ad pting the a
sentiments
.accordfng fo
. s nom confe
· ,9 t :the ovemment COOe·. T'here o ,
ull1tlerrnore, there is 110 aoose of
xpression of Ule Sangguni.a1fs
o•· sufficie fo xpropriation as
· 1 l1u:ngsod nas not
l
•

abused its disc r it only expre 4, Apr/1 6, 2011,

Bersamin.J) .
106. Disttn ulsh Aoe1:!-...11r Ai!lrlM d&l IN!l;rC.

Appeal certiorari stays the Judgment. . In a certlorarl .ng. the chaJJenged

fitJttJ' order,or r1esolu0on. prooeedtfl9 is OOI stayed unff>ss the oourt issues a
TRO or an injunctive writ.
As to St.1gci or Proc eedings
Appear by cettiorari may be avam led or Petlffon fbir certiorari may be availed of during lhe
only after a ffnaf judgment. U seeks to pendency of tne case or even before judgment
review fina{ judgme11l5 or final orders. Thus, it may be availed af against a111 krlertocutoty
order.
 QUO WARRANTO

07. In quo WBrr'81 1do proceedlngs EnltJ!at&d by e private .pen.ol'll, what must the petitioner prove·?
ln quo warra!ltO. llh4li petiooner who fikls the actionjnhis nar'TE! must pro'•/'e that he is entitled to the subject
p\Jbl1c offioo. In otliler "WOrds, tl'l.-e pJiva'ta per.son wing must show a ct ear right lo the conmstBd position.
Othmrwise.the 1person 'Wh:o holds the same has a right to undis.turbed possession and the action for quo
warren.to Y be disrriss0d. It Is nat even necess.a:ry to pass upon ttle right of th d9fendant who, by
virtue of h:is appointment. continues. in the undisturbed possession of his office {.ArQc.rero v. CA. G.R, No.
·t,60053. September 2 t 2011J.

The occuioaot
or disloyal 'rNilll , _........ •Y appointed and
petiliooor may ,.,_,.,...,,,.. who waslegaly
occupam of the o....,..,..J.--
disquaJifiied and
the second flrghe ,

The petitron is brought in he;Qai"

th.e RTC or file MTC as the case 8'll""'
Note·: It' is filed fn the MTC when '
efectioll of a barangay officer
oonte-sted.
iganbyan nas exclusive artginal
quo warranto arising or Hiat may arise
jn cases fil undet E.O Nos. 1, 2,14, 14-A S.. 1986,
but ltris. roost be fn afd of tts appellate jurisdktion
and not excl1.i1sive of the Supreme Coutt.

EXfRO
. J!BIATION.

109.. When may the p.Jaintiff take Immediate possession of the property &ought to be expropriated?
The iJJatntlff may enter upon the property immed ael'I upon the filing of lfle oompl int with due notice' to the
defoodant ,and aftr making a deposit \\lltti the proper g'Ovomment authority . The deposit shal, be in an
amoun!equivalent to Ule assessed value of fhe real property for the purpo$es of taxation (ROC, RcJJe 67,
Sec. 2). Uponcorr1]Jian with lhe requlrements, he jsguBflce of trie wt.it of possession becomes minms.terij.I
(Biglang-Awa v.Bacafla, G.R. Nos. 139927 and 139938, November 22, 2000).
 FORECLOSURE_ OF REAL IESTATMOB;LGAGE

111. w i$ the dlffet'e1. . n?

Equity of Reoompru ' "1"'•'t. the- J'r)')rtgage and retain
ownership of tile p ··mtry of judgment or even
aft.er Hie foredosure ._..Lil"" · 8-IV""'' edernption refers to the
right of lhe debtor. n· - • N:'MlllA?'l'f'i' creditor of said deblor or
any person having a .....,Jnn.I'.., of trust undet which fhe
ptoparty is said to re'QE'* lhe sh@riffs , fti:ficate of
fo:reclosure sale.

112. Who may file a ·compliiltnl

Any person who hci.cS Ule t1t'll"rlnl],KXJ1m itiate a oornp•air'll for partition.
AllCO-OWl'lla'fS of 'he prope '"·' Ml) J . 1).

113.

Possession of the land by tne de eooant is Possession Is lr)Ceptivety lawtui bul It

unla.wfl.d from the beginning as he acquires becomes illegl1 by reason of Uie te:rminatlon
possession by foroe, intinricJatiQn , lhreal. of hlis righl to tne possessiori of too pll'QPerty
stTategy or stealth, under his oontct with the plaililtiff.

As to Necc s&ity of Demand

-

N'o ptre-vloos demand for the derttndan• o:> Oema'fld is jutisdidioriaJ 1r the ground rs non
vacate the pJerrises i:s lleoBSSililru . payment er rents s or failure to co with
._, lease contract
 REMEDIAL LAW
- -

Forciblle Entry (Dtan13cio1"J) Unlaw'ful Detainer (Des.ahuc:i o)

As to Prier Phys!cat Posss.slon

- -

As a rule . the plairrCiff must prov that he

was. rn prtor physlcal po5se.5Slon of tihe The p1aintlff need not have been In prior
pi'emloos until he was deprived thBrnof by physic.al possession.
ltie defeooanrt. ·
- - -

A'!!. to Prescriptive Petfod

-- --

The ol'le (1) yea; per'lnd js generally counted Period is counood from the date of las.t
From ttie date of actual ientty Ot'I Uie land. demand or laslled.er of demand.

114. May the qyestion of ownersMp be derenninedin..ejeotment suHs?

In .an e echner'll suit.de<:t'SiOn on the issue of ownership is provisioAaL The sole question for resolution In
· e fac.:ro) of U'la pry Jn question . arid
nll!E'lilt averment of owmrsh1p by ttle
- llSe. Heace, even if the questiOll"I
of owl'lershiR -Rt issue but I determine the
ques'tioTI of P!Wli.an n hi s in rably lin .i'.1 ·the question af
possession. Th""'-"'·"u thl:dlam mere y provi n d wlH not bar or
pr.ejudice an actio ?jt t W f -a v. Rapa1, G.R. No.
16.9594, July 2()1 LUY"lllll'i.

115.
Acckm de raivind1·e·1atll!in recovery of
ownerstijp as well a "ght to possess and is a
plenary .action in a ery of physical or actual
poosess,ion ·Ol'lly (throl. ....._.,,_,...... Idelaw ner} (Penta Par:ffic
Realty Corp. v. LeV11..•mu111i:: . 9, November 24" 2014.
Bersamin. J).

l 16. X .acquired a ·par-ce lb'lrti

said ot without his ¢·amHu1
would vacate t'he I
demand,Spouses AB
Forcible eMry. The- ev111erme..co1e
not mereiy tolerat·ed, collW'!l
the same without the pe i'B'lnt't
effeoted dandesfirLely, wit ·
by stealth which Is forcible.-tMt
oonstitute 1.mlavJul delainer.bu tl£111 Pi>ll
2Q3Q75, Maren 16, 2016). ;-s--- "
117. X lost In an ejectment case filed agai _ m. FeelU'lg grieved.he fifed a motion recons;deration.
Was the action of X proper?
NO. Ejectment cases are governed by Rule 70 or the Revised Rules of Summary Procedure. To abate
1

losing litigants' attempt to defer and circumvent s'U.mmary ejectrnent proceed ings., the rutes mandate lhat
decisi011s involving ajectment cases are immedlately exeoutory. Section 21. Rule 70 provides that the
judgment of the RTC against the defendant sflall b immediately e:cecutory , \i.riithout prejudice lo a further
appealthalmay be taem lherefrom . Thefore, ttle decision ordenng x to vac:ate d"le sub ect propeffy
pursuant to the ejeclment prnceedi ngs must bs immediately execulecl . Additionally . a molion for
reOOflrsideration js. a prohihitOO peaditng fn ejectment cases (QuiJo 11. Bajoo. G.R. No. 186199, Sepfiember
7.2016)'.
118. What are the requ i:sites to stay the: execution of th& judgmen t in ejeciment case?
To stay IOOimmediate ex·eculion o,f the judgment. [n an $otment case. \he defendant must: (PSP)
1. leerfeci an appeal, ·
2. Fie: a §.upersedeas bond, and
 3. !feriodically deposh the rentals becx:m'ting due during ttio pendency of tile appeal . (Acbang v. Luczon,
Jr., G.R.No. 164246, Janu81}' 15. 2014, Bersamin, J)

19. ABC 1C,orp fi'led an unlawful detainer cHoe against XVZ Corp befortt th& MCTC.The sheriff served
the s1.HT1rnons up.on X'Yrs 'HR Department Manager.XVZ Corp f iLed a pet tlon f'oll' certiorari wltb the
CA to question the jurisdiction of the MCTC ov11rlts penon. Is tlia action of XVZ Corp p.roper?
NO. Sect.ion 13. Rule 70 of ttie ROC, on rorcible ,entry and unl wful detainer cases, em:imerates tile
prohibited pe·titions, motions.or leadings;
1. Monon to dismiss the oornplainm exceplan ttie ground of la.ck of jurisdlctl ori owr th subject mattBr, Of
1

failure to OOl'f1JIY with barangay oonciliation:

2. Motion for a bili of partiourars;
3. Motion for a new rt.a.I,or for re<:onsldaralion of a jud.gmani,or for roor>antng of trial
4. Petition for m1ief from ]f.ldgment;
5. Motion for extension of time to file ptsadings, ffidavits .or any ot'her paper;
-6. Memoranda;
7. Petition for certiorari,mandamus or interlocutory ordm issued b)'lha oourt;
8. Motion lo declareIha defe
e. Di a .ns for postpo
10. Reply;
11. Third pa,rt;·,.,."liJl.w....,..,,
12. Entervention

lroost be po]n u· * i!ft.J.:permits only a motion

to dismiss on the al'(l []ll '""- " t mention the ground
of lack of jurisdi.ctioQJ Hll N>• n tti matter ofiack of
jurisdiction over the 2.l'lin ,.,..,...... ,.,,....nnot be used to hinder
or stop the proceen..-..,_1r,_· 1n. such ground should
not be LJsedl to justi . .. ..........-.. g the pe.Ution for certiorari
(Victorias Milling Co..

20. X is the owner of a ndi!IY.•• ,_ .......• h Y with a period of to

years. After the e_,1""1'::.-.r-
property by mere
vacate the property ti)t
_.a tract bu.t Y stayed in X's
'"'¥""1rGentlyi X demanded Y to
0 i'ti
X can institute an all·!'-!' lllMll'1nr llfill
lieges a cause or action
f r unlawfuldetainar UI
1. the defendaf:s irilti
the plaintiffi
2. eventually.·soch po·:S9E•l)TVwe
terrrunatioo of the Jatter,....,...-
3. thereafter, !ha darandant E"W-r'\

property and
4.. ltle plaintiff instituted tihe cam..,....,...,._,,,....
property.

Un1awful detainer is ttie proper remedy use lhe oc , ation or Y ill X"s property was initiany h wM
[pursuam to a oootract and upon exp ration theraof, his stay was era ecl by X . The oocupalion of Y on1y
becaJ_rle unlav(f(JIupon his refusal of X's demand to vacate the property .(Diaz"v. Spwses Punza'1Jn. G.R.
No.203015 March 16, 2016)

2:1. Should a bo-undary dispute be·included in an action for u nlawf ul detainar1

NO. A bm.mdary dispute is not aoout possession.bulencroaahment. lh.at is.. whether the proprty daimed
by the d'efelldant for!l'll}d prt of lfle plaintiffs proJ)erly, It must be resolved ill the context of acOO.n
rentindlcar.oria .not an ejectment case. A boundary dispute cannot be se•ed summarily ulilder Rul 70,ttie
proceedings urlidef whidl are· limited ta unlawful de iner and ·forcible entry (Manaian9 v. Bacani, G.R. No.
158995, January 12, 2015, Bersamin, J}.
 CONTEMPT

12:2. Whatls the remedy of ,a perso.nadjudged jn direct contempt?

The remedy of a pe:rao11 Bdjw:lged In dllfecL conempt is not an appeal btil a petition fof' certiorari or
prof7ib1 ion directed against th€1 court Wh ch adjudgetf him ;ll.Qirect oonterrpt Pending the resolution or suh
petifo:m . die ·exeCtJlkm of t he judgrneflt for direct oontempt may be susperldf:d •t the offencltt.r files a·bond
1

fioceo tiy the oou rt and oondi1iolled upon his performance of the jl.idgrnant :should tl)e pe.\ition be denie-<:I
(ROG. Rufe '11, Soc. 2). ·

123.. What i5i the remedy of a person adjudged inindiroot eontttmpt?

The person adjudged 1in Indired ·co11lArtlPt rnaiy apPeal from tile judgnt or tinal order kn too sat:rlQ manner
asin cnn"Wnaj cases. The appeal sha'll r:iot stay lh€! jtJdgmer:it, uinless ttle offendet files a bolildin an amauTlt
iced by the oourt rrom 'WfiiclFi the appeal is taken. Such bond shaH be conditioned upon this perfonnance of
me judgr'l'lerit or final order if tti0 appool Is decided ag.aLnsL him <ROC, RvMi 71, Ser;. H).

124.
'tn::,li:IQW'Q1he body or 100
'h!.ll:;lll ary citation rne:rel,y
u - not be gtantad.The
,......_,_ Wr"lt of habeas corpus.
r\l.er;8oo In cases 'l'ff!efe the
"""'""'",,.YK - !k Hon v. The Insular

Judg X conducted
agaln_st Y.A warra
including the warran
petition f,or hiibeas. "..;". "-"""
s.he coulld no long&lbfi
x
t:nat Judge had aJr.a ?'; llaJB;
authority to lift or r1 ... ...,........ ftil
NO. The wrif wil oot i""'"'L"'--"'
officer under process I
court of reuord. Here,
Judge X, a<S the PrasJdi rs_i'
Wi!lti Y's arrest arid ensuil'VIFijplF>m it:i
t'ilabeas corpus \vas not an · U1'! .1'fl
because ilhe rastraint. being
babeas corpus {MangiJa v. P.an 1
gtlli ;li 1i ii Zfi.I
X filed a motion to',dismiss the petiti, r lhabea ongms of Y on ttie ground that tne latter was
temporarily r·eleased from detantlon, n the other hand, Y argues that atrno-ugh h temporary
release is an Im provement upon his actual dete"'1Jon.the restrictions imposed by X ·constitute an
Involuntary and illegal restraint on his freedom.Further, he str&S$GS that his temporary release •d
not render instant petition moot and acadmic but tliat it merely ·shifted tne inquiry from the
legaHty of his actualdetention to 1he l alily of the conditions impo&ed by x. Is the mnten1ion of X
valla?
NO. A. release tllal. relldera a petition for a wril of habeas corpus moot and academic ITllJst be one which is
free from invo1urttary restraints. Where a person conlinues lo be un1awfully denied one oir more of his
constitutional freedoms, where lllere is present a denial of due process, w'llere, the restrainits are tlOt
mereJy involuntary but appear lo be unnecessary, :and where a deprivation or JJ'OO-dom originca11y valid has.
in lhe.light of subsflquent developments.berome aruitrary.ttie person concemedor ltiinse applying i11 hl<s
behalf may still ava themselves. of tl]e prM,ege of ltrie wnl (Moncupa ·v. Enrile, G.R. No. 63345, January
30 19ft8J .

£" _ -- """ - --- -- • --

Ctdneae nationals we re tur119d over t-o the Bu.reau of Immgratlcn (BID} as a resutt: O·f raids. wheta
they were found to be lac.king of Allen and Employment ermit while em.ployed at a club. As a
result,, a deportation case was ;nstltuted.X, one of the- Chnase nationals filed f·or ai petition ror
habeas corpus. wm the petition or x prosper despite the pendency of a deportation case?
NO. Where the B1D had nolyelcompleted is hearing and investigation proceedin9s with respect to an
alien and dlere is no shQ\ldng that l is unduly de'laying 'its decision. habeas corpus proceedings are
premature and should be dismissed. Mong the sarr¥3' vein, when an alien is detained by tho BID putrsuant
to an ord@r of deportation, as in Uims case where a Summary Deportation Order had already been iss11ed
by the BID.the RTC has no poWl]r to release the said alien on bail·evEm 111 habaas corpus prooeedirigs,
because there is no law auttmrizing it ,(Rodriguez v_ Bonifacio, AM. No. RTJ-.99-1510. Nov:ember 6,
2000).
What are the htstances where a wtit of habeas corpus be avai ed of as a post-eonvi.ction remedy?
a. There has been a depnva'1on of a constitutionalrig.ht resuJrl ng l11 the reslraarrit of a person:
b_ The court had no jurisoidion to iJTll'DSe th0 santance: or
c. An excessiv@ penalty has been imposed· as such S10ntence is void as to such excess (Barredo v.
Vlnarao. G.R. No. 168728,
Spous,:es n away from he:ir parents and
brought he[ - Labter Y with 1v1111 w1 .d B to wh e· relinquished
Iller rfghts o ouses. and»"}li Jo _ Jlle to _ Y · rom es A and B but
1he latter refu such they Uiti •&W . corpus.. Thf{ sued a writ and
directed the sh Pf·Oftlcr1' (l:>eloi o Ofl ·_ n,A n
!.
i.t
o
v explain why they
were withholdin 1
cust \O\ttPtiihd' Mthlthna'l& 'lirit, . s A and Blearned
1hat Spouses XX b ,S . A and B prayed that
Spouses XX and e iii;mis8.ed the action for
having become m- ready be-en served as
the· chId has bee, 1he petition for habeas
corpus. moot and acatnm
NO.In cases nvolvi ._.. ....-...t Iimited to the production
of the child betom thB''<Lmmt:r: --- 1r1 -.._ -- · - .T; Icustody over the cllitd_
Here.Ifie RTC erred11\Wl18.R" oot aftier·Y was produced -
before ltle rourt. 'It sli' ' ghtfu' custody over y_ 111
d•smiss ng the action. , "'""_,,...,,,....,, ,_.,,_ and awarded 'lhe custody
of 'Y to Spouses XX an r;,,n_ 1o. 166682, November 27.
2009).

AA was apprehended"°"•aaill _ '?' of arrest against a oeri.ai11

Aa for the alleged kiIliQ atention and the depivanon of
ltis tlberty aHeging thaf'he _.,..n.
1 ffPQ happe._d because he was
1

one of the Philippine d;aWJllYf _...lfl'-.Sh owed birth cerUficates and

other documents that he ii$l: V
_ ( '1K11 i nce of the petitioni for ha'beas 1

corpus. The Solj·cit·or Generaf'ii a' dInformatlon fi 'ed again. t him

and his .apprehension was by kftl9g• lllJ51dJmNt · as such h.e ca naot av.an of Ole said
remedy.; his remedy shouId be tne lnfo·rmatlon.Is the remedy of AA
proper?
The remedy or AA. is proper. He was a sted witl1out a1:1'warrant chargi"g him of an offense tmder l'lis
name. There was aJso no lawful process or order from the court. to restraln h1m, lhus, illegally depr1v8d or
his l berty. The information nled as we(1 as the warrant ssued 'IVM& for Aa a111d oo for M. and the latter
was able to· esta.bl sh that ha was not the serne person as he also presented doc:ufl!'lenls provin.g that he
was out of lhe country wtlen the klling of B happened . H only hows that not bein-g valid y charged.the
proper remedy for AA to avai is F'etition for Habeas Corpus (In The M.atter Of Tne Pstjtion For Habeas
Corpus Of Oatuka11 MaJ6tng Salibo v. Warden. Quezor1 City JaJI Armex. G.R. No. 19759 7, Aprll 8, 2015).
1

WRIT OF AN!PARO

What Is fhe writ of amparo?

A 1remedy aveilabl:e to- any person whose nght to· lif-e, iberty, and security has been violaled or 'is
threatened with vfoation by a public official or employee Of" a privafe Lnidividual or enltty. The writ covers
e>ctralegal 'kiliflQs aod enfor· disappeara nC»S or ttireats 1hreoJ. Hence,Ula writ cannot be avaed of by
 an alien detained by H e Bureau or Lmrrigratlon by 11ittue o1 leg I pmooss (Mis.on v. GttlftJrJDS, G. R. Na.
210759. Jooe 23. 2015> or to protect th'at are purely p1operty or commercial. Neither is tt a writ
that the oourts SAalt S.Sue on amorps afld tUru:ertaini g1ouoos lTapuz v. Del ROS8rio, G.R. No. 182484,
.June 17. 2008).

132. X i5 widffty known :in the nelghbourhDOd "ii drug addict and tias been fnvtUved In robberies.Y,
on the other handi.a tetlred arm)' CO'IQner,, vmo has been kncwn to dlsdain human rigltts and has
been n ickinamed '"Tefl'Or of Mindanao".is no·w the lli&ad security of XYZ Subdniislo-n wllere .a
llrie-$ of robbllrlas has recontfy taJl:en place. Ona day, X Informed his mothiar1 A, that sacurJty
9u1Hds hadinte:d liiirr.l for a talk in ttieir ·oWce but he refused 10 come. Later .however,X was seen
walking Into ·the seeur.fty office flanked by twD sacurity guards. Nobody s.aw himleave the office
"tt.rwards.. X did not go horn that night and wa!i never seen again.The fDlldn91 week and after
week-tong search A feared the worst bocause cl Y's. reputatkm. She 1ihus reportt11dl X"s
1
,

disa,ppeanrnce to the potice.When nothrng concrete resuJt.ed fmm the pof.£c.e lnv&&tigation,A fited
a petition foll' writ of amparo to compal Y andl Micurity office of XYZ $ubdivi:s;ion to prod,uce X and
to hold them liabte iu1d' respomible for - nee. s tba petition tha proper "'
NO.In AA arq:iam petition,pro .._ It must a so be shOlM'i and proved
by substa11 · e'.lidence that th the dis.appearance or th.ey f.eilad
to e,xer ' Q(d1 nary dil' f he perso · s · ht to be held
aot.OUnta'ble am pet is a prii.i.ate indi'Vidual or en 1 , 9=1vern , 1 ..,01..,e.rneflt hn thQ
disappearalllCe , 1 an indfspc,n n 1tl(a.ct:s sh.ow ( it private secur. -ity·
ag2ncy whid'l . v. I tut1JJ..e · 1hJ= , n o..-, igtiire · ment irwol...-emenl
The mere met th - 'ng · · , , "nt1!J' · IWY1fteb is not proof that the
pght".e failed lO e extraordina · di[ ence in invesi ·. tin the case . v. Pamioo, G.R. No.
184467, JURe 19, 2

133. A and Bwere comMsMMil'i - "'eirlost baggage when

they r.tot X taki.·..• ,.,, u1.-i;!L91..eubs.equently ensued in
which A and B gat r of X, aIred oo their TV
program ·commen- lfl ·will retaJiate. Terrified
iby th& gravity of ttie ·--· -.......... _""'1,.....1\C(! of a writ of aam

against X, Y and heir statements djd not

i111voh1e· any aetual ·
prohibited 1motlon,M
YES. The Rule oni th
enforced disappeara11
gO'Vetrtllle'nt .p.artioipa
any case o'f extrajudicia
merely andlored orr a brr;6Ql
by private il"ldividuals w:i
apc:iaren1lhat their ampam
property mrercised its disc«.:mot1
regaroless of the fi'ling of a prohi5ibi
2015).
- a m01ion to dismiss is a
Yi g e.xt:ral.egal kil ings and/or
ving of direct ar indirect
'"':!:lll,,.....,.,.ro pet:itlon does no• i!'ltJOlve
r..s:l WJ.IEMats thereof. Their peti:tioni is
· ,,,_'KiofK47,o ife aoo security.carried out
,.ltl!tllUl rnent participa,ion. ThllB. it s
-a; VV1!. n1o.o1111" and mu<St fa il. Henoo, tbs RTC,
!."lrll1.0l ttibBii ncler this priincipal determination,
illilll - .. Tulfo. G.R. No. 205039. Oclober 21.

134. , hearsay admiuihte in writ of amp c.ase.s?

YES.Tedlnical. rules of evidence are nom Sb'ic:lly observed in writ of arqJaro case.The rules of eYide11ce
are redLr<Ed to the rnosf basic: test l()f reason - i e., kl tile relevance of U1e eYidence to itlle issue at '1am:t
And its consjstcy wilh alj ottier pleces ot adduced ei.iidenoe. Thus, e11ef'i hearsay evldenca can be,
admitted if it satisfies loo baSic f'r'li nimu01 tesl.The oour1s should ex.erase ne):lbi i y in •ne ooosideration of
,e\lidf)n .tnctudililg hearsay evidence.bn ·EtX'lrajudlclal kllMllt}:S alld enfQf·ced disappearartte cases (Razon
v. Tagitis, G.R.No. 182498, June 22·, 201-0} .

135. Are deofsion.&in wlllt of amparo and writ of habe.a1corp111, casn immedJatety e&eutory?
YES. Themis no nelidl to file a fOOli(m lor execuUon fllr en i;i!'l1)aro or netieas. corpus decision. Summary
proceedings are immediately exeaJlory wJlhout piejl.id ta appeal v. Gadapan, G.R. Nos. '84461
62,May 31, 2011).

_ _ _ _ _ Sll.N· BED..\ CoLJitGt or t.\w . ..

 Kt:Mll::l11AL LAW
WRIT OF HABEAS DATI\

136. What i$ the writ of habeas data? .

A roll'IQCly available to any person whose right to privacyin life,liberty.or security is vio atedor threatened
by an unlawful aet or Ofnission of a public officialor employee,or of a private individualor en ily engaged
in tha gathering orstoring of data or information. The \vrit of habeas data was oonceptoa ized as a judicial
remedy enforcing the right to privacy,n'tlSt especially the rlght to infoimatlonalprivacy of individual . The
writ operates to protect a pecson's rigtit to control information regarding himse f, panicu!ar\y in the
instances v.tiere such information Is being coltiM:ted U1rough. un awfulmeans in OfdP.r to ach eve unlawful
ends (Roxas "·MacDP"g•l Arroyo,G.R. No. 169155, September 7. 2010).

137. X and Y ,are common law partners. X visited Y at the latter's condominium,rested for a while and
proceeded to his office.X noticed that his digital camera wa& m l&&lng. Y confronted X regarding a
sex video she di5covered from th& uid came ainvo ving X and another woman. X denied and
demanded Y to retum tho camora,but to no avail. X claiming that Y's threat to upload the videoin
theinternet and pub tcly soldin Qui.a · · · ht toltfe, liberty, s.ec:urfty, and privacy and
a so that of tho other woma a writ of habeas data . The RTC
i•sued theWtri d rKting Y ce X's camera,original of the
video and c ereof, an e RTC cor lss.ue the Writ
of Habeas
NO.The H8be se in the nvrnber
of killings and e i ;)let& exists a nexus
belween the righ onthe other.Here.
therewas nosho d be violated through
the supposed rep o.While X purports a
privacy interest in th ; nd its \vay to Oui8po or
be uploaded in the such Interest and any
violationof his right obor 8. 2014).

138. X. the cashier of ffy_J\ated and loved by Iler

co-empoyees becaus ff whom she likes. One
morning, X discove er office threaten ng to
killher.X promptly on conducted aninternal
investigation to veri Corp.opted to transfer
X to its Palawan Offl al to disclose the results
of itsInvestigation. r emp oyment, X files a
petition for theiss1.1 enjo n ABC Corp. trom
transferring her on t Cle her with a copy of the
Investigation results co .Reso lve the petition.
The petition should be d lo protect purely property or
commercial concen1s nor v. petitions therefor are vague and
doubtful. EITllloyment constlt of the due process clause of the
Constituticn. t Is evident that x· r her transfer - a leg timate concern
respecting the terms and conditi yrneA are "'hat prompted her to adopt the
extraordinary remedy of habeas data. Ju · · ion ove concerns is inarguaby lodged byla\11vJith th&
NLRC and Lab0< ArbitelS (Meraloo v. Go •z.um G.R.No. 84769. October 5. 2010) .

139. X and Y ,both m inors, were graduating h gh school students.They were subjocted to dlsclpllnary
actions by the school's Oiscllpline Officer n view of their facebook posts containing pictures of
them wea.r1ng only die-Ir undergannents and while drinking Uquor. The high sc:hool principal
informed their parents the followlng day that, aa part of their penalty,they are barred from jo n ng
the commencement exercises.X and Y's parents asked for a TRO wh ch the Cpurt grant&d but tho
schoolIgnored. Subsequently1 the parent& filed before the RTC a Petition for the tssuance of a
Writ of Habeas Data arguing that the privacy setting of their chlldren1a Fac:ebook accounts was set
at "Friends Ony",thus,have a reasonab e oxpectatlon of privacy wh ch must be respected. The
schoolcontends,that the writ of habeas·data may not ssue.t not being an entity engaged In the
gathering, collect ng or atorlng oJ data or Information regarding the per8on, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party.Is the contention of the schooi correct?

8All BSD•COIUO? or LAW

 n

NO To efi"lgage'"' m :someUling ts different from u11oert.aklng: a buslnMs endea'i'oor. To "·engage'' means "'to
do or takll part. In SOllJIM}1tiirtg." it dQes not neoeasarily mean that the actMty must oo done In pUYsull of ia,
1

biusine.ss.. Whal matters is that the person or entity t oo gathering , co11ecling, or stonng sakl data or
lr'lfonrnatiorn .pil:)ot.ll rne. aggrieved prarty or his o her Farril Whether such undert.aklog eames me elemont
of 1rogulanty , "3& Wflan i::u'!te pun;ues a oosiriess, aoo iJ.i lnIlle natuire of a personal endeavoor.frx any otOOr
retiSI'.111'1 or eve.n for 110 treason Bt all, ['S l1 mmau;,,rial and .such will ool1pre\lenm the writ. fTom gel.1ing to sal(j
1

person or entity (Vlita:ra· v. St. Thefesa>s' College, G_ R. No. 202666,Se/Jtml'Jer 2.9, 2014).

CRIMlNAL PROCEDURE

J.U
. .BISDICTION

140. Wna,1 i5t tile, 1rnle wlth respect to Jurisdiction O'lrQI' libel or written defarnatlorw?
With.o.ut amerwJirig OI repealing Eli specific proision in the RPC ves..ing fr the RTC JurlSdiclion over iibell or
written oofamatio11s, all such oases shall be filed wltti lhB RTClo thB e1i.goo or all o1het courts ( PefJ
v. Berrjpayo. G.R No. 154473, AprJJ 24, 2 . .

i41. Whichco-..i h continu lng crimes like BP 221

For w iola:tion9
so:me acts .
territory , wtute
have bn co
oognn.ce of m
a essenti

I natn

e.x
cu.a "l f
ere o and r.;;iquisite:in their con
oc:ur .iri a oth. I
.$ - fi UfjJ. ..
, rrsa 9tlt# 'VVnti
Cl'Jrlll!'ltJing · J • mea11ir119 tha·t
tion CICaJ\ ·
1tiG cr1rria's
. fb'eljlQ ..u dr5t
e mun cipamy or
nd material acts
fil'$t court taking
transitory t;rirne rnay
be validly tried in · oo (Morillo v_ People.
G.R. N,o. 1.98270_ .....·..,_.. .....

142. Wllat are the 3 req

l oou.11 must hci
1. the stJbjecl matte ,
2. lhe fetTltory 'WhEJ!fa'oolfJtb..fiff,
3 Ule person crf the a

143.

One cart be under the c..._!>'""'b'W'!
not yel subject o the j risd ,?' Iii·
over h.is peirson, SllCh aG \
arrested by vi rtua of a warrant
aco!J:sed mes a motiort to quash th
of arrest before amugnment
As to Fomn of Custody
Custody of Ole: law Is liierally cu'Stody over lhe
'body of 1he a.ooused
(David v. Agbay G.R. No. 199113.March Hi,20'15)
l:laJ t:ri&ct to ttle jurisdiction of too
.m;lll!!if'!'tt5..llerson, and yet n.ol be in the
1111•1 he 1aw, suo'h as v.tlen: the
ed escapes Cf!JStody aftar he enternd
his ' . .and his tria1 has alriead
oommencect
-
As f c;mg as the .accused has been· arrested or
has surrendered and ttierearter en18m-ed
plea, even •f he subumly nees, H e court
sli l ha<S jurisdiclkm ovar 1lhe person or ltle
acaJsed anti can >eoollnue trial thoh
withelJ the custody ot llie body of the
accused

SAN! B1;Q1i CoumGB or LAw

:a,o17 CE:NnAUa BM OPEJ1.A1mn
144· X ass•iledl the warra-nt of 1111Tnt issued agaln&t him a·nd rmoved 10 quash the infomi-ation agaf !"si
him for laC:.k of jurisdiction ('Nlf!oli" hit> 1par&0n.X ipall"llcl,pa1!•d in th& eOIJft proc;eadngs ftHng motiom:
seeking far .affirmative rvlief and a.1so· posted ba it 15 X deemed t.o· have subm.ftted MrnseH to the·
J;tmrisdjction of IHM court?
YES. Where the appearan. is by rnotian f Ot the purpose of oo cting f o the jurisdiction of he court over
1

the pefSOn.ilm.ist be for the sole and 5eP6R'1:e P"UfiP05e of objecting to said jJ:Jrisdicl ion. .If thrl· aearance
1

is for any othe{ ,p:urpo,me accused is deemed to ha11e suhmlttaod tiimseU 'o the· jurisdicttoo or •l'Je. ooort
The partitjpalion in the proceecllrlQS was not confined to his. opposition to the issuance or a \\/arrant of
arir:eSI ool also ro'llE!red other 1113tter:s, Whid'I cal ed for Hie QOOrt's exercise .o·r ts jurt-sdJc, lon. The grvir}Q or
posting of bf51 tiy Cha accused is tantarn::iunt to st1bmission or hJs p&r$00 o the jurisd'i ion ollhe OOtirt. By
pasli:ng Im.the :aowsad cannot daim exemption fromttie effect of being subjoct to the jurisdiction of the
rt. Wtiil accused disputed the ·valldlty of the issuall'l'.E of d\ warrant of a11taS;t despite ,Ms !XJSlln9 of
1

bail. his daim ti:a bean negated When he himsalr n...r}ked Hie jurisdictron of "11e court through the fil ng of
various IOOOOils tha sought other affirrnave ret1efs (Coju&ngoo.Jr. v. ScJndiganbayan. G.R. No. 134307,
Dec:eomber- 2?. 1998).

145. What are tile re(lu1sites to faU · Uon of the Sandlganbayan?

Section 4 o 8249 rov·
1.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
......,..__..,..omicdion: (a) does not
EJl! lege an.y crm'M e ta lhe govamn:lent or
D.ribery ariSIN1'iillrl"\M a.m!!"Wf"'il . artiOUI'It no G:X.Coodtng
One miniofll ' ir
2. The offender com
holdrng
all}' of lhe positio
3. The offense comrrlMt:ll!iil'li:

146·. Wf:ljch class of pu........

1 T• -.....-u. :11'.!ll"'·baya111?
Utld.:ir Siection 4 of ·R- e Safldiganbay.an are (1)
officials of the executiv Y-G11N'.i:41s specificaHy ermmeratoo in
Section (A)· (t) {a) to ( of Secliol"l 4 i(A) covers.ahfy
official5' of the executi. M.'tlerond pan 5.pecilicatly in. udes
other executive officials "louti' .....,. and lligher but who ara by
express provs1on of la,wstQ-- .1
P Qlf.li- jln (DcJll'Ca rlO v.Saruiiganbayan,
G.R. No. 191894. July 15J 2·

147 . What are the Ch6Ses of publi - urig-dlction of the Sandiganbayan?

There- ar e 2 clas or pubUc otflc.e-
1 1
- r raph (b) IOf Sec1ioo 4 of RA.6249:(1)
Uilose crimes or felonies in 'Which the CA l.s CihJenl·e1ement as defined by statute am1C1 the
re1atloo bet\;ieien !he orime· al'Ji.:I the offe- is sud'J lhanWe offense oommiitted cannot e·xist wi:thout e
office;{2) offenses ·or felonies Whicil are primariry oonMcietl lhiith the pLJ.b{ c office atid are perpetm1edi by
Che piubtrc officer Ol employee While;n the performarw& of his official functions, ttlroogn 1l£l1)rop&r or
irregular conduct {Barriga v. Stmdir}anbayan, G.R. Nos. 161784"'86. Apro 2 2005).

PROSECUT
ION OF 0FF1ENSES
1

148. X v olated a Baguio City ordi11ance. The compJalnt against X was fl'I with the provncfal
proseclllt'Or wJthin 2 months fmm the ,c,omm lss on of lh& offensa.The jnformation. wa& fll after
more 1han 2 monU1s trom tlw e:ommiss Ion of the off•ns:.e. X etaIms th. tr•e offen;.ei has prescribed
1

as Section 1, Act No. 331· 6 pro\lid4Mli lh!t v,iotations penalized by municipal ordinance preK:ril:J"
afteJI' 2 months. Tha private compfaloan1 cl(!Jm& that the :nnng of 1he complaint wth the
pros.ecutor'.s· office· toHed fbe preKrifpti¥e period . Has the offnnae prescribed?

Sidi BtcA CollUGE or LAw

l6
20l'l CEHT:IAIL1ZED BA• 0PDJLTIDllfil
 YES The 1R12.vised Rule on Summary Proeedurtt providee th:.l:it onty the filing Qf ilhe nformatio:n tolls th.e
prescriptive penod wtlen the crime o.hargoo s in'llQlved i11 an ordinance. Tihe chargo against X for violation
of ordinaliloc shalf be gov0rneo by U11e R:evJsedl Rule on Summary Pracedu re and oot Section 1, Rule 110,
ROC. The 'l'Lillng In P6Cple v. PangHiflao. G.R. No. 152662. Juno 13. 2012. wl'lrh pmvides lflsl 1ha
prescriptive perioC1 Is •.oUed by the fililf'lg o' the ooIaint wiEh tlhe office or 1hGi prosecutor pertar.n,s to
vio1atioo of special la'WS but not to ordia noes (Jadwe.tl Parldr-,g Systems Corportilion v_ Udua. G.R. No.
? 695888, Oct:aber 7.2013).

19. X was 13 yrs old when the accused A.h-or pat.erna.1 111nc, raped her in June _ July , A1.1gWit a.otl
September of 2005.A warned her not to ff;!wa the incident to anyone, thre.a1tani11g: to km her .a.nd
ner famUry f she dId so.X fln.a.l'ly tepcrted the four rall@s to her motharIn <Oe1nber 201l5.Both tne
RTC and CA found the accused guilty of four coun l)f rape.both appreciating the mifl()r ty Qf x
de!ipite the absence of such allegatjon in the nforrnaticm flled.Are t'he rulings of the &m courti-
c;:orrect?
NO Both courts gravl1.lly erred in appreciating the minority of the offe111ded party despite 'Iha absence of
SJ1Jch allegatio11. The trial court was ;:ire · iderif)lJ tne aundar· e of such qua1ifyingi or
aagravatirig circt.Jmstanr;es n t roper1y allege Ulem..Thls oonfor'ms
lo Sect on n S ctiori 9', R 1 e wrnplaint or infO'ITiilaiioo shall

state ltie de on or Ule o or amis ·o nstiwting thB

qual i ana aggravami ng oirournstanee . , pie v. N .R. No. 195424,
pr.in. J) SAN BEDA
·1!50. .X WB5 t:harg,ed ""L¥JL••· In Slight Physica l
lnjurie$; and (2) .R:tEJ•;.s. JJ3J""'l9to Property. Both
crlmas arose from--.:..... .,..... s vehicle. x pli&adad
guilty to the charU' '...-v -..n1!1niA1ty cf publlc censura.
lmrokh-19 thi:s. c:onviet ing him in jec·pardy of
second punishrnen·............,._ A..CIDI'.fll!!Ct'?
YES. Reckless impr'u d not me:te y a me-ans to
commit other cr1ime ,...l'll'.....,,.. SU}arrs subsequem prosecution
for t·he sanne quasi-o sence of the quasi offense
of criminal negligen -;:ex.ecutioo of aniprudent
or rieglige-nt act tha li:;n . The law: penalizes lhe
negl'igeru or car'eless ·,........., , -.- ... is only taken In:to accoulilt
10 darermine the pen tile careless act s single.
whether the injurious r'l:i.'M.l. J!'• -r'IOl!11:.::..r --' mse (cr:imlnal negligence)
remaillS one and ltle s ._,........cutions. Prosecutions under.
Artide 365 should pro . ;nt..ftllM;"'numoor ·Or s,evQrity of lhe
cansecqoe.ncss ( 1'vfer v. ""1n.rl:t:..•i!li1rf: . 2010}.

151:. Whan can th.er• be an ame tlN.lf

A oomplainit or inroirmation y...oa. 11rr.1-1l1 !,At#J L1%'vlllithout lea"'e ,of court, at any time
befor e the accused enters his p,.-.... 8 W!- ial, a formalamendment rnay·only be
made with r leave of oourt and when h'iia(Jsa-ng pr ejudlce 10 the rights of the aused
1

(ROC, R.uJe 110, Sec. 14).

152. What is the tes.t to determ ne If the amendment of a co.mplaInt or nfonnation Is f)rejud
icial to the
accused?
The tesl as. to whether a dekr.ndant is prnjud t:ed by Ula amendment is vme'lher ai defense under the
information as it originally stood 1h'OUld be avallable after the amefldmerrt Is made.encl whe-tller my
evidence defendant might have would be equally applicablelolhe informalion in the ne 'form as m n the
other. An arnendmeflt to aninformation 'l.\lhich does nolchange hf.} nature of the critne al egedlhecein
doos not affect lhe essence of fhe orfense or cause surprrise or deprive· the accu$ed or an opportunity to
rooet lhe new avermen had em;ti n held to be one or form and not of substance {Rf.carz.e v. CA, G.R.
No. 160451.February 9, 2007).
153.. What are the 1Jmitatl0: s on d\e right·to substl, 1tute anInformation by the fil'iog ,of a new one?
a. No judgment has been .rnndered ;
b. The accuS@d ca11not be oonvicted or the offertSe charge.d or oJ any olher offense neoessarUy included
lherein;

.... 'r. ..-. ,.,,,_. _ _ _ _ -- 'I' --

 EMED AL LAW
c. The aocused 5tiould not be placed in double jeopardy (ROG. Rule 110. Ssc. 14).
1

PROSECUTION OF CIVLACTK>NS

154. Does extint:liion Gf p n1d ac;rtion carry with l extinction of thio civilaclJon?
NO. The extinction or pell81 actiOfl dot'JS not carry with it ex:tinctlon of clvlJ aciioo . tiowever, the cNil :action
ba5ed oo def ict may be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a fiNil Judgment in llFle cnrrU.nol action
tna.t the ac Of omi n ftQm which the civi liability ma)' Bliss did n(] exist (R;OC, Rvle 111, Sec. 2).
155. A.nInformation for Re-ckre!!>5 Imprudence Rnultlng In Homicide i11 ri::c:.mnection witlrl tl!I& death of B
was filed agtiim;t A.. AfterU11t pl'Otiecutlon li'MitedIts ca. A rnee a demurrer to ev.ide11oe,as.semng
thiat he wlil1i not positivelyid&ntifiled by any of 1tie prosec::ution wtneues as the driver of the
vehlcle tP\at hit toovfctlm. Thie tri.iilr;;:r;mrt granted the motion,declaring that the testimo.nt.es of th&
prosacutio11 wilnesse:s did not sufficienUy es1abllsh that A pnti:::i$eliy r;:o;tot1itted the ·cl'>lme charged_
C S's daughter, filed a motion for raC{)ns,1<feratiol'l,whieh the trial court deni d- On ttu. dvH aspee1
of tna case, ttle tr'iial co111.11t at-so d&rtl • - · no cMI113:blllty could be awarded in the
absrmce of evidepi;;e to 5ho · ·nyHa.blo for 8'5 d'e:ath de$pi,te
hiPJ. ttcqu· crfmlnal "den.ice?
NO.While t that .eo::i · preclude .a · d _ nt agaEnst him
on the civil a
finding on 'the :Ii
a_rise dic:I l'lot ex1
f e case.
nt in the c@ ·nemomissioo
civi ection .base(j on deliat ma · eerned

. ere JtlPsjd. - t.,.2b · e 11cto q{fli,$Slon

_ ·e
fro h
.hed it theJe is ai
cM Jiabifity may
d to tirm.Hete, ttie
court's order sno A's fm ! . Ve a , mission from wh Ch the
civilliabllkty m9Y .a ·• not i c t abl lsh that h€: was the
au hoiof 'tile c::rirne · ag stio: I emed as li!O{J-Gstcnt
by the nature Of SUI 1al r 014 )-

156_ Wltat ar& the eie.meiQµ,J"fe

a. The ciYil action 1ri·; -
b. The civll action ln11'["1Je
crilmlnalCl'Clion;
c. The resoh..mon of ...,._.......,,., i'J proceed (ROC.. Rule
111, Sec. 7).

1 1. When wm a cMIcabftf'"P
In order for a civilcase m· 'lJF.! e am·minal case. It must be- ft'lerl
previous t.o 't:tie flll{Jg fl.er ttie Criminal aciioo,no
prejudmiai questkm ifflll, :.m" oot be granttld (Drea1nwork
C011struction, lrtc. v. JOOf'OJi!i!.Jllifr'511'lWJ.

158. What Is ttia nature of p™l ln.iq)IQlilllll

A preliminary investigation is "oot c ui:: ed to protect the ir-.nocent from the
embart.assrnenr, e)(..oanse, and amclety blic tria • ·1e lhe fight to have a pte!irni!'lfilY investlgarion
before trial is statu ory ralher than oonsli 'onal,iiIs a s tanlive ,.,gland a co()'flonenm of due process
in the admhtistralion of crimlnai jusffce (Ocampo v.Abttndo.GR, No. 176830, February 11, 2-014 ).
15R X pplied for aloan from MM bank with colla1eral.-The mortgage was foreclosed due to X's non-
paymet1t of tileloan and the· property was sol lo MM bank as lone biddet. Whtn tile eertifleate .gr
s-ale 11\QJS presem ad for r&glstr.atron to the Registry of Deeds, no correspond!ng origimd copy of Ute
tiitle Wiii found in Ute regis1ry vau t Upon 'ffriflcatlon, thry teamed that. the ttes comispond to
several persons. In a crimlnam cat!a against X. the Prosec.ulor found probable cauae against X.
However,upon review,thn Secretary of Justice held 1hat X sufficiently .astabnshed his. good faiith
and lack of crJminal intent. thus innocent. Es 1he SO·J omctln ruling on the Innocence of the
respondent?
NO.A preliminary invBStig:amlon for the pu.rp::ise oJ delermining the existence of p;rol)able cause is. oolpart
of a trial. At a, prel.minary i11vestl}a.ti 1:1ri. the lll'IYeSllgating prosecutor or the Seaetary of Justice ord
deklrminl§i whefher the act or omission romp,lained of constlrute.s ttle offense charged.Probab1e cause

.SArir BEDA Cm.r.Ee>E <OF L.Hl

38 .201"I CrwrllAru:o BJIJI. Oi'-W.'nO.MS
 refern to facts and circumslanoes. mat engtmder a welHounded belre,f 1tlala crime has been committed
and that the riespondent is probably guilty thereof (Mefropo!rtan Bank and Trust Co. v. Tobias Jlf, G.R. No.
177780, January 25, 2012.B8ISamln , J).

t61J. rowing the ,pr:eliminary Investigation, does .1he accused l\ave 1h& rig ht to uoss-ex.amine the
wt:to&sses wlilfch tho complamnant may preisent?
NO.Section 3.Rule 112 of lhe ROC &xpressly pravldee that the respondent st.a I only ha.Ye lhe right lo
subfl'!it a counter-affidavit, to exnm ne a ll otliler evid,gnce .submitted by the comp:lairnmt anc.i.whelie the
1

fl seal sets a h&atin-g o .propound clarlfica ory que&1iollS lolt11gi parties or their'Witnesses. fo be afforded an
opportunity 10 be presant but without the r1ight to examine or cross-<el(arrdne (Estrada 11. Off9 of the
Ombud'Sntan. G_ R. Nos. 212140'-41, Janr..1ary 21, 2015).

16t

182.

l63. May fhe trial c·ourt dismiss basiS of itt. own

jndependent finding of tack of pro ·
YES. While the information fied by a , prosecu · y be vatid.it is stiJI lhe court which has the
dlsorefian to make ifs own fi n:rling of 'Whet er probable ca4,1 e e-xisted to orderthe arrest of an accused and
proceed with lfial.Sectioo 6.Rule 112 or tf'le ROC gives the tria court th.ree options upon ltle fiU of the
crina1 Information: (1) dlsmi.ss the case if lne evidence on record clear1y1ai ed to establish probable
cause; {2) iss-ue a \\!'arrant ,of al'ifest if i finds probable cause: and (3) order ttie proserutor to present
addittonoa1 e\ilidence Within rtve days frorn ootice f n case rst doubt as to the e•s s11ce of probable· cau
(Mflndoza v. People, G_ R_ No. rn1293, April 2'1, 2014).

ARREST

164. When can theTe be a awful warran1ie'8S, arrest?

.A peace officer or a ,privat,e person may.wHh.-out a warrant. a1resl a person:
a. When, jn ms presenai, the person to be arrestecl has committoo, is acillally committing. or Is
attempting to commit an offense: ·
 b. When an oirense has just OOe.o1 1committedl, alld ho has prob-abl'e cause to bellev-e baS@dl on peFSOnal
edge or facts or drcums•alfilces Ulal Hile person 10 be .alleiled has cornmided it and
e. When tne
persooi 10 be arrested is a pri&or.er who has, escaped from a pen.al estebliS>h.menl or place
he $ sarvtng ftnal judgnt or Is l'efnpo.ralilC\' c:onfb11ed whfle his caseis pending, or hM
escaped wtlire beinglransfcfred ·rrom one oormnemM1t to another (R,OC, Rr.Je 113, Sec.5}.

·1·6S. P,irAJca ,Gffit;er X wa1; riding his mototeycle 'Whe-n he saw Y kom a distanC81 of aboul10 nwtars
hokUng in his 1hand a plastic uchet of shabu.Thia pmmpted X, a member of 1ha Station Alilti •
11Uagal Drugs Special Operation Unit. lo allght from his motarcycl• andl to .appro.ach V whom X
·riaoognlnd HJ someone ha had prev1h>U'Bit)' arrnted for llleg;111 drug poaion Y trted 1o esGape
:but was q,111 eldy apprehended.Despite Y's .attempts to resls1 al'nist. X was le to confit&cato 1M
p astic sachet of shabuIn hls pos.ses.slo11. Was there·a valid war1r111ntles1s arrest?
NO. The attest does not qualify under Section 5(b) of Rufa 113 a11owi ng a peace officer .wiU'IClllt warrant
to cirre iii JPMSQn when .an offense h:as just committMand tie has probablfe· cause ro belleve based on
peraon81 kn<J edgo of focs or oircumstancas thiat the µ.eraon to be a:rres«id has oommitt·ed l. A pm\liious
a:rJHt or G>d:strng1 crimlnall record. evo · :;ie, w,iU nol suffice to 'Stiafy the exaetJng
1requlrefil'lellts provided under . wful wa rrantle9S arrest Parsonal
knowledge · t al'IQstingi mtnitted is requrred. (Peo¢e v.
ViJJareal, G. 1363. Ms »

166. X spotted an o am'CJl"of Die· jeep wn

asked tD sto,p bi 1.mr;,mtcw.d.X asked about
th• govnnmen
platei the police .wlltal!S.
bricks. of marijua
YES. 8 was cauglilt:'t-df.1!1Jr8 • . .•...r-tr·tle Land Tn:mspomUioo
and Traffic Code). o1Jlcr1me. To be caiJQhl fl1
DB[}mnle deNci.o ne·QBl!iD CtJUln'"'1!,'ly
an eyawltnes.s. St.ten
dentiflca1ion is a diremlllm e:err stlng polm oem@n ltlernb)I
cloaked 'fMtHm · pons or any or artlde
he rngti.t use rn tho fii.d'hl be used as evidence in
the biat of ttie case.a....,M:JU. his conlroE.like the jeep.
5LJCJrl wee1pon or othe l!llilUl..l 2012, Bersamin. JJ
INo:tEIn Luz V. - 'Will!-'"' - - does not lnip.1y tttam 1Jhere
can be no arrest f«a -..• i...,,,. part of the poUce officer ro

de-:ptl\te lhe moto(ist o lfla..ldRl!Wf' may be deemed to have

arrested 11:\e motorist I in.fllM't,,i-( issue) a traffic ·citation ookel
negates U'le pessiblllty

167. ... Ulere • nad fOr priar Jig - a.rrllllst In aagr.1nttJ de'"°fa !be
1

111ffed9d?
NO. Pnor justilicafion tor· fillMi en e1emBnlof an·arrest n ftagrante
dellcto.11ms, even granting argue ha - officat& haij oo legal right to be al said
house,. it woulCil not rendet unlawl'LJI ttie d wtio was seer1 in tne act of oommidlng1 a
cr rne· 'by ·the police offto9fs (Ambre 11. .pie, G.R, No. 1532., August 15. 201. . In arresl, ltl flagt8nts
deliclo, the accused Is ap,prenendad at the very mment tie Is oommittl g1 or altempting to commit or ti.as
IU&l c::ommitted at! Offense in Die presence or Iha erresfing officer. C
1
learly.to oonscttu e .a vaJld ill tla,g.ran!e
deliclo atrest. 'l:wo requisl'teil: mllSll com:ur: (1) the person to be arresLQdl l exectJ'te an mietl act
nd lillat ho has .IUst comm \led. 11! actuall OQi'Mlfllttln{}. ar Is atlemptin.g ·10 oommit a cnme; aml 2.}
such ovem ad is. done inlhe preseooe or within lhe view orlhe arresting officer (Poople v. MenCiOZB , G.R.
No. 'HU.26'1. Jmw 26, 20"13).
 1.Before coflvlction by
infertor court
2. After conviction by lhe inferiOJ
c-ourt
3. Beforti conviction by t:he RTC
of an offeiils.& nor punshable
by dea[h.reC'lusion perpetua or
llfe irJ1}Ji$0tlfMrtt
4.s.erom conviction by Uie RTC
'WhenIha imposabla per\al y is
death , recfilsran perpetua or
life imprisonment and the
.e\'idence of uilt is not s110ng
nli? 1.Upon convlo1Jon b lh& RTC of
1. rore conviction by the· RTC wtum
an of1ese not punistiabt\e accused is charged With an offense
death, fflCiCJsiOo perpetu a Of punistia e by torr perpetuaJ
life imprisonmeTi admlsson to l telmprtsl)fJAlenf or death and me
baif Is. discratlonar· evidence of guilt is strong
2.After conrviciian by t'he RTC 2,After exinvlclion by 111e RTC when
wherein a penally ot pEna1t)' imposed is dl}atfi't. lire
imprisonment axceedlri9 6 but Imprisonment or redus;on Pftf1J16tua
nol rt1cr1e than 20 yr s is 3.Aftef oorwic.Uon by Ute -RTC
imposgd, and n.o1 one of the imjXJsing a penalty of tmpti:50!i1ment
circumstances enumerated in ex-0eedrng 6 yeara but no more
fhan 20 years and any of the
mstanoo enumerated and
er sinilar c·ctJl'Tl5tance is
s,ert .cmd ,Jl\JI

dgrne t ,......:=-· and executorv

SAN BEDA unless ed applied for
re cotnmsncmg 1D
·OLLEGE OF L -.nee penalty and
of
..--...---,,,,..·. puNiew of probaHon

169. What stloukl be do

169. a. ·In afl cass. woo1t1'Ulil•l"\.ai
169. application for b ·
i69. b. Where ban is a md..,...,..f ,...,a1. regardless of whether
....:2l;,... llf'n1_11

169. or not lhe prosec ti the accused is 'Strong for

169. :the purpose of en
c. Decide whether
prosecution;
d. f the guilt of the !!}le app of the :ooiJbork:I .
Ottlerwise, the peti 'IJIJ:!LM- .R. No, 213847, August ' 18.
2015, Bersamin.. J).

170. The Office of tha Provine• review or 1he findings on 'the

murder case whe ln X is caa-e wu raffled to Judge Y who
5ssli!ed ,ain order granting him awe when no application for ball i5
filed?
YES. Even where ttiere is no petion f-o · , a hettrilllJ\S.,n . 'iuld saH be held. This hearing Ls searate and
disnct from lhe Initial hearing to deterl'l'lliM the existenoYof iprobatJle ca:use. 'Furthermore.the fact ttlal
the pubUc prosecutor recommetlded bail dtd not warrat dispensing with the heartng. The pt1blic
prosecutor's recommendation of bail did not necessari y 'Dind thelrial judge.in wtiom alone the discretion
lo dererrnill8 wheth r lo grant brul or not was vesll.ed_ Nor did ·sui::ll recommendation o::mstirule a. s!Jowing
that the evidence of gufll was. not stroflg (Gae.al v. Infante, AM. No. RTJ.-0401 US. Odober 5, 2011,
Ber.samin, JJ.
171. wm the accused los.e his right to bail ags. n should he ab&cond after posting ball?
NO.Where bail1 is a maH.er of fight, bail must be allowed lrrespecliv& of such cifOIJlmstanc:e _ The existec:e
of a hlgtl degree of probaibility ltlat lhe deJendanl wm abscond confers upon the coort no greater discretion
than lo increase the bondlo such an amount as WQt.Jldronab3y tend to a.ssl!lre the presenc:.e of the
defelldant when i' ls wanted. siuch arnoont to be subject, of' oou rs.e, lo ttie other pslon lhalexcessive
tiaa ha11 not be required (San Miguel v. Judge Maceda,, AM.No, RTJ..0174Q•, Apfil 4, 2007) .
112. Eni'ile WM charged wJth the non..:baUabte offe-nse of plunder. In his. motion to fix bail before tha
Sandiganbayan.Emi'le: a_;rguad that he should be aUo'W'Gd to post bail because·the IProseeutian had
not yet establisne:d that evidence of· his guut was strong af1hough 1he wa11. charged with Plltnder;
the penaty as to him woukl only be reclusion temporal, not rDc:uslon pevpetua; and :he was not a
fU:ght r:i'$1k. Moreover his age and physical conditio111 must also be serious.,,y consde:r ed.Can the 1 1

Sandiganbayan g,rant the motion?

YES. Bait for Ule provisionallfberty of ttie accused, regardless of too ·Clime charged should be- allowed
indeperldently of the merJIS or the Charge, pmvid@d his continued incarc.eration is dearly shown to be
njurim:.1s to his hesllh or to edanqer his 1ife. lndaed,denng him bail das(»te irnpenli ng hi l1ealth arid life
woLr1td not serve !he ·true objective of preventive incarceration duri !"kg the trial (EnnltsJ 11. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No.213847 .Augv$t 18, 2015. Bersamrn. J).

ARRAIGNMENT AAD PLEA

173. What Is the effec1when t'he aceused failed to assail the legality or his arrest before arraignment'?
It wm be deemed waiv,ed. An accused · - irregularity i11 l{!lie rrumrner of his ar;rest after
arraJgoment ObjeclIDn.s to a •cti ltie- court acquired jur ls<licti:on1

over the"pe n 1f Hie accused plea. Otherwise. lhe objection is

deemed wai opJe v_ Yau

174. X was charge Jent by a public

offle&;r, both of ..... f not guilty Illthe
fallstfication cas,....,._,_.., u lie docum&nt by a
private Lnd lvduaJ aa.Jran denied motioP to
plea bargain.(A) uAo.a.;:;._. llil!l.'l1'ill:i'lpose he pleaded not
guHty to mbbery, an!IMI'.
(A) Tht.a requisil.es ........"........nd the prosooutor; and
(2) that the p'laa ofm'i.1111.!.7",... ;:jWl>l.ty iru::I uded in U'ie offense
charged. In this case. . ecesrily included jri the
crime of ralsifiication 8'""d Hl•it-

(B} YES. rPfOVided h--

nrorma.tion fiiled agai """"1 .,r,..
to such lower offense •
offooi5e. No amend -
March 28, 2008)-

175. ..ay a conv.fction ba.se.

YES. Co:nvicTion based o y when sucll pLea is the sole
basis of the judgment. B elloe!:IQ&...:I e prosecution and convincing
Bvidel'\Ce lo oonViict De'YDM allfillJQ .....,..n...c:-.,.UCh conviction must be sustained
(People vs. Lunia G.R. No, 1l'tf'i! litl J

To me CJi respans.iv@ pleading, a11d not

Enter a vaLid pl.ea, alldl to pr.a,p.;11e for necessarily to prepaf-e tor trial as the
ttlal rspondQnt can opt for the modms of
dLsco · ·

Either of the parthGS that wrn file a

responsive pleadi119 can ask for a hm of
-- ---·r· ic_a_

SM1 :BEDA CoLI!£Gt: or LAw

42 2011 CE'N'l'JIWZED !B.u0l'tv.'1llONS
177. Differentiate bill of particulars from a motion to quash
A bill or particu ars presupposes a va lid lnrorrnalion wlllle a motion lo quash is a jurisdictionaldefeclon
account that 111e facts charged in tho Information does nolconsliu le an offense. A bill of particulars does
nolpresupp0se an invalid.information for it merely fills in the .details on an otherwise valid information to
enable an accused to make an intelligent plea and prepare for his defense. If the information does not
charge an offense. then a motion to quash is in order. But if the information Charges an offense and the
averments are so vague that the accused cannot prepare to plead or prepare for lrial. then a motion for a
billof particu arsis lhe proper remedy (Ef)(ife v, People, G.R.No. 213455,August 11. 2015).
'
178 A was charged with e crime of plunder. Ho filed a motion for bill of particulars but the
th
Sandiganbayan denied ttae motion On the ground that the detalls sought are evidentiary in nature
and are best ventilated during trial. In his petttlon for certiorari with the Supreme Court, he
contends that tMre was a serious violation of his constitutional right to be informed of th'a nature
and cause of accusation against him and he was left to speculate on what his specific
participations in the crime of plunder. However, paragraph 1 of the Information alktged th.at he
re-peat&dly mceived from B klckbacks lssions before, during, and/or after project
identification of projects fun a billof particulars?
YES. The se uli<ln, stating ormation, used a generalized or
shotgun app ·n alleging d by A.Th. a ach rendered
the allegatio e aragrap certainlo 111e point of ambigu rposes o ing Alo respond
and prepare for fense.The puri lli')te! lllJ.is to darify all " n the Information
that are indefinit , ,or,,iL .J(.£''lCI s1 s 1 &..f n lrtRe fl<\C'IJS . lld to plead and prepare
for trial, not sim · forr\JlllilJ>l.! li!i '1!:"t\S1 fie A¥¥• Y , an ased cannot
intelligently respo char e laid iithe alle a!lons are incom letc or A ear to him (Enrile v.
People. G.R. No. 2 ug

179. ABC Corp.receive •

trademarks. Said il !t:!f:
Search Warrant$In R
cited did not inclu
Reconsideration wf1
Application for Sear
jurisdiction of the R
Rule. May the RTC
motlon to quash?
NO. The motion to qu
Omnibus Motion Rule.
motionlo quashif (1) sa
search warrant;or (2) lhe is
the defect in lhe application
is i rope1for the RTC Naga t
its motion to quash (Pflipinas She
February 16, 2015).
t?ni ·.thits duly n>g stered
e filod an Applicationfor
. nts where the grounds
, XYl fl ed a Motion for
mpropriety of f l ng the
';)'as committed wilh in lhe
ion of the Omnibus Motion
at was not raised In the
e shall be governed by the
ue that was not raised in the
filed the motion lo quasll·tile
ubjec( matter. Here, the issue of
ingof tile motion toquash.Thus,it
anissue which xyz faied o raisein
ars lnf'I Gasos Corp., G.R. No. 189669,
·

180. lslack of probable cause a ground for motion to quash?

Lack of probable cause is not one of lhe grounds for a motion Jo quash unde< Ru le 117,Section 3 olthe
ROC.A motionlo quash shou d be based on a de loctin the in onmationwllieh is evident on Its face. The
guil 0<innocence of lhe accused, the ir degree of participation, and the rmigating, <199ravating, or
alternative circumstances which should be 3P1>rociated are prope<ly the subject of trial onlhe merits ra!M<
lhan a motion to quash (Gozos v.Tac-an, G.R. No. 12319f , Docomber 17, 1998).

181. The Information in a haz.ing case filed again.at X, an alleged ac.compltce to the crime, merety stated
that psychological pain and physical injuries were inflicted on the victim and did not contain any
allegation of the e l ments like: (1) a person is p lacedin some embarrassing or humiliating
ituation or subjected to phys cal or psycho
s logical suffering orinjury;and (2) lhese acts were
employed as a prerequ site for a person's admission or entry into an organzation. A Motion to
Quashwas filed by X alleging that theinformationdid not charge an offense. Rule onlhe Motion•

........_ _ '"'···--- --.·-·

 Tne Motion should be g1an:ted bacauGe the ullmate fads a11eged did not constitute th-e crlme of hazjng.,
The information mera1y statsd that ps)lcllological pain and pllysical injuries v1ere inmcted but ther ts no
.allegation that lne purported acts were emp1oyed as. a prerequisite for admisston or ·entry into lhe
organization . The bas;c est to dett:imilrniv.tieher or not anInformat on muslbe quashed on the ground of
lack or ili'lsufficierncy of facts .oonstituting ari otranse 1$ if tile facts averred would establish the preseooe of
_ the essential ements of ttle crime .as Oefiirin the law.P ::Mn rerere'1ce rtn a tectinical term is insufficiem
and incomp eta.as it is but a dharQctoozatloo or "'e acts all edly committed and ithus a mere roncusfon
of law. Th1JS,tile Information roost be qL1ashed, as the Ultimate facts it presents do rwot -canstttute the cnrna
of aocon-llce to hazing (PtJr)f)Je v. &yabos. G.R. No. 171222, February 18, 2015) .
.
182. What $ the proper remedy when a Molon to Quash and Mollo" for eOOn$1daration are denied?
Tle remedy agairlSlIla danlal of a motion lo quash i'S for the rmvanlaccused to enta a p'laa, go to lriat
Should the decision be adv©e, reiterate on apµE1al from lhe finaliurl9ment and asstgo as error the denial
of the motion Lo quash. The denial, being an intertocl.lt, ry order,m s not appeal.able.B€!ing an intel1oct1tory
order,lit may not be ttie subject of a peUtion for oor1iarr.a'rl becal!lse there are other remedies aval•able in
1

ltle ordinary course o-f law (En v, Man - - 6414, Ot:;tober 22, 2014. Bersamrn, J).

183,

184. X was convfcted o na.n-,r1 H i5 subseq 1•.u 111Uy

prosecuted for the l"llllli-.a:rl the ground of dol:lble
jeopardy pro$per?
NO. The convittion ....,;,a,., 50a sea.le did not predlu<le
ltle personal liability o 'IQH1al Code. on llie ground of
S-ubjecting her to doUb,l 'P'. 11'.Nll"D!!cuting and convi dingi the
accused for both cri 1'!..-·o:iir"h other not only from their

- bet purristled u:nder-"TU.:11- i:H• eten't (People v. &ylfer,•

G.R.No. 170191?, f.aonVi'

185. What are the exceptio

a. There has been dep
b. There is a finding of
c. There has been a gra
No. 166995.JBrnJfNY ·n··
1B6. wm doubte jeopard¥ atta<lh In _ _ danla of accused right to speedy
trial?
YES.A disr'nls-sa.! on fhe grotJnd af the d ·s right lo a speedy tfia1 will hai.ia ltle ·effect of
acqulual that wouJd bar furth.er pro sec on of lhe ac • d for the same offense. Whe ire after sucti
disf1Mssalthe prosecution moved for the recoo.sldeUori of tha order of d smls_sal and U1e court re·set ·tne
ca&e for tnat the &::cused can successfolly claim dotible jeopardy as 'he said orcSe waiS a.dually an
acquittal.was fina,and cenoot be reoonsidered (6o.n.siibrar Jr. v. Yerro, G.R. No. 205952. February 1 ,
2015) 1
•

167. Wllat is the r-._meay of the Qffendad party In case the CA reverses the RTC's dec:ls,OR of
c-onvict on?
General rule: T prosecution cannot appeal or bring e11or proceedings from a judgment rendered In
fa\l'Or of the defendant in a !Criminal case. The reason is that a judgment of acquitial is imllllE!d at.ely ri11aJ
arid ex.ecutory, and the pl'OSeClJl iion is barred from appealing est lhe consti uilfona1 prohlbllio ' n against
double j opardy be \iiolaLed.
 uception: Despi'e acquittal,ho'M}ver,eilher the olfended party or U'le accused may appeal. bu1only with
resp.eel: lo the civil aspect -of tile decis.ioll. Or, said ]udgme 'll o'r acqultel m;;iy tie assai ed lhrou:gh a
peEi1iolf:I for cerliOC<otri Ull'der Rule 65 of •he ROG showing that ttie 10...-. er' court, in acquitting the accused,
cornrrUitted rK>t merely mvsrs1ble errors of juttlgment , but also exercised grave ahuse of discretion
arnovntlng to lack or exces-s of jurisdiction, or a denial of due f.l'ooess,lhereby 1endaring the assc.lled
judgment nullaoo void (People v. CA, G.R. No. 183652, f ebru81}' 25. 2015).

PROVISIONAL Dl.SMISSA.L

1Bil .X Wil5' charged with vlG'lalon of Se<:tioo 5 and Section 11of RA 9165. Court hearings. weni set for .
the Gases out the pro5em::ution's principal witnes,s,P01'BB, one of the arresting officers, faHed to
attend s-aid sc:he-duleid hearing&..Judge CC provisionally dsmlssed the case with exprMs CGent
Qf X. Howeiver.about e month after1 P01BB ·filed a moticn to reopen th-e ca. Judgei CC granted
the motion.. (A) Does the revival amount to double jepardy? (8) May PO1 BB fi1e a motion to
raopen tn& case?
a_ NO. Whon a cnmina1 case i:s provisi with the express ooi'lse'I• of tt'le aocu.1Sed, lhe
case may be revived by t d:ei:r p.aragraph 2. Section. 8 of Rule
117. T· vional dismi .ce its. dlsmissal was rnade with 1

1, · of Ehe ac,

b.

189.

IS'S.uance of i!no Jllm. !h

No'koning period for a
Although Section a:,
the- issuanre th.ereof , .....
lhi!t the. order of dismis
pubfic prosecutor w
offended party is ropre
ro run fr,om the time su
New Prosperity Plaslic PmllPJ61

190.

- -

. The agreernenls- and admissions made in All agreements or adl'Nssloos made or eritared
lhe re-tria1 ue not re -ui red to be si ned durin ttie, re-lria COTifnoe shall be reduced
 - - -- -
Prn T rialin Civ il Cases Pro T ria l in Criminal Cases
by U e both part es arn::I their coonsels. ini writing and stgnoo by ooth tile aoeuood and
HoW"ever. A.M. No. 03-1-og_sc dated July coons.et!, ottlerwise, they cannot be used
13, 2004 oow re.q.Lrlres 1tle proceedings against th& aocused.
duringi tihe pr·e'llmlnary .conference lo be
rei::orned f n the Minutes or Prel n nary
Conrerence" to be signed by both parties
.andfor counseji. - -

As to ·eff e i:t -of foiluro to a ppo 21- r by a pa:l'ty

The sanctions far oon appearanc:;e in a The sanciioAs in a ·crimina1 case .are imposed
pre-trial are i osed upon !he ptaintlff a upo'1 th-e c.o..i nsel for lh0 accused or 'the
the defeooant. secutor.

The presenre
'he p:re-trial u
var.d cause or ·•._.........
by a person fu '
perfonrn ttte ar· t u...,.,i;
18.
Abserit sucn j,ustlb lf()h
cUsmis.sed with otl9i:tt

filing of a pre-trial
A pre-lrial brief
particulars and 1h
ut only .require
.erence to consider
S6c. ·6of Rule 1B.
· .Ru:=:...!.1..!18.:-. _ I

191. What Is reverse trial nd w: •u- - -..-1

A reverse trial is a l "ial woore ' P!l . irst before the, prosac:ution submits i1s
evidence. Jt may tie resor1ed ta. wfie - ct or oms,sion charged in the oornpJaint or
i.nfonnatio but int91rpose-s a lawful or a Sec. 11{€}}, Rule 119}. n civil cases, rever-se
trial may be resorted to b agroomefllof - ' loo defendant at.s up an afflrrnallive dere:nse.

192. When hould a dttmurrer to adence be filed?

The demurrer to evJdenoe in crirninal cases r:S flied aftev the prosecution had Fasted ts. case. As such., t
calls for an appreciati.on of the evidence adduced by tne· proseootioo and its sufficienq to wanant
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.resulting In a dismissal of the catSe oA the merits,tantarootml to an
acquittal oi lhei accused { People v.S1mdiganbayan, G.Ft No. 164577r July .5, 2010).

193. X was charged with vfolatio-n of Sec. 46 or· the Cooperative Code. Duri.ng lhe tria , X moved·to
1

dismiss the case by way of Demurrer to E.videnctt on the ground tinat the RTC had no Jurisdiction
1 1

over the offense.Tna RTC dlsmh&secl 1he case for a-ck of jurisdiction, subsequenUy, the Peop'e
appealed the order of dismissal!. The ap,penatt!i coun attlnned the dismissal and ruled ,that an
appeal is improper s nc the dlsmiQ.alby· demurrer to evidence in th:is case its tantamount to an
adjudica1ion on 1he merits.ls. thejustification v.alid7
 NO. Demurrer ro
evWenoeis an dbjectiion by orie CJf t'he partiesin en action,to ithe effec that the eYidenca
'Rtlich his adversa')' proctuoed ;s iflSL•ffkient in poinl of taw, 'htiether ttue or not, o make au!a case. As a
generm ru e. the grant or demurrer to evldef\ce uperates as an aoquittal and is thus. fina and
1.maippealable. However, irn this case,, the RTG granledilhe. dmurt&r to evidence and dismissed ·tha e;ase
oot for nsuffid.ency of evlnenoe bl.It for lack of jurisdii dkin over U'ie offense ch:Jrgec:IJ. The RTC did not
decide the case an the roorits,l,et alone resolve the issue of the guilt or nnocer;oe of X based on the
1 vide 1ce. This being tlhe case, the Order of dismlssa1 doos not operate as. an oc-quittaJ, h€lnce. may sti Ibe
the .sut:>jec or Otdi"afY a,ppaal i.Jnder Rule 41 of lhe ROC (Aslstk;i- v-. Peopte 1 G.R. No. 200465, Apn't 20,
2015).
f tiree separate 'nformations for Murder were flied agamst X. After the prosecution rosted Its case,
X med a Demurrer to Evidence, without leave of court. The RTC denied tnB ctemurreJ and
submitted th.:ii ease for d•clsio-n. X f Ued a motion for reconsideration. praying that toe on:ler 1

da.nying their Demurrer to EvidQnce be re.called and tha.t 1 y be allowed t.o presll!lrit evidence.Said
motion for reoonsideration was denied by Um RTC and X was convfctad as charged.Didi the RTC
eJf Indenymng the moUon? ·
NO. Wtten an acct1sed files a d
waives his r' ht to present evid
prosecution. · el'ing that t
of criminal . ,e. 'he judg o ligaoon o obse
offense charg · e v.Estrella, ·
CQ(Q
OJ Ufl
195. Give the com:l itio--.-
a. Two or more a..oew.Sli'O
b. The moion for di
c. The pr'osecution .·.........,"",.....
wf,tss at a hea , up
d. The aoo.rsed g1ve
e. The trla1court Is ·· 1.
I. There is abs
i . Them is no ur:t;u.,c
except the t
irL The teslimony
iv. Said ac.cuSQdBrn "'
v. Sa id ac::cused
(Jjmene:z, Jr. v.· · L-
196. A was eployed as a f: - ·---·y Mllke'11, A then met ·iMth B and C
wl'ier.e he broached the iOBB 'l\.v. ,i,"y-,..Y from school B went insda
the car and handcuffed Y. : .-..,.,,....... ,. llJtJjlll . Eventually, A, '81 and C were
charged wjth the crime of 1e11- · or the discliarga of C as state
witness which was opposed bV i --tltif (C:j.r,as n.ot the Inst guilty ;1mong them.
ls the cont>eri.tion vaHd?
1

NO, The law does not require that a staf e ear to be lhe least gui ty among the accused .
Rather. it provides that he does not appe kl be tha mo r;•ffty. The findings of thelower court reveal:ed
tnat C merely faci l!tated the oommiss on of the crime . C- was neither the lllastermind nor tne one woo
hiatched the plan to kidnap Y n exchange for rmney. Clearly, he did not appear o belbe roost guilty
among the acoosed. (People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 173308, Juoo 25, 2008)
197. 57 Innocent civilians were massacred in Maguindanao Province. Among the JU"fnc' :suipeds
wa5 Ampatuan.The· NBI and PNP charged other suspects, numbering mere than a hundred. for
what became apty known as. the Magulndanao massacre. 196 ndividualt wme atso charged w•th
multlpie murder n relatlon to the Magu ndanao massacre.Tlhe preseeutors ret ed on ttie affidav1ts
of o.ne Dalandag.. Ehtfandag was admitted into tho W1tne'S'S f'r otecti.on Program of tba DOJ .
1

Ampatuan ""1'0W to Se-cretary of Ju in.ic& De Lima to request the 'ncluson of Dalan<lag In ti\e
Informations for murder considering 1hat Dalanaag had already confessed h1$ part paUon In tbe
rnai&sacn1 through his two swom declarations but such request was denied. Should th9 DOJ
charge Dalandag as an aused for multl,pe murde:r in, '!'iDiatiQn to the '-'a9.11Jindanao, massacre
despl:te his admission to the Witae.ss Protection Program of 1he DOJ?
 ---·-
NO. There is no requirement under Republic Act No.6981 for the Prosecution to first charge a pe<son in
court as one of the accused in order for hiffi to qualify for admission ir\to the Witness Protection Program.
The admission as a state witness under Republic Act No. 6981 also operates as an acquittal. and said
witness cannot subsequently be included in the criminal irlf(l(mation except v1hen he fails or refuses to
testify. The admission or Dalandag into the Witness Protection Program of the Government as a state
witness was warranted by the absolute necessity of his testimony to the successful prosecution of the
criminal charges. Apparentty, an the conditions prescribed by Republic [\ct No. 6981 v-.•ere met in his case.
That he admitted his pa_rtlcipation in the corrrnission of the fl.1aguindanao massacre was no hindrance to
his admission into the Witness Protection Program as a state witness, for all that was necessary was for
him to a,ppear not the most guilty. According!·. he could not anymore be charged for his participation in
the Maguindanao massacre. as to which his admission operated as an acquitta.1, 0,nless he later on
refuses or rails to testify in accordance with the sworn statement that became the basis for his discharge
against those now charge<l for the crimes (Ampstuan Jr. v. De Lima. G.R. No: 197291,April 3, 2013,
Befsatr)itJ, J).

198. Dis.charge as State Witness upon admissi he Witness Proteetiori Program of the DOJ vs.
dis.cha a as State Witness u

No lnformatior:i
the witness.
(Ampatua

199. What Is the effect ithe a of the Judgment of conviction

against him?
The accused who fails to appe t or conviction loses the remedies
available under the Rules of Court a
a. filng .
./). or a motionfor new llial orfor 'e.969 ·erati'""'•""d
b. appealfromthe judgment of conviciiW(Sa vador v. a, G.R. No. 212865, July 15, 2015, Bersamin,

200. X was charged with 26 counts of vio lation of BP 22.Alter trial,the promu lgation was scheduled to
May 5, 2017. However, during the promu gation, the accused was absent. The trial court
proeffded with the promu gatlon by read ng te judgment before the prosecutor and X's counsel,
thereafter a copy of the judgment was served to X's counsel.X's counsel filed a notice of appeal
on May 30, 1998. Can the accused still availof the remedy of appeal?
YES.All means of notification must be done to let the absent accused know of tile judgment of the
court.And tile means provided by the Rules are: (1) the act of recording or registering the judgmentin the
criminaldocket: and (2) tile act of serving a copy thereof upoo the accused (at his last knownaddress)or
his CO<Jnset. Thus,on May 5, 1998, a ltllough the second kind of notification was satisfied wllen defense
counselreceived a copy of the decision,the solemn and operative act of record ing was not done,making
tile promulgationin absentiainvalid. This being so,the period to appeal did not beg n to run (Pascua v.
CA, G.R. No. 140243, December 14. 2000). •
 Aocused was charged wit Robbtiry with Hom 1
ic:ide.Before judgment . he pres.iding Judg , Judge
A.applied for optional rei1rement which wa5l eventuany g1111nted.Two and a. ha1f months after its
re11riement bec.amlE! ffediYe, lhe r&rn:lered and signlli!d a dec::ii>ion convicting the accused.
Thet"eaftef, the Judgme.nt was promu gated. by Judge B, who· re,pced Judge A. tr; thli:I! judgm.ent
va lidhr pmmulgatad?
1

NO, For a jodgmont to oo valid.it must lb& dtJL'y signed and prolg.t:it dull'iinig the inoumbeflcy of the
judge who signed lL TI1u . a decisioo penned by a jl.il e aft.er t\is retirement cannot be valldly
promulgated;it can11ot acquire a bi11ding ffect ae if 1s n.uH and void. Vmi .wh@.n Judge A oplionaHy
re1ie<J . h.e ce to b(} a judge or tKt rt iwvhete he sat in ]Udg;rf!Qnt Cotlseq1Jent\y. witti him also
"te ired·.;di nis authority to decide any case.i.e.• to wr1t. i9n. and promulgate the decision thetoorw . lfl
o tt.er VJ'Clrd<S,he had loslentirely ms poWG:r and authoc:ity tio act an a11 cases assigned to him p-tiOt to hi-s
retirema:nt (Peop v. Labao, G.R.No. 1fJ2826. Marcil 17, 1.Q93}.

X was charged with Robbery w th Homicide.After the presBntatlon of evenco by the def11Hrise and
decfatatlon of no rebuttal by the prosecution, the RTC rendered orally tne judgme,.t finding
aQCused guillty of 1he crime char:god.Th tt&n judgment was served upon the parties
Inctudin9 the aceused. s the ,
NO. Tths th t a 't.vritt&n d ll'Jt Is t :sufficient to cure lhe
infirmiU in . rnulga1ion.1 m promulgad
bylhe tnat
criminal cases, .
lnage, petS
d1s.11r1ctly .ai s1ale ·
ji.s ncornplet
n .2, Rul& 120 '
d 1 rep · m
Jthe · ·
ii
it does oot con.tain find.ingis

.e <
. · ·
C
.
. d is: not '· "l:Sl.•lli:l.. Py Iha Judge.In
jcd ment
a"f'§l 1 d . him
,
_a
e ··
n
n in the official
c.ontaii;
n which lhedeafly and
judgme nt

is based (People na, G.R. No. 90626 A(J u.s t 18 "'1 "' .

Wi An lnfo1iOfl fOr' - '!?!"!!L_.... for tho ipresontatio.n of

evidence ror tho· ac ., .....,..,,.,,.·.nt cf arrest was Ls.sued
against him and' a I ',yting B.B med with the
iCA .a Petitiop for Ann . as committed upon h'lm
by his counsel of re cJadgmont?
NO. Section 1,Rulo 4 t of jurlgment to judgments
or finat orders and res eoies of new trial.appear .
11,.,,.,..'"·""
..

petition for reHef or o h 1'10 raun of the petitioner.

Th.e 200{) Revised Riul (,!Ptoursa, for it e.>:dud.ed Rule
1 from the enumerati
1 p.f-]Civil Procedure which have
supple,ory application to ...d . J udgmenlof the decision of
tha RTC ,cannot be grantei;;J_f8 _,_ ,.....-...,,07).

204 Juri>sdicUon and venue ri 111 the a1p_ j M;lw;

General rui : An application for se arr . ·tn tie rollQWilflg:
a. Any court within wflose territorialjuri 1"1 the .cl1RJ.. S c-om.inltted;
b. For compelling faasans stated in ltl pplication. ain urt Vdthin the judicial regk>n wher e lne crime 1

was committed if h0 place of the c:.ommlssion of tile criime s known, or ar y COIJl"t wlttik1i Urie judjci
region wtiere lhe watrant shall be eriforced. HO"Wever, ir the crimi:nal aolion has betJn lilOO ,
appl•cation hall only be made in court where (tie cMmiinal ac1io:n m s pending (Seo.2, Rule 126. ROC).

Exception Appt lcattons ror search warrants invoM119i hel no.\J& crimes.Ulegalg. .robl ing. dangerous drugs
and rnega.1 p<)S&e5$i0fl of firearms shalI be filed by ltie PNp N'S.I Pre:sldefltlBIAnU.organized Crime Ta
I I

Force {PAQC..Tf ) and Reaction Aga nst Clime 1ask Force (REACT-TF) wnh the 'Reg ooal Trial Courts of
Manila a1n1d Quezon City.lihe api>1icaijons shall be pernonally endorsed by 1he Head or said sgencies.
The Exe{;utiYe Judge and Vioo Executiv63 J llC\ges or Regiona1 TrialCo1Jns, Manila and Quezon City before
Yd11ch the application Is flied. is authorized,If 1uslmsd.to issue Iha wanaots which may be served in places
outside Ille territorialiurisdiction of said courts (A.M.No.99-20-09,,S C, Janoo'l' 25, 2000).
2.5. Judge C of IRTC 'Davao City Ls.sued a search wanant against A based on rprobable caua.e for a
violationof BP 33 fo:r hoardhlQ luge quaotities of LPG k1 steel cylinders belonging to B.A filad hla
Omnibus 'Motion to Ouuh Wall'rant .andOlf Sup?ress. Evidence and to Order Return of Seized
l Judge C cfe,led the motion.On appea viai petition for ie&niorari.CA disnds'5-..ed the petition
for f.ai ull'e' to 1implead tha Peoplo as respondents. :A co,ntends that lrnplead ing the Pea.pie as
rn;pondants t>& pramature beeause ilo 'll::rimlnIcase had yet been fUed agal nst nim with on1y
appllcatlon fur the issuance of the search wan:ant lhavMng been made.Is it n,908Ssary to lmpJead
the People of the PhHi:pplnes in the petition?
YES.The searcil warran l In question had been. issuOOIin lhe name of 1.he Peop e of the PhiUppines, and
1

ttiat fact ren{:!ered the Peapl'e ir'«J spiensable parties in the pecial civilr action for oet1i.orari brought to nulify
the questroned orders or responden1 Presirl n9 Judge.. The search warrant is '!"LOt :similar to a ctiminal
attion. butis rather alegal process that may oolikened to a writ of dJSOO\l'ery employed by oo IQ:Ss than 'the
State to procure rre1r;tJant evidenoe of a came. In tha1t respect, it liS am lnstrument or toot, issood under llhe
State's police power. and thrs i:s the reasori why it must issue in lhe name of the Peop1e of ttie Philippines..
E"Very search wanrant is applied fm and ood by and under the authority of the State.regardless of who
initiates its appli tiOn or causes Us lss . G.R No. 164974, August 5. 2015, Bersamh.
J).

206.

However, fh.9 mrneu"'' l"IJ. pce of the motion does

so to Ifie exclus;on ibus Moion Rule and
ttle rure against forull lll

207.

In order lo determine prob

arrest. Ule iudge (11Qt thia prasec rnuist e cat1se lo searcil requif S facts
have sufficient rads, in his harKI , ' , lwould w lttat particular things connectoo
tetid to ehow that a crime ih:as been with a crime are fourld in a specific:
oorrunitted and Ulat a particular parson location.
committed it.
As to
- - - - --- - -
Thejudge roost, before iss.uing ttle sea-rch
Tile juage is 001 required 'to make a pers.ortal, warrant, personally &xamine the
e.xamination befo-ra issuing a warrant or camplaiAant and ttle 'Witnes"Se:s he may
anest prodoce.
As to Peso11al E'll:aml11alio:n
Judge Is rrnerety cal led up0.n to examine and Examii11ation must be probing. Not tJnougti
evaluate lhe report of the nsca1 and ttle 'to merelly adopl the questions and
evidence answers asked by a pievious inrresfigator .

liiiiii .
. .._ _ - --- -' ..._ 1i -
 --- -

-
As to Va lidity

As tQ Service
.A search warrent ty d
An arTeslrnay oo made at any time Qf 1tiA di;1y the day time, unless there be a direction in
or nlghl 1he 11,.-arnint lhat it may be oor-ed at alfly
time or the <:lay or nighl

EVlDENCE

ADMISStBIUIY

WR. Are. ta11ephone t:onversations edmlsslble

YES. Telephone convarsation
ttU5"1WOrth i
evidenre. TH
probative 1v.. ii·niP3'ai\ "°'
IOOl'Q staleme ...............
absence of oo ·
c rcums ances p •c)ll
c.ompletB:ness of ms""81
responsibility Iles i
1ial for putpioses of reliatililify and
before it could be raceiived in
i. · 11 be oooorded
1f.l'dtiD;tfaiJ evidence-.T
.; idenlify. in the
,.,,...._. n1ssihl . However,
, elltify the caller. The
admissibility, and the
11or;i.lil'\Vl f'!lher the- threstrtold of

adnissrbilJty has b .t..m11- 3, BefSBJJlin, J}.

209. Is an '"out.of-.c::ou rtn ......,..._i!.,..

YES. An OU-Of--OOIJ,,......,,..,,'"" ed by poli officers in
·$(:!Vet.aJ ways s1.1cti .:!lrlAr.u. o ac w,ithi the witness for
ioontincation; mug sho tugil'-'J,.l•Y tile suspect. thru lme-ups
where a wiitness iden 1 purpose. In resolvill"lg !l"ii9
at!missibillty or arid 11................. coI -Ka:ve adopted 1tie totality of
ciroulllllStan:eas test wh·- Qpportunity ro view the
bl1iiiilt"'""s'
criminal at the time of..:lbJ:• l'l111Tit> rme; {3) tile accurac:-y Qf att'J
priof desc:fip.tio11 given ·· mmiRti:Ate-:t by the witness at Ifie
iderilificatlon; (5) the l l\·1MM51J 1fl F'ld, (6) lhei sL.19gQSYeness
of the dantification procew=-:;;; Stel'IWBIHE!r 28, 2015).

210. Wilen is c:i umstantial &VidiJ

c;rrumst.antial evJdence is
a. There ie more til:an one c11"1'1L11:r..:w:
b. The facts trom Wh ichthe 4i-.f. .
c.. Tne combination of all the ci rcu
( Set; 4, R'uJe 133. ROC).

211. Does failure to strictiy comply with Section 2.1(1) of R.A. No. 9165 Comp.rehensive· Dangerous
Drugs Act' renderitems sered or eonn .eted ffom tne aeeused lnadmi.5sib1e In evtdenee?
NO. Under Section 3 at Ru1e 128 or the Rules. or Coui1, &'llllclenO! is admissible NOOn !itis rele¥ant to the
iS$J1.Je :aoo is nol e.xdudecl by the law or these rul@$. For evidence •o be lnadmiss ble., there shaUld be a
law or rute which r-orbJds Its repon. H th(llm is no sooh l:aw or rule. •he e"'lcJ&flC@ must be admillled
subject only to the evidentiary wei ltllUial will be accorded to it by the rourts. There is flO pro"'ision or
sta&ernen.t in said 11aw or in any n.1le that will lbrlng about ttie oon-a,dmissibil ty of the confisca'oo and/'or
se drugs due to non-CQmpl a11Ce witti Section 21 of RA 9165. Tne Issue thererore. if ttlere is oon-
oo"1llianoe witl'I said -saction.is not of aarrisSlbilit .ibul of weight - evidentisry·merit. or pmbaJive vau.e
-to b& givn the evjdenoo (Saraum 11. P90p/e, G.R. No. 205412. Jarwary 25, '2016).

SAN Bro.A Coi:J.'&QB oF I.Aw

2017 CmMlizm BM! Qp.ER.A'\ 'i&
St
 1REMEDIAL LAW
JUDIC liAL NOTICE

212. May the Judge's personal knowledge be conslde11&d as judlcf.a.11 1!'101ce?

NO. Mere persona.IJ knowledge of t!he judge is TlOt ltm juC.:frci al knowltldge of (fie i::ovrt. and he is oot
authOJized to maks his ind vidual knowledge of .a fac.,, not g9nera11y or prores.iona,ly knO\'Vfl, the basis or
his aciion.Judicial cogn ance islaker on1y of those matte wtiich am '"oomrnonl'.( known (Sps. Latip v·.
C'1ua. G.R. No. 177809, October 16, 2oog).

BEST EVIDENCE R:UIJE..

213. (A} What i5o the primary rpu1rpose of B&:St EvKlenoo Rule?
(B) When does. th1s rule appty? Give an example of.an action where the ruie does NOf a pply.
(A) The primary purp0<se of lh© 'Best Evidence Ru,e is to ensure that thG exact oonlents of a wii ing arn
bruugM before lha court. cxmsideriflg P,at (a} t'he preais;on in presenting UJ lhe court the ex.act words Of
Ole writing is of more than average importance, particularly 3'S r,espeas operative or disposit1ve
instturr1;1nts, such as deeds, wills and s,ight variation in words may me:an a greal
diffemnce in rigti s; (b) thes"e Is o human process of maklngi a OOP'i
by tiand\vri · o l)iipewrilng;a to give from memo'f)' the terms
or a Wll'iling, · is. a specia of attemp •, }escribing, other
sitooti:o:n g a_ nJle _ er acts as. an insurm agai" . ud. .VerifY. pa!1Y is in too
p.OSS€:SSl?n of t
presumption nal
evidence and a
· \,
sesjtijla_oE'fi eµv e 1
t ubs1ihJ1te 1rifen e
e. f iJP!Jlent p .
·. m _ ils place, .lle
at 1_ts produciioo
wautdl pose a t. l:utlG M ,rt() i es resulting from the
in.tenlional or unint I inlro · , if .eJa ' o ol er set of '"""' -u-·'""'
1

'8) The Best EvidentiM u t are ttie subje ct of lhe

Inquiry. An e1(am:ple .
lhe Inexlstence o,f ii;! "' Jl(J,f
property.Sine@ the te
the rule does not a
Btirsamin.. J).
214. Heirs of A filed an HtAl"'lO
Ian cla mingit be ·
staU11g that the hmdWffll!lll>ae
malicious efforts of
Heirs or 81 lrlowe:vert dilMfil'
which was 1!'&gisterad nA11aNP"
attested roat the sup,poseiW!IJBJllP
the ot,lgina of the ,dlillilllllll'
evidence.ll's the Best E\rid mY'f"i'P
NO. This rule app4i$$ only w, ,
introduced concerns ,external t ·
ref8rence to ts temls, the Beat Evi
may be admitted even mthouc eocouneg
document but die fact of jf s execulioA."fherefore , the Mst Evidence Rule is not appl cable (Heirs of
Prodan v. Heirs of Alvarez, G.R.No. 1706-04, Sep/ember 2, 2013, Bersamm, J) .
f.!!:.-9U ieting of tiU e ba:sed on
iisf a c::loud onltie ti e of a
stenoe or nori-e:ii:.fs etioe,
· 04, September 2. 2013,
7.
lrs of B over a parce of
PY contained an entry
repurcnase through 'lhe·
1a.....,,w-repurchase d1d n.o exist.
wtJ llr"With a right of repurchase
-examination, the custodian
'S heirs claim that although
)w:lilla--:f;an be proved by secondary
. When tha svideri sought to oo
·an . or delivery of the writi llQ, without
, k.ed. lri such a·case, secondary "mnce
f io Of ltie o l"..
Here,'the Issue is not the contents of the

PAROL EVllDENCE RUL·E

215. What hJ the purpose of the Parol Evidence Rule?

ts purpose Is to forbid any addrtiian to i0r c:ontradlctJon of ltie· t,armrs of a wrttt.eo tnstrument by testimony or
other evidence showtng, ltlat other or differe11t terms were ,agreed upon by the partie$ ar or before the
execuU0:111 or lhe written oonttact. Conversely ,it does not pciude a party from proving subsequent verbal
agreements eriteted with respect to lhe conb'act (Raymundo v. l.unaria, G.R. No. 171036, October 17,
2:008).
 A stoek ilmdl ha115fer book (STB} of a orporadon Is. the book wf1let! records the n11mes and
addre5s&l!i of all s'b>okholdarti .iilrrang:ed alpnaba.tieally1 title 1lnst11Umonts. paid .and unpaid on an
5tock for wMcn .subscription as. been made. :tnd the data. of payment ther.of. It is likewise a
sU:itement of er-y allenatiQn, :!al.a'e or transfer of &t.ock made, the date thareof and by and to whom
'™'de: and 5uch ottuu- E!ntnes. as may be presertbed tiy< law. Is STB .a publle raieor'd? May piilrol
evreence be admitted i11 case of amb5guitLGs to such racom$'?
A scoo);. and transfer book,like oU'lrDr corjXlt.a oooks. at"\d reoards, i.s notin <'1111Y sense a public record, and
Q.hus is nof exclusive evioonoo of the rnatt9ts ar;d 'Lhlngs Whicti ordinari y tne ·Or should !bQ wr ttet1 Lt'liMGln,
in fact. i i!ii genBrally held lh.at hu1records ar'd miniu'la:s of a oorpora1ion are not conclusive ev.an against
me corporation hut ate prims facie e1Jidenr:-e on,y, and may tie impeachoo or even contradicted by oth.et
e1.0nt e\1'1cte nce. Thus., parot evidence may be admitted t.o suppfy omisslc11ns in the- records or explRili
atrbigu L1es, or to OOfllradjct suoh mcords (Jnsig.oo v.. Abl'a VaJt9y CaJJeges, 'm;., G.R. No. 204089. July 29.
2015, &rsamlo. J).

217.

2 a What is the impo ttW!i11io1111ent? E:ic:plain.

The nature of dol"'f.:....,....,,.""' ........._..,""ll s ll"!aY be presented
i:IS f!.VMenc:G l:n l'.2)u ctc::r. or becaLJse · has
beoo ackrnowiedgc t public:. official witll the
k111Tlities req1Ji r€'(! horized by law, Is self-
aul'han'licatlng .ad r1R? as. evidence in court.in
contrast , a ·private d, '.eJllttool.ed by a private person
without the interven_......., EJ"CJ1v.-·mich some disposition or
agreoo-ient i:S provad o( a pLJbllc doo1rne:n1, or t
salemnitie"S prescribB """".w manner allowed bJI law or
the Rules of Goc11t b ,_....,u.....nt a1f authentication of a
private dor:;mnenl is ,e;a:......... ::iri.& ocument is an ancient one
1vithin the cont-ext of ........,.,.._ , 9!ill11.J:lflfleQs. and a\.dl'\\e.nth::ly of an
action.abl.e doCtJmenf h dYerw part'f, (c' whafl too
genui11e11eSs and authe · ..........·.- n ithe docurnentis oot being
offeted as genuirne. (P--atifl•i:::l"1&-gu, mm, JJ.
......11<,,,... ,,...,.....

219. X ana Y were charged with _ ss to the incklent is Z., a 14-yf,ar

old, who was a deaf rnote·. D1.1ri e was a&&lsted 'In his testlmof'.ly by
A, a licensed s.ign language inte!flprete . s , .. ss?
VES. Al' persoos Who can parCl'.llive.aniving, ke._known ttleir perceptioo t other may be
witnesses. A deaf-mute may not b12 abte'td'hear and s_peak.J:iut h1sth€1r other sf.lnses remain funetiO'l'lal and
aJlow h•m her to make observations. abou.t lhe environment arid e:xperierires. He can sll communicate
'IAlh ottier:S in wrill ng or through signs and symbols. Wlhan oo communicated his idea.s 'll'ith the help or a
l10Bns00 lntarvraLer, tie was able to con'l@y a credible .a.ccou:nt of the Uilngs Ilia perceived dunnglhe
incckmt.. S•l'\Ce Z is atll to reflive and t,o oommunieate his perception 10 others. he is a oompe\ant
witness {P€Jople v. Aleman, G.R. No.. 18153Q, JtJJ y 24. 2013)..
220. A was charged wl1h robbery with ha.rnlcld.e for the de.a.th of 18. C 1 Hie fi· yesr old daughter. of the
vlctirn, testified that she saw A ente.r their house .ano shoot her father wlth a gun. SM posffivety
ideFtlif.ied A as the one who shot her father. A questioned 1he· q,uaUflca.Uon of C as ai w•1ness.
Dacide.
C is qual fied il:o be a witooss becaLJSe every ch.•ld is. pr.as.urned qua lfied to be a witness. Under tile Rule
on. Exarrinatian of a Child Wible, a child is presumea qualified to be a witness un1ess sl.Jth presumpt1on
is rebullBd by the party challenging th chlld's oornpetem::y. Only on subsbmli.a doubt as o U1e at:Mlity oJ
the child to perceive.remember and oommunscal9,distinguish trulhfrom falsehood, or appreciate lhe ·duty

,f\1 "1 ,-,-..._ _ .. --- a y. ,.,,..,.,..n • Nt .-..Tr'°" 53

 to Lari Uie truth 'Will the oourt Oil rnotiCJn or nvotu proprio coriduci: t"4:i compeEBncy exeminatlon. Sine@ A
wa. oot abliQ. IO tProv that C s inoompe ent to be· .a Wirtnios.s, tha pmul'l'ilptiM stands and tihe Is qualified 1

as a witness (People I.'. EstJgOn. G.R. No. 195244, Ju'le 2.2, 2CJ15, f3i;;ir891nirr ,J).

DISQUALIFICATION OF W1 NESS

221. S,pouses A and B freqwently quarreted wMI oachothor until they decided to llve se-'J)anitely. B Uved
with her Mstar. C, In Nuev Ecija. One night, B saw someon.e. pouring gaso Une around the he.use
of C. Due ·to ttie brightncss o·f the moon she c.arne to know that it was A. A allegadt;' lgn
1
li ted raml
$e-t the house on fire cau5orng damage to pnlpe-rty and minor injuries on C and B thus he was
charged wftlh arsol'I. The proseeuiioo called B to the witne& stand 'Without objec1ion from the
ac(lused. B posltiveify dentifHH:t A, her husband, aSi the one she saw that night. A sought to
1

dlsquaUfy B from restifyng agail'iSt him on the ground of Milrita I dl&quallf caUon. Can B testify
ag f!i5t bar husband?
YES. The rnan1al disqualification rule providtls for GX:C"eptions. One of vmicti i'S wh©r.e the marital and
domestic rela1fons are so strained Ola _ 1
• harroony to b preserved nor peaoo ar'ld
tranqu"lity Miioh may be distu ny a11 tranquility fais. The crilme
iof arson dily · pairs tlte oo radic.ate all the major aspects or
maritallife st1 · · trust. con <il' conjug n:ship surviv,es

, :ar: an Eidl1 qual nmanfy seks to

aml flot1 ns h · of s.elti re to the house or C, knov.ing wife w-a is an act totally

222. A is cha111ed wi · m. B , I el!!fl, b " · p against h

The court didl no . 1he
questS.oM the pro
Declda.
The court cannot , ,
lhat .no person may b
dlreot desceridants . ·
so ttlalhe may not
privilege was ifl\l'Ok
RuJe f31J).
s , mon)'l fl)voldna the:
J of the· ' ialof
is father.
. prw he prose.cuticn now
e 1
on of B's te.stimony ..
· lege. The Rules provit:le
ndarnts, chi!dlien or other
le i:s availab1e to 8 orn
ly
,.it.S no compulsion and the
B's testimony (Sec. 25,

223. A borrnw-8d P500,_""'_ ,, .,.. ry note was e:irecuted,

Immediately before t n.a••r....., nis debt B went to the
executor of ff tab' .ay saying that there '& no
proot that A was in · e exjs.t&-nee of A's debt?
NO. B rs rendered inrnm1l'!ie.tBlfO'lli .e ,.,Ji..!.,..._.. ean Man's Statute due to llhe
possibi ity ttlal his daim is.-cma.&1ettt. wai atlons of B sinoo he iarready
dead.The object or lhe ml # <t .t!Jll•"n' f'alse te'Stirnony n regard to the
lraris.aoiion on he part of Oie -1
·es upon equa1 te,ms. Its purpose is
io olose Uie lips of •be pfalnulf . - _ .· B defendal\t ln Ofdet: to remove from
1

lhe plaintiff ttle temptationlo do farf, !i - n'OOll'ID' s ·· .or fictitious claims against·lhe deceased
(Garcia v. Vda. De Capara.s, G.R. No. 1 3).

224. V filad a petition for the declaration of nulllty of her marriage to X tlecause the latter failed to care
for and suppon h is family and that a psychiatrist diagnosed him as mentally deficient due to
incessant dr,tnklng1 and ex.cessirve use of prohibited drugs. He was also convinced to undergo
rehabiltation and deto:idfieatlon. During tM- pre-tria' confeTenQa, Y pre,,l!'nafked the Phil bealth
Clarm Fonn of X attached to his answer as proof of hts rehabllltatJO<n . Y fi ed a ntques.t for 1he
l.s ssual\\Ce of a subpoena dueas tec1Am addressed to the hospita't in wnicll x .was
rehabilitated covering the lattar":s ,mitc:Hc•I record:s. The request wu11 accc:;impaniad by • ·moUon
to allow the submission In evidence of the said medical records. An the .medical records
admissible?
NO. To, all.ow die medical re. rds to be admitted would be to allow access to evidence that is lnadrni.ssli lfe
lhitholJl lbe p.aUeril's consent. Pfiys[cian memorialize-a all tti.ese il'lformatlon ln lhe paent's records..
Disclosing ihem wou1d be the equiwtent of corqiemng the physfd:an to testify on priviteged matters he
galtied w.hile deal i!lg with tt'le patient, without ttie aMer"s prior coosent (CJ}an 111. Chan, G.R. No. 1 79788.
July 24, 2013).
 JYD. CIAL .AfFIOAYIT RULE

2Z5. What is the JucUelafl Affidavit Rule?

The Judicial Afifiija'rffi Rule provjcles tha.t
The parties shoall fi e wih too court and $eT'w'e on the adl!Jtriese. part. personally or by lk iend ooul'iar
servioe, 111ot f aler than five dc11ys befor-e pre-trial or prell mlnary conference or the hedul:ed hearingi with
respect lo rnotiofls. and ,indi;tent-s,the talEowing:
a. The judi:cial affido\lli s of Uieir wimass. which sh.all bke tti pliiM» of 5\.lcti witnesses• direct
testirnonli:::is; and
lb. The parties' documentary or ohje<.r;t evidenoe. f any, which sha11 be a actied to 1he jlJdlcial .affida-'w'its
iam'ld marked as Exhibits A, B,C, and so oo i•1 the c:ase of the complainant or the plalntl«. and as
Exhibils 1. 2,3.and so Oil in lhQ case of the respondent or lhr:t defoodant (A.M. Nb. 12-8-8-SC, Sec. 2,
par. [eJ>.

RES 'lt. ilER ALIOS ACTA

226. A,B;and C were haveng a d

who wa!5i _ rti , g the girt he
\llirhGre they edly .sta.bb
from ttw auf·t li_js_t
t•O the polllco t . .....un:r
admission of C 1

NO. Tile act 01' r'li!5l"'!l. .cil- s existence,may be

9lven In -evildenoo rae;111D'!i1. eoce other lhan suoh oorif'!
iOll'J...

act or deolaration.. "rl has ased, It Is nat

adrnissibte. Since t · L'a!IC"'""'mmitted, ttten his act.
dedaraeion or om'ISS\11)1\ll;iea

2l7, X k accU$ed vritlrl $QIU '-•""'""suiting in Homicide, tn

lit& attarnpt to pn 1.......... ases. filed again5it X.X
was previ, :0usly cha "ll!PIU<'Y waapon i co nceanng ai
d.ead y weapon. on pai:gi(l1a,.bond. Is this evidence:
admissible?
NO. lhe said eviden r;i ,.. ROC. evidence :that one
did or dkl not do a ca .,.--,,..-.-- e <Hd or did n.1't do the same or
a $lmlar tnlriq aL anotft · en or knowliedge.id,eritity,
plan, sysEt!lm,soherne, ...,.,..'L!lllL.r-•- 1SJ11101:.-tta missibl vmen it show's, Qt'
tends to show, dla.t the ...irw- nd€:pen.dem from the offense
for which he is 00 mat · ·...,,,.Ull....-._v AA J"1r:ommitteid many crimes, and
still be innocent of the ai'""""......,,..,...,.W::Mlt r'W11 4 644, May 2.7. 2004).

228. What is 1he Doctrine of Ado11W,.,..WQro'

An adoptive admission is a p
rea:scnable o treat the p rty's rea
pe-rson.The basis. ror admissibility at a
a<:loption by the party or he statement
14671(Jr15, April 3, 2001),
W ,._•..__._ . ...,.,ction b·ano1tier person when it is
10 othing staled o.r tmplied by the ·othef
·canously is ttiat arisirig from the ratifiicaon or
. erson had mada (Estrada v. Desierto, G.R.

HEARSAY RULE

229. X was accused of est.a.fa for .allegedly mlsapproprlattng the funds collectecli by her • sa1.eig
representative, A, who conducted her audit by going t:o the customan covered by X, was
presented as a witness.Prosecu,lon presented various documenl'S as e"'idance consisting of: (a}
the receipts allegedly ·tssued by X to her customer&, b ledgers of the . odnts of eacn customer
and , c) the conf inmrtron 51heet.s accomplished by A herself. X's counsel interpQSfJd a con1inuing
obj&ction on the· grotJnd that tne flgur&& antared in Elllhi ts B to YY were hearsay because the
persons who had made 1he entries weli\e l':'!Ot themselves presentedin court. Are A's testlmon and
1he documen1 ts submitted admissible as eviden,ee of X's guilt for Ktafa?
 NO.A's testimony and the dorumentary evidence are not admissible as evidence because the testimonial
evidence Is not based on personal knovAedga and the documents presented are private and not duly
authenticated or sworn to by the customers and therefore both merely hearsay. Personal knowledge of a
witness is a substantive prerequ site for accepting testimonial evid&nce that establishes the truth of a
disputed fact. Such nJle rests mainly on the ground that there was no opportunity to cross-examine the
declarant. Here, A did not prepare Exhibits B to YY and she basod her testimony on tho entries foond in
the receipts supposedly issued by X and in theledgers corresp0ndinglo each customer, as well as onthe
unsworn statements of some of the customers (PatCJ/a v. People 1 G.R. No. 164457, Apn·r 11, 2012,
Bersamin. J).

EXCEP!IONS TO HEARSAY RULE

230. X raped h t niece and killed her. X went to the Barangay Hall and confessed to 8, barangay
capta in,the crime committed. A case 5 thereafter fi ed aga inst X. The said adm iss on made to B
was used as cOrroborative ev·idence to other evidence presented.X challenged th& testimony of B
on what he had confessed to or to ld th · ay.ls X correct?
NO. The testimony covered is •hich is not barred by the hearsay
rule. Under octrine of ind fact that such statements 'A<e-re
madeis rele nd the tru e hearsay; u oos not apply.
Ev dence as

:. . .

May the testimon -

;, e5

dee
§61 95
king of statement is not secor'Kla!}' b

1
jj' · e wa)J sab ya
ary. for t

; •nee f
ement itself may

a fact I • v.
nd naming his killer
231.
an hour before h. ;a n ev ii'ii• yin ifration' or part of res
gestae?
YES. The eviden s. In this case, such
circumstances quali and as part of the res
gestae, considering lnEI 1ctim an hour bef0te h s
death and right affe, :t '. · g declaration or part of
the res geslae either o v. Sala/ranca. G.R. No.
173476, February 22.

232. Whanis a dying dee

A dying dedaration m
a. the declaration mus the declaranfs death;
b. at the time the decl of an i0'9ondln9 death;
c. thedeclarant is co
d. the dedarationis icid-e, in wtlich the declarant
is a victim (People v.

233. In an action for judicial partition a claim that the property became the
subject of coownersh p after the pprtj.d' pred l'S·in-interest passed away.Respondents
claimed that the father of the pettt(oners cou d ve already gotten h is share from their
predecessors-in-interest. However, no evidence was presented or offered to support such claim.
The appellate court ruled that the petitioners are entitled to the ir share.s the ruling correct? Why?
YES. The Section 34.Rule 132 of the ROC provides that the court shall consider no evidence which has
not been formally offered.This rs to enablelhe trialjudge to know the purpose or purposes for wh ich the
proponent s presenting the evidence. Also, it allows oppos ng parties to examine the evidence and object
to its admisslbili y.A formaloffer is necessary because judges are mandated to rest their findings of facts
and judgment strictly and only upon the evidence offered by the parties at trial (Mabbomng. v.
Mabborang. G.R.No. 182805, April 22, 2015).

234. May the court cons ider as evidence documentsIdentified and mari<ed as exhib
ts during pre-trial
or trial but not formally offered in evidence?
NO.The documents wh ch may have Ileen identified and marked as exhibits during pre-triat or trial but
which were no! formally offered in evidence cannot be treated as evidence. Neither can such
 unrecognized proof be assigned any evidenliary weight Md vatuo. II ttust be arnphasized lhat any
evidence which a party CleSir&s o submit for the considorauoo or the r.o....t musl formally be offered by
lhe
party:otherwis.it, t is excluded and rejected (Mabborong v.Mabb0fa11g, G.R. No. 182805.April 22. 2015)

235 ts there •difference bt'Cweenldentification of documentary evidence and lt'S formaloffer?

YES.The identification and olfer are different from ead'l other. T'he identification
is donein the coutse of
1hC pre·trial, and trialis accompanied by the marking of the eyidon<::e as an exhibit;w11ile the offer is done
on y when the party restsits case. The mere fact that a particulat dOCutrent is identified and markedas an
exl ib t does not meanlhatit \as already been Qtferedas part of he evldonco ( l.fabbOrbng. v. MatJbO(tjt>g..
G.R. No. 182805. April 22, 2015).

l$ the ru e requiring formal offer of evidence abaolute7

NO.The ru e is not 8bsolvte .In certaininstances.the Court has relaxed the proceduralrule and allowed
the tNllcourt to consider evidence not ro<mally offamd on the condition that the following requisites are
ptesent: (1) the evidanoo mist have beenduly fdentiflGd byles.timony duly recorded;and (2) the same
rrust h,ave been lncorl)Of'a!ed in the reco IAabborang. v.Mabbotang, G.R No. 182805,
Apr/122.2015),

23i

To provide a s. de a speedy ai d
ine·xpensivo ds ·ve disposition of cases
ims of s •
money cla definedlo be included
cases for Summary

Small claims cases · ii ses:

\vhich are exdusive ii. tases of forcible
payment of a sum of enuy and Idetainer
exceeding P100,000 ilrespe(:tive of amount of
orintecest and costs,ei damages or
1. Civil claims, wtier :;jplild 1entals sought to be
prayed for by the plainll :vered.
solely for payment . All other civll.cases. except
feimbursement of sum probate prooeedings.\\•here the
rooney; or totalaroount of plaintiffs daim
2. The civil aspect of criminal ay be: does not exceed P100.000 "'
actions, either filed before the 1. monty ow ndcr any doll$ not exceed P200.000 in
institution of the criminal action, or the following:(L'S'M) Aetro Manila. ex.clusi..-e of
or reserved up0n the filing or the a. Conttact of lease: interests and costs (Sec 1).
criminalaction in court,pursuant b.Controct or Loan;
to Rule 111 or the Revised c.Cootract of Serv ces: Crim
inalcases:
Rules of CriminalProcedu1e. d.Contract or Sa e:or 1. Violations of 1/affic laws.Mes
e.Conlfact of Mortgage; and regulations, rental law;
municipal or city ord nances,
These dalms or demanas may 2. For liqu idated damages B.P.22
be: arising from contrads; 2. All other criminalcases whe1e
1. For money o·ed under J 3, The enforcement of a the penalty is i"l)lisonment oo\
contracts of Lease, loan. barangay amicable settlement ex.ceechng 6 months andfoc a
Services. Sale,or Mottgago; or an arbitration award fine of P 1,000i11espective of
2. For damages arising from invo ving a money cla m other penalties or civil !\abiities \
Fault °' Ii ence. Quasi· covered b this Rule ursuant to arisin therefrom:and

SAN BtDA Cot.L£CE or LA\\' Sl

2017 CDm.ALlllD B.u OP&ltATIOff&
contract. or Contract;or
3. · The enforcement of CO<le of 1991 (Sec. 5).
abarangay amicable settlement
or an arbitration award involving
a money claim covered by this
Rule pursuant to Sec. 417 of the
Loca.1 Government Code (R.A.
7160).
1. Metropolitan TrialCourts;
3. Municip
Cities:
Ire'
2. Municipal Tria.l Courts
4. Mu nicip
Courts (S
By filing with the
accomplished an
Statement of C laim
SCC)in duplicate. tog
the following
1. Certification of No
Shopping (Form 1-A, SC
2. Two (2) duly ce
photocopies of tile actiona
documenVsubject of the claim,
and
3. Affidavits of witnesses, and
other evidence to support the
claim (Sec. 5).
The decision shall be final and
unappealabte (Sec. 23).
Sec. 417 the Local Government 3. Offenses involving damage to
pfoperty thfough crlminal
negligence whore the imposable
fine is not exceeding P10.000
(S&e 1).
As to Where F1l0d
1.Metropolitan TrialCourts;
2. Municipal Trial Courts in
Cities:
3. MunicipaJ TrialCourts; and
4. Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
in
a:
eases: Complaint
minal cas&s:
r by complaint or by
ormation: provided however,
at in Metropofttan Manila and
in Ch8.rtered Cities. such cases
shall be commenced only by
information, except when the
»r1fiff is:"l!qj)!!QS offense cannot be prosecuted
bus ss of lendi de officio (Sec 11).
and similar activities:
a. A statement to that effed;and
b. The number of small claims
cases fi ed with in the ca
lendar
year regardless of judicial
station (Sec. 6).
As to Appeal
The decision of the court shall The judgment or final order of
be final, executory and the Municipal Trial Court shall
lable (sec. 24).
unappaa be appealable to the Regonal
TrialCourt (Sec. 21).
 - --

As o Prohibited Pleadings a11d MotiOf'15 ---

1 MotioJl o d:ismiss ttie 1. Motion lo dismiss the
1. Motion to dismiss the ·
Statement of Cl'aimr's; camplalrit or lo quash the
complam r 2 Motion for a bill of oomplaint orinfounalion;
2. Motion for Cl bill or ·
partiClllars: 2. Mo lon for a bill of
particulars; 3 Motion for new trial. ar ror partict1lars
.3. Motion for new trial , or kif'· -3. Motion for new trial, or for
f'90011Side;atiari Of a
reconsideration. of a
judgmGnt, or for re-openill'lg r0consl.der.a,uon or a
judgment. or for reopening joog ment, or far iraopening
t.>f trim;
of trial; 4 Peti ioni for relief from of tJial;
4. Petitron for relief from ·
judgment; judgment: 4. Pe1!1tior; for relef from
5 Molon ror extension of ti me jUdgl'l'1/lfl[
5. Moliion for exteAsion of time ·
ta file pleadlngs, affildai.ilts or 5. Motion for exten-slom'l or Ume
lo me pleadings, affidavits I
to file pfead ings, affidavils or
or any other paper, any other paper:
Me any other paper:
6. Memoanda; Memoranda ;
1. F'eution for . Petition for certiorari.
mtmd· u
mardcmt s, ·r pronitiition
agaiM
•s.s
11:1'1n
agains· intel1ocuf.ory
order or r I y the oourt
a. Motion Mot .o dedare lhe
defendant. i m :default;
9. Dilatory ..._.'1[ll"Qo lf110tions for
poslpon€:mB-n.......... _... ll'3i!•04!K-iemen
10. Reply;
11. Th•rd-party (";()t'rih9Fi -party oomplaktts: and
12.lnterventi.ons (.:>C110ai.111 e· ntlons (Sec. 19J.
-,.-..... ·
1

238. What is Strategic L 11u111Fa

It refers to an action \..ti
government agency
iexert undue pressure
take11 or may take inth
en-Yironmenralrights (Rr-

239. Concerned Residents of i8rg TC against se:veral government

agencies for the c.lean up an , River A loated in th&lr Brgy.Tha
eomplalnants aUegod that it is agamst e e i1ppine· Environment Code. RTC or(fered
the government ilgenlclff against wll . e comp t ·was fUad to eleall up and rehabilitate Rliver
A. The sald government agencies aUeged 1hat 1he En ronmeMtt Code only t)ertaf n& to the ,c'f:eaing
of the specifi:c polution incidents. and do not 00Yt1r the deaning in gellleral and thatl1 •s Pot a
1mlnisterial act: which can !be compelled by mandamus as provided for by Sec.17 and 20 ,of PD 115.
ls the cl11im of 1he sa rd government agenc:es meritotous?
NO.Sec 17 arKI 20 of PD 115 d'oes not COflfine Die government ,agencies to tlltt containment . reiroova1_
nd deaning operations only wtien a specific poUulion Incident occurs. Instead, i1 aqu:ires. tnem to aci
evenIn the abseru;e of a specific poilution inident, as long as wa'e quarny has de:teriorahd to a degree
where lls state will adversely ::1ffect Its best usagf2'. The c.tenlng .and rehat>iliatio or m'ief· A can ·be
COfi1)elJed by a "oontinulng mandamus" issued by a coort In an envlronrnenta' case direcfing any agency
or inslrumentality of lhe govarnmen. or offioor tihereof to perlonn an act m: series of acts decteed by fa
judgment whld'l shal ramain effectiw unOf judgment f:s fully sasfled (MMDA v. Coocemed Resklants of
Manila Bay. G.R Nos. 171g47-48.. D'&Cember 18. 2008). ...
 WRIT OF KALIKASAN

It is directed against:
1.The unlawful neglect in the It i.s avaHable a.gainst unlawful act or
1

performanee of an act which the omission of a pub1ic official or

law .specificallly enjoins as a duty employee, or private ind viduaJ or
resu'lting from an office, trust or entity. invol,vin:g environmental
station, in connection with the damage of such magnitude as to
enforcement of vioation of an prejudice the IUe health or property
t

environmenta I law, rul,e or of nhabitarnts in two or more cities.

reguatfon or a rig1ht therein; or
2.The unlawful exclusion of another The magnitude of environmental
the or enjoyment of damage is a condition sine qua non
· a petition for the i.ssuance of a Wrt
N ikasan and must be contained
p ver,i ed pe ·io .

w_ edy SANi"BEDA
ural or ju-ridica1
CO LEGE OF L ----uthorized
-H:I

by law,
SHJJaF · _ ation, or any pubHc
-.-_-...1p aocrediited or
_ th any government
- haU of persons whose
alanced and healthful
v-.m olated or threatened to

Court; or
rl'rUY'

.tation of the Court of

the
prooedural
a::t:;tenvironme ntal right of access to
informaUon through the, use of
discovery 1measures sudh as ocu!ar
ins;pe.ction order or production order.

No damages may be awarded in a

peU ion for the issuance of Writ of
Kalikasan consistent wUh the pubUc
Allows damages for the rnalicious interest character of the petition.
1

neglect of the, performance of t:he

1,egal duty of the respondent A party who avails of this. petition but
identcal to Rule 165 of the Rules of who also wishes to be indemnified
Court ior in}uries suffered may fi1e another
suit ior the recovery of damages
since the Rules a-11ows for the
insttt:ution of separate actions.

SAN· BEDA Co.t.tEOE or LAw

2'017 c ENTKALIZED BAR OPEIAT101'S
1
1