Professional Documents
Culture Documents
QUESTIONS
2003-2006
Statistical Overview
2003 2005
No Provisional Rule 57
Remedies and Special Rule 65
Civil Actions 2006
2004 Rule 57
Rule 65 Rule 58
Rule 70 Rule 65
Rule 67
2004 BAR
EXAMINATION
I. Charged with the offense of slight physical injuries under an
information duly filed with the MeTC in Manila which in the meantime
had duly issued an order declaring that the case shall be governed by the
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, the accused filed with said court a
motion to quash on the sole ground that the officer who filed the
information had no authority to do so. The MeTC denied the motion on
the ground that it is a prohibited motion under the said Rule.
Were the RTC's orders denying due course to the petition as well as
denying the motion for reconsideration correct? Reason. (5%)
Suggested answer:
The RTC’s orders denying due course to the petition for
certiorari as well as denying the motion for
reconsideration are both not correct. The petition for
certiorari os a prohibited pleading under Section 19 (g)
of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure and the
motion for reconsideration, while it is not prohibited
motion, should be denied because the petition for
certiorari is a prohibited pleading. (Lucas v. Fabros,
AM No. MTJ-99-1226, January 31, 2000, citing Joven
v. C.A., 212 SCRA 700, 707-708(1992).
II. During trial, plaintiff was able to present, without
objection on the part of defendant in an ejectment
case, evidence showing that plaintiff served on
defendant a written demand to vacate the subject
property before the commencement of the suit, a
matter not alleged or otherwise set forth in the
pleadings on file.