Preweek - Remedial Law - Vice Dean Cheska Senga - Senga Remedial Law Preweek 2022

REMEDIAL LAW
PRE-WEEK
1. GY entered into a contract for sum of money with FS for the amount of Php1,000,000.00. FS
failed to pay, despite demand. The case was filed in the MTC. Did the MTC have jurisdiction
over the case?
It depends on when the action was commenced because jurisdiction of the court is conferred by
the Constitution and by the laws in force at the time of the commencement of the action. If filed
after RA 11576 became effective on 21 August 2021, then the MTC has jurisdiction over the subject
matter. BP 129 as amended by RA 11576 provides that MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction
over civil actions, probate proceedings, testate and intestate, including the grant of provisional
remedies in proper cases, where the value of the personal property, estate or amount of the
demand does not exceed Php2Million, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s
fees, litigation expenses and costs.
If the commencement of the action is prior to the effectivity of RA 11576, then the law in force
would be BP 129 as amended RA 7691. In which case, the RTC shall exercise exclusive and original
jurisdiction over civil actions where the amount of demand exceeds Php300,000.00 or, in Metro
Manila, where the amount of demand exceeds Php400,000.00. (BP 129, as amended by RA
7691/11576; Alemar's (Sibal & Sons), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94996, January 26, 2001)
2. JK entered into a contract of sale with FS over a parcel of land, for the purchase price of
Php1,000,000.00, and with an assessed value of Php100,000.00. It was agreed that upon
execution of the contract, JK would deliver the title and possession over the land to FS, and the
latter would pay the purchase price one month from delivery. JK complied with his obligation
but FS failed to do so, despite demand. JK filed an action for rescission with the RTC of the
contract of sale, praying for the reconveyance of the land. FS moved to dismiss on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. JK opposed the motion on the ground that the
RTC has jurisdiction over the rescission of contract, it being incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Decide.
Although denominated as rescission of contract, the case involved is a real action, one involving
title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, since the relief sought for is the
reconveyance of real property, because jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the
action is determined by the allegations of the complaint, irrespective of whether or not the
plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. The allegations of
the complaint prevail over the title.
It is the RTC that has jurisdiction over the real action whether the case be filed prior to or after
the effectivity of RA 11576, amending BP 129. Under BP 129, as amended by RA 7691, the law in
force prior to the effectivity of RA 11576, the RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over real
actions where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Php20,000,00.00 or, for civil
actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds Php50,000.00, except actions for forcible entry
and unlawful detainer, where the original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. BP 129,
as amended by RA 11576 provides that RTCs exercise exclusive and original jurisdiction in all
civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein,
where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Php400,000,00.00, except actions for
forcible entry and unlawful detainer, where the original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon
2022 Remedial Law Pre-Week 1

Francesca Lourdes M. Señga
the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. (BP
129, as amended by RA 7691/11576; Alemar's (Sibal & Sons), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94996,
January 26, 2001; First Sarmiento Property Holdings, Inc. v. Philippine Bank of Communications, G.R.
No. 202836, 19 June 2018, J. Leonen Case)
3. Omicron filed an action for unlawful detainer against Linta, after Linta refused to vacate the
premises Omicron owned, despite demand to do so. Omicron alleged in the Complaint that
Linta was allowed to stay on his land by mere tolerance only. The action was filed within one
year from demand to vacate with the MTC. Linta filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction, claiming that the relationship between Omicron and Linta is tenancy under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, and outside the MTC jurisdiction. The MTC denied
the motion for being a prohibited motion. Linta filed an Answer alleging the same ground of
dismissal as an affirmative defense.
a. Was the denial of the motion to dismiss proper? Why or why not?
The ground for denying the motion to dismiss is not proper as it is not a prohibited motion in
summary procedure. As a rule, motions to dismiss are prohibited in summary procedure, except
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and failure to comply with condition precedent.
However, the motion to dismiss should be denied as the MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction
over unlawful detainer cases, regardless of the assessed value of the property, as provided under
BP 129, as amended. (BP 129, Summary Procedure, Sec. 19(a))
b. If you were the judge, what would you do? Explain.

I would not immediately dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter because
jurisdiction is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint. BP 129, as
amended, provides that MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over unlawful detainer cases.
The complaint’s allegations make out a case for unlawful detainer, that prior possession of
defendant was lawful, by mere tolerance, which became unlawful when there as demand to
vacate. The tenancy defense will not divest the court of jurisdiction because the jurisdiction of the
court is not dependent on the defenses set up in a motion to dismiss or answer. Nevertheless, the
defense of tenancy gives the court the authority to receive evidence to determine the tenability of
the claim of tenancy. It is the duty of the court to receive evidence to determine whether it has
jurisdiction or not. (Bayog v. Natino, G.R. No. 118691, 5 July 1996)
4. Rules on Motions to Dismiss under Ordinary Procedure, Summary Procedure and Small
claims
Ordinary Procedure – All are prohibited, except lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, there
is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause (Litis pendentia), the cause
of action is barred by prior judgment (res judicata), the cause of action is barred by the statute of
limitations; allege prohibited and allowable grounds as affirmative defenses (ROC, Rule 15, Sec.
12)
Summary Procedure - All are prohibited, except for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter,
and failure to comply with prior resort to barangay conciliation; allege prohibited and allowable
grounds as affirmative defenses (BP 129, Summary Procedure, Sec. 19(a))
Small Claims – Absolutely prohibited; allege the grounds as affirmative defenses (A.M. No. 08-
8-7-SC, Sec. 16)

5. There is a typographical error in the first name of Covidupdupdup in her birth certificate. It
was misspelled as Kovidupdupdup. Rather than instituting administrative proceedings for
correction of typographical error with the appropriate LCR, she filed a petition under Rule 108
with the RTC. Trial ensued after the court determined there was compliance with
jurisdictional requirements, without any opposition from the OSG. The RTC ruled in favor of
petitioner. The OSG appealed claiming the proceedings were void as there was failure to
exhaust administrative remedies, of resorting first to the LCR under RA 9048 as amended by
RA 10172. Will the appeal prosper?
No. While as a rule, correction of clerical errors should be resorted to administratively, and only
when there is a denial thereof should Rule 108 petition with court be resorted to, the failure to do
so would not deprive the petitioner of a cause of action and such non-compliance may be waived
by failure to timely object to the same, as in this case. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies may be waived and it will not affect the jurisdiction of the court. The OSG only raised
such non-compliance for the first time on appeal, and is deemed to have waived such non-
compliance. For failing to timely raise that ground with the RTC, the OSG is estopped from
raising it for the first time on appeal. (Republic v. Gallo, G.R. No. 207074, 17 January 2018, J. Leonen
Case)
6. What is the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, and is it subject to exceptions?

The doctrine provides that when courts have concurrent jurisdiction, litigants do not have
unfettered discretion to invoke the SC’s original jurisdiction, and should instead resort first to the
lower court. The rule is subject to exceptions, when direct resort to the SC may be allowed such
as: (1) when there are genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most
immediate time; (2) when the issues involved are of transcendental importance; (3) cases of first
impression; (4) the constitutional issues raised are better decided by the Court; (5) exigency in
certain situations; (6) the filed petition reviews the act of a constitutional organ; (7) when
petitioners rightly claim that they had no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law that could free them from the injurious effects of respondents' acts in
violation of their right to freedom of expression; and (8) the petition includes questions that are
dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or demanded by the broader
interest of justice, or the orders complained of were found to be patent nullities, or the appeal was
considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy. (Gios-Samar, Inc. v. Department of Transportation
and Communications, G.R. No. 217158, 12 March 2019)
7. X allowed Y to stay on his land by mere tolerance. X later demanded that Y vacate the
premises, which Y refused to heed. X filed a complaint with the MTC for unlawful detainer
against Y, who moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, there being
no prior resort to barangay conciliation proceedings.
a. Is Y correct?
No. Non-referral of a case for barangay conciliation when so required under the law is not
jurisdictional in nature, and may be deemed waived if not raised seasonably in a motion to
dismiss or in a responsive pleading. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and
BP 129, as amended provides that the MTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over unlawful
detainer case. Y should have moved to dismiss on the ground of failure to resort to barangay
conciliation proceedings. (Lansangan v. Caisip, G.R. No. 212987, 6 August 2018)

b. The motion to dismiss was denied. Y filed a motion for reconsideration, assailing the order
denying the motion to dismiss. X opposed the motion for reconsideration, on the ground that
such motion is prohibited under Summary Procedure. Is X correct?
No. What is prohibited under summary procedure is a motion for reconsideration of a judgment.
The order denying the motion to dismiss is not a judgment but an interlocutory order, because it
does not finally dispose of the case and does not end the court's task of adjudicating the parties’
contention, but indicates that other things remain to be done. The denial of the motion to dismiss
means that the case will proceed. (Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Carlito Lee, G. R. No. 190144,
August 1, 2012; Summary Procedure, Sec. 19(c)).
8. X owes Y Php100,000.00. They entered into an amicable settlement before the Barangay for
X to pay Y Php50,000.00, 2 months from execution of the amicable settlement. X failed to
comply with his undertaking. What are Y’s remedies?
Y can execute the amicable settlement for the amount of Php50,000 before the barangay within 6
months from the date of settlement, or, before the MTC under small claims procedure for the
same amount, beyond the said 6 month period, or, to treat the amicable settlement as rescinded,
pursuant to Article 2041 of the Civil Code, and insist on his original claim of Php100,000.00 and
institute a collection of sum of money case against X before the MTC, whether under summary
procedure or small claims. (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, Sec. 2, LGC, Sec. 417; Civil Code, Art. 2041)
9. Coverage of Summary Procedure

Civil Cases Criminal Cases
1. All cases of forcible entry and unlawful 1. Violation of traffic laws, rules and
detainer, irrespective of the amount of regulations;
damages or unpaid rentals sought to be 2. Violations of the rental law;
recovered 3. Violations of municipal or city ordinances;
2. All other civil cases except probate 4. All other criminal cases where the penalty
proceedings, where the total amount of prescribed by law for the offense charged is
Plaintiff’s claim does not exceed imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or a
Php100,000.00 (outside Metro Manila) or fine not exceeding Php1,000.00, or both,
Php200,000.00 (in Metropolitan Manila), irrespective of other imposable penalties,
exclusive of interest and costs accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability
• If exceeds Php100,000 or Php200,000, therefrom
but not exceeding Php300,000 outside • If exceeds 6 months, but does not
Metro Manila, Php400,000, in Metro exceed 6 years, jurisdiction is still
Manila (or Php2M if after effectivity of within the exclusive original
RA 11576), MTC still has jurisdiction jurisdiction of MTC, METC, MCTC,
but procedure can be either ordinary MTCC but under ordinary procedure
or small claims, depending on the 5. Offenses involving damage to property
amount involved through criminal negligence, where the
imposable fine does not exceed Php10,000.00
• If exceeds Php10,000.00, still within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of MTC,
METC, MCTC, MTCC but under
ordinary procedure
10. Small Claims Coverage

Involves all actions that are purely civil in nature where the claim or relief prayed for by the
plaintiff is solely for the payment or reimbursement of sum of money that:
1. Does not exceed Php400,000.00 for Metropolitan Trial Courts;
2. Does not exceed Php300,000.00 for Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in
Cities, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts; and
3. Involves a claim or demand owed under any of the following:
a. Contracts of Lease, Loan, Services, Sale, Mortgage
• If lease involves demand to vacate – Unlawful detainer – Summary Procedure
• Only to enforce amount due on the contract of mortgage and not pursuing
foreclosure of mortgage, otherwise, it will be a Special Civil Action
b. Liquidated damages arising from contracts
• Those agreed upon by parties to a contract to be paid in case of breach thereof (Art.
2226, Civil Code)
c. The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or an arbitration award
involving a money claim covered by this Rule pursuant to Sec. 417 of Republic Act
7160 (Local Government Code) (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, Sec. 2; OCA Circular No. 45-
2019)
11. May a lawyer appear at a small claims proceeding?

No attorney shall appear in behalf of or represent a party at the hearing, unless the attorney is the
plaintiff or defendant.
As a rule, parties shall personally appear on the designated date of hearing. Appearance through
representative must be for a valid cause but the representative whether of an individual or a
judicial entity cannot be a lawyer. For an individual, the representative must be related to the
party or next-of-kin. (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, Sec. 18-19)
12. What is the rule on venue in Small Claims?

The regular rules on venue shall apply, meaning that if what is involved is a real action, then the
venue shall be where the real property involved or a portion thereof is situated. If it is a personal
action, the venue shall be where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where
the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident
defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff.
However, additionally, if the plaintiff is engaged in the business of lending, banking and similar
activities, and has a branch within the municipality or city where the defendant resides, the
Statement of Claims shall be filed where that branch is located. (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, Sec. 7; ROC,
Rule 4, Sec. 1-2)
13. May there be joinder of claims in Small Claims?

Yes. Plaintiff may join in a single statement of claim one or more separate small claims against a
defendant provided that the total amount claimed, exclusive of interest and costs, does not exceed
Php400,000.00 for Metropolitan Trial Courts and does not exceed Php300,000.00 for Municipal
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. (A.M. No. 08-8-7-
SC, Sec. 8)
14. What is the rule on payment of docket fees in Small Claims?

The plaintiff shall pay the docket and other legal fees prescribed under Rule 141 of the Rules of
Court, unless allowed to litigate as an indigent. Exemption from payment of filing fees shall be
granted only by the Supreme Court.
However, if more than 5 small claims are filed by one party within the calendar year, regardless
of the judicial station, an additional filing fee of Php500.00 shall be paid for every claim after the
5th claim and an additional Php100.00 or a total of Php600.00 for every claim after the 10th claim,
and another Php100.00 or a total of Php700.00 for every claim filed after the 15th, progressively
and cumulatively.
If the plaintiff is engaged in the business of banking, lending and similar activities, the amount of
filing and other legal fees shall be the same as those applicable to cases filed under regular rules.
In no case shall a party, even if declared an indigent be exempt from payment of the Php1,000.00
fee for service of summons and processes. (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, Sec. 10)
15. What are the instances under Small Claims when the court may dismiss the case?
1. Non-submission of the required affidavits will cause the immediate dismissal of the claim or
counterclaim.;
2. Failure to pay docket fees within 5 days from denial of motion to sue as indigent, which motion
is attached to the statement of claims;
3. After the court determines that the case falls under Small Claims, it may, from an examination
of the allegations of the Statement of Claim/s and such evidence attached thereto, by itself,
dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds for the dismissal of the case. The order of
dismissal shall state if it is with or without prejudice;
4. If, during the hearing, the court is able to determine that there exists a ground for dismissal of
the Statement of Claim/s, the court may, by itself, dismiss the case even if such ground is not
pleaded in the defendant's Response;
5. If plaintiff misrepresents that he/she/it is not engaged in the business of banking, lending or
similar activities when in fact he/she/it is so engaged, the Statement of Claim/s shall be
dismissed with prejudice and plaintiff shall be meted the appropriate sanctions, such as direct
contempt;
6. If summons is returned without being served on any or all of the defendants, the court shall
order the plaintiff to cause the service of summons and shall inform the court within 30 days from
notice if said summons was served or not; otherwise, the Statement of Claim/s shall be dismissed
without prejudice as to those who were not served with summons;
7. Failure of the plaintiff to appear shall be cause for the dismissal of the Statement of Claim/s
without prejudice. (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, Sec. 10, 11, 12, 20,)
16. What happens if a case for unlawful detainer was instead filed under Small Claims instead
of under Summary Procedure and vice versa?
If the case does not fall under Small Claims Rule, but falls under summary or ordinary procedure,
the case shall not be dismissed. Instead, the case shall be re-docketed under the appropriate
procedure, and returned to the court where it was assigned, subject to payment of any deficiency
in the applicable regular rate of filing fees. This is because the inferior court still has exclusive
original jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case, and therefore it will not be dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction

Conversely, if a case is filed under the ordinary (within MTC jurisdiction) or summary procedure,
but actually falls under Small Claims Rule, the case shall be referred to the Executive Judge for
appropriate assignment. (BP 129, A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, Sec. 11)
17. Defendant in a Small Claims case failed to file a Response. Plaintiff move to declare him
in default, which the court granted, and ordered Plaintiff to present evidence ex parte. Is this
correct?
No. The motion should have been denied because a motion to declare the defendant in default
is a prohibited motion under Small Claims. Should the Defendant fail to file a response within
the required period of 10 days from receipt of summons, and shall likewise fail to appear on the
date set for hearing, the court shall render judgment on the same day, as may be warranted by
the facts alleged in the Statement of Claims.
Should the Defendant fail to file a response within the required period but appears on the date
set for hearing, the court shall ascertain what defense he has to offer which shall constitute his
Response, and proceed to hear or adjudicate the case on the same day as if a Response has been
filed. (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, Sec. 14)
18. Judgment was rendered in a case covered by small claims. May the losing party move for
reconsideration of the judgment? If yes, within what period. If not, why not and what is the
remedy?
No. A motion for reconsideration of the judgment under Small Claims is a prohibited motion.
The decision in small claims is final, executory and unappealable. There being no appeal or any
other plain speedy adequate remedy, and provided the decision is rendered with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the remedy is to file a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 with the RTC. (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, Sec. 16 and 24; (A.L. Ang Network, Inc. v. Emma
Mondejar, G.R. No. 200804, 22 January 2014)
19. Is a permissive counterclaim allowed under Small Claims?

Yes. The defendant may elect to file a counterclaim against the plaintiff that does not arise out of
the same transaction or occurrence, provided that the amount and nature thereof are within the
coverage of the Rule on Small Claims and the prescribed docket and other legal fees are paid
(A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, Sec. 15)
20. Should the assessed value be alleged in the complaint involving a real action? If not alleged
what is the effect?
YES. To determine the assessed value, which would in turn determine the court with appropriate
jurisdiction, an examination of the allegations in the complaint is necessary. The court should
only look into the facts alleged in the complaint to determine whether a suit is within its
jurisdiction. By exception, if the assessed value is not alleged in the complaint but is alleged in
the documents attached to the complaint then that would be sufficient for determining
jurisdiction. In the absence of any allegation of assessed value, whether in the complaint or in its
attachments, there would be a dismissal of the case because it cannot be determined whether the
RTC or the MTC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the action. (Foronda-Crystal v. Son,
G.R. No. 221815, November 29, 2017)
21. What is an accion publiciana?

Accion publiciana is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of
realty independent of title. It refers to an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of one year from
the accrual of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty.
(Supapo v. Spouses De Jesus, G.R. No. 198356, April 20, 2015) It is a real action and the court
which has jurisdiction to hear and decide over the same will depend on the assessed value of the
property. (BP 129, Sec. 19, 33)
22. Distinguish venue in civil cases from jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction may not be conferred by consent or waiver upon a court which otherwise would have
no jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action; but the venue of an action as fixed by statute
may be changed by the consent of the parties and an objection that the plaintiff brought his suit
in the wrong county may be waived by the failure of the defendant to make a timely objection. In
either case, the court may render a valid judgment. Rules as to jurisdiction can never be left to the
consent or agreement of the parties, whether or not a prohibition exists against their alteration.
Venue is procedural, not jurisdictional, and hence may be waived. (Anama v. Citibank, N.A., G.R.
No. 192048, December 13, 2017)
23. When may lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter be raised?
As a general rule, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, or even
for the first time on appeal. An exception to this rule is the principle of estoppel by laches, which
may only be invoked to bar the defense of lack of jurisdiction if the factual milieu is analogous to
Tijam v. Sibonghanoy. In that case, lack of jurisdiction was raised for the first time after almost 15
years after the questioned ruling had been rendered and after the movant actively participated in
several stages of the proceedings. It was only invoked, too, after the CA rendered a decision
adverse to the movant.
The failure to assail jurisdiction during trial, on its own, is not sufficient for estoppel by laches to
apply. When lack of jurisdiction is raised before the appellate court and no considerable length
of time had elapsed, then laches will not apply. Laches refers to the negligence or omission to
assert a right within a reasonable length of time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled
to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. (Spouses Erorita v. Spouses Dumlao, G.R.
No. 195477, January 25, 2016)
24. Give examples of cases incapable of pecuniary estimation

Actions for specific performance, Actions for support which will require the determination of the
civil status, The right to support of the plaintiff, Those for the annulment of decisions of lower
courts, Those for the rescission or reformation of contracts, and Interpretation of a contractual
stipulation (Heirs of Bautista v. Lindo, G.R. No. 208232, March 10, 2014)
25. Distinguish jurisdiction over the subject matter from jurisdiction over the remedy.
Courts are vested with jurisdiction over the remedy and over the subject matter. These types of
jurisdiction may not be waived by the parties.
Jurisdiction over the remedy pertains to the court’s competence over the process. This should not
be confused with the relief, that which the party filing the case wants the court to declare, and
which addresses the breach of the right or obligation. Generally, jurisdiction over the remedy is
provided by the Rules of Court. Thus, it is mainly a procedural matter which the Supreme Court

— the authority that promulgates the Rules of Court — may change ad hoc, or clarify the
application or interpretation of, in proper cases.
Meanwhile, the source of jurisdiction over the subject matter is generally conferred by law. This
is why the doctrine is that this type of jurisdiction cannot be waived by the parties. Laws can only
be amended by a subsequent law, and nothing that parties do in any case can change it. Thus, the
question of jurisdiction over the subject matter can be raised even for the first time on appeal, not
simply because it is jurisdiction over the subject matter, but mainly because it is the law that
prescribes it.
“Subject matter” in jurisdiction over the subject matter can refer to: (a) the cause of action, or the
breach of legal right or legal duty; or (b) the res, or the thing over which the legal right or duty
breached subsists. In forcible entry or unlawful detainer actions, the subject matter refers to a
breach of the general right to actual possession, which is an attribute of ownership and the res
which is always real property.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, jurisdiction over the remedy must
be seasonably raised. (Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Citi Appliance M.C.
Corporation, G.R. No. 214546, October 9, 2019, J. Leonen Case)
26. X found that Y had installed without X’s knowledge or consent underground cables in X’s
property in April 2003. Thus, X filed a Complaint for forcible entry against Y on October 1,
2004, with the MTC. Will the action prosper?
No, the action will not prosper because the MTC has no jurisdiction over the remedy. Sec. 1, Rule
70 provides that a party may file a complaint for forcible entry at any time within 1 year from
such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession against the person unlawfully
withholding or depriving of possession, for the restitution of such possession. Here, the one-year
period for filing under the Rules of Court has lapsed. The one-year prescriptive period is a
jurisdictional requirement consistent with the summary nature of ejectment suits. (Philippine Long
Distance Telephone Company v. Citi Appliance M.C. Corporation, G.R. No. 214546, October 9, 2019, J.
Leonen Case)
27. X filed a complaint for Y, but did not attach to the complaint any authority for X to do so
on Y’s behalf. Did the court acquire jurisdiction over Y?
No. Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired by filing the (1) complaint; or (2) other initiatory
pleading by which he signifies his submission to the court’s power and authority (Davao Light &
Power Co. Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 93262, December 29, 1991).
If a complaint is filed for and in behalf of the plaintiff by one who is not authorized to do so, the
complaint is not deemed filed. An unauthorized complaint does not produce any legal effect. The
court should dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has no jurisdiction over the complaint
and the plaintiff. Since no valid complaint was ever filed with the court the same did not acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff. (Palmiano-Salvador v. Angeles, G.R. No. 171219,
September 3, 2012)
28. How is jurisdiction over the defendant acquired?

Jurisdiction over the respondent/defendant is acquired either by (1) service of summons; or (2)
his voluntary appearance in court (Frias v. Alcayde, G.R. No. 194262, February 28, 2018).

29. What is the purpose of the court acquiring jurisdiction over the parties?
In order for the court to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. To be bound by a decision, a party should
first be subjected to the court’s jurisdiction. (Palmiano-Salvador v. Angeles, G.R. No. 171219,
September 3, 2012)
30. Is jurisdiction over the person of the defendant always required for the court to be able to
dispose of the case on the merits?
No. Jurisdiction over the defendant is only needed for the court to validly try and decide the case
in actions in personam, which is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability.
If the action involved is one that is quasi in rem or in rem, jurisdiction over the defendant is not a
prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over
the res. An action quasi in rem involves the status of a property over which a party has interest
and the decision therein is binding only upon the parties who joined the action. An action in rem
is an action against the thing itself instead of against the person and judgment therein is binding
upon the whole world. Jurisdiction over the res refers to the court’s jurisdiction over the thing or
the property under litigation. It is acquired either by the (1) seizure of the property under legal
process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or (2) as a result of the institution of
legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective
However, in actions quasi in rem and in rem, summons must still be served on the defendant, not
for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction but for satisfying the due process
requirements. (Domagas v. Jensen, G.R. No. 158407, January 17, 2005; Biaco v. Philippine Counryside
Rural Bank, G.R. No. 161417, February 8, 2007; Alba v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164041, July 29,
2005; Biaco v. PH Countryside Rural Bank, G.R. No. 161417, February 08, 2007).
31. Distinguish jurisdiction over the subject matter from jurisdiction over the issue.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law, while jurisdiction over the issue is
conferred by the pleadings. Jurisdiction over the issue, unlike jurisdiction over the subject matter,
may be conferred by consent either express or implied of the parties. Although an issue is not
duly pleaded it may validly be tried and decided if no timely objection is made thereto by the
parties, and in which case, the pleadings are deemed amended, and the issue raised during trial
shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. This cannot be done
when jurisdiction over the subject matter is involved. (Reyes v. Diaz, G.R. No. 48754, November 26,
1941; ROC, Rule 10, Sec 5)
32. Distinguish personal from real actions.

In a personal action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a
contract or the recovery of damages. In a real action, the plaintiff seeks the recovery of real
property, or, as indicated in section 2(a) of Rule 4, a real action is an action affecting title to real
property or for the recovery of possession, or for partition or condemnation of, or foreclosure of
a mortgage on, real property. Personal actions may be instituted in where the defendant or any
of the defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides,
at the election of the plaintiff. Real actions should be brought before court having jurisdiction
over the territory in which the subject property or part thereof lies. (Paderanga v. Buissan, G.R. No.
49475, September 28, 1993; Gomez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127692, March 10, 2004)

33. X entered into a contract with Y for subcontracting the construction of a building. X later
informed Y that the project will have to be suspended. Pursuant to the contract, X’s payments
to Y shall be subject to receipt of similar timely payment from A to X and that any prolonged
delay in payment by A is subject to suspension of activities after notice is provided. Y believed
X was in bad faith and brought an action against X for sum of money, alleging in the complaint
that based on the attached contract between X and Y, X was bound to pay Y for works
performed, which X failed to do. If you were counsel for X, what would you do?
I will file an answer, alleging as an affirmative defense failure to state a cause of action. Both the
complaint and its attachment contract failed to state a cause of action. The elements of a cause of
action are: (1) a right I favor of plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or
is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the defendant no to violate such right; and (3) an act or
omission on the part of defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff constituting a breach of
obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for
recovery of damages or other relief. Here, the third element is absent. The contract provides that
payment to Y is subject to timely receipt of payment by X from A. The payment to Y is subject to
A’s timely payment to X, which was not shown to have been made whether in the complaint or
its annexes. It was not shown that such condition was fulfilled. Without that condition, X cannot
be said to have breached his obligation to pay. (Fluor Daniel, Inc., Philippines v. E.B. Villarosa &
Partners Co. Ltd., G.R. No. 159648, 27 July 2007)
34. X entered into a contract with Y for the sale and delivery of water gas and coal gas tar at
stipulated prices for a period of 4 years. On the 2nd year of the contract, X willfully and
deliberately refused to deliver any coal and water gas tar to Y, despite demand. X refused to
make any more deliveries until higher prices were paid, which prices were never agreed upon
in the contract. Y filed an action against X for damages because of X’s material breach of the
contract. X moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. Decide.
The motion should be denied for being a prohibited motion. The only grounds for a motion to
dismiss allowed under ordinary rules are lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, there is
another action pending between the same parties for the same cause (Litis pendentia), the cause of
action is barred by prior judgment (res judicata), the cause of action is barred by the statute of
limitations (prescription).
Even if alleged as an affirmative defense, the allegation of failure to state a cause of action must
still fail, as the case falls under the Doctrine of Anticipatory Breach. Even if the contract is divisible
in its performance and the future periodic deliveries are not yet due, if the obligor, in this case X,
has already manifested his willful refusal to comply with his future periodic obligations, the
contract is entire and the breach total, hence, there can only be one action for damages. Thus, the
complaint states a cause of action. (Danfoss Inc. v. Continental Cement Corp., G.R. No. 143788,
September 9, 2005; ROC, Rule 15, Sec. 12)
35. What is splitting of a cause of action?

Splitting a single cause of action is the act of dividing a single or indivisible cause of action into
several parts or claims and instituting two or more actions upon them. A single cause of action
or entire claim or demand cannot be split up or divided in order to be made the subject of two or
more different actions. It is a mode of forum shopping by filing multiple cases based on the same
cause of action, but with different prayers, where the ground of dismissal is litis pendentia or res

judicata, as the case may be. (Marilag v. Martinez, G.R. No. 201892, July 22, 2015; Chu, et al, v.
Cunanan, G.R. No. 156185, 12 September 2011)
36. How can you determine if there is splitting of cause of action?

Several tests exist to ascertain whether two suits relate to a single or common cause of action,
such as the same evidence test or whether the same evidence would support and sustain both the
first and second causes of action, or whether the defenses in one case may be used to substantiate
the complaint in the other. Also fundamental is the test of determining whether the cause of
action in the second case existed at the time of the filing of the first complaint. (Umale v. Canoga
Park Development Corp., G.R. No. 167246, July 20, 2011)
37. What is res judicata?

It is when a case is barred by prior judgment, when the following element are present: (1) the
judgment sought to bar the new action must be final; (2) the decision must have been rendered
by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the disposition of the
case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be as between the first and second
action, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. (Marilag v. Martinez, G.R. No.
201892, July 22, 2015)
38. What is litis pendentia?

It refers to that situation wherein another action is pending between the same parties for the same
cause of action, such that the second action becomes unnecessary and vexatious, where the
following requisites are present: (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the
same interests in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being
founded on the same facts; and (3) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any
judgment rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful would amount to
res judicata in the other. (Marilag v. Martinez, G.R. No. 201892, July 22, 2015)
39. X entered into a contract of loan secured by real estate mortgage with Y. When the loan
became due and demandable, X failed to pay despite demand.
a. May Y file both an action for judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage and a collection of
sum of money case against X for the full amount of the loan, considering that the first is a
special civil action and the second is governed by ordinary procedure, and hence, different
causes of action?
No. In loan contracts secured by a real estate mortgage, the rule is that the creditor-mortgagee
has a single cause of action against the debtor-mortgagor, i.e., to recover the debt, through the
filing of a personal action for collection of sum of money or the institution of a real action to
foreclose on the mortgage security. The two remedies are alternative, not cumulative or
successive, and each remedy is complete by itself. Though the debt and the mortgage constitute
separate agreements, the latter is subsidiary to the former, and both refer to one and the same
obligation. Consequently, there exists only one cause of action for a single breach of that
obligation. Plaintiff cannot split up his single cause of action by filing a complaint for payment of
the debt, and thereafter another complaint for foreclosure of the mortgage. If he does so, the filing
of the first complaint will bar the subsequent complaint. (Marilag v. Martinez, G.R. No. 201892, July
22, 2015)

b. Y filed an action for foreclosure of real estate mortgage. The property was sold at an auction
but the proceeds were not enough to pay for the entire loan. May Y now file an action for sum
of money?
No. If the creditor-mortgagee opts to foreclose the real estate mortgage, he waives the action for
the collection of the unpaid debt, except only for the recovery of whatever deficiency may remain
in the outstanding obligation of the debtor-mortgagor after deducting the bid price in the public
auction sale of the mortgaged properties. A deficiency judgment shall only issue in the same
foreclosure of real estate mortgage case after it is established that the mortgaged property was
sold at public auction for an amount less than the outstanding obligation. (Marilag v. Martinez,
G.R. No. 201892, July 22, 2015)
c. Y filed an action for foreclosure of real estate mortgage. Before the property mortgaged could
be sold at a foreclosure sale, Y filed an action for sum of money for the same loan amount,
arguing this may be done since no foreclosure sale had taken place in the first action. Can this
be done?
No. The fact that no foreclosure sale appears to have been conducted is of no moment because
the remedy of foreclosure of mortgage is deemed chosen upon the filing of the complaint therefor.
(Marilag v. Martinez, G.R. No. 201892, July 22, 2015)
40. X entered into a contract of loan secured by real estate mortgage and a post-dated check
with Y. When the loan became due and demandable, X failed to pay despite demand. The
check was also dishonored for being draw against insufficient account. What are the remedies
of Y?
If the debtor fails (or unjustly refuses) to pay his debt when it falls due and the debt is secured by
a mortgage and by a check, the creditor has 3 options against the debtor and the exercise of one
will bar the exercise of the others. He may pursue any of the 3 but not all or a combination of
them.
First, the creditor may file a collection suit against the debtor. This will open up all the properties
of the debtor to attachment and execution, even the mortgaged property itself.
Second, the creditor may opt to foreclose on the mortgaged property. In case the debt is not fully
satisfied, he may recover from the debtor for deficiency judgment (not a collection case for the
whole indebtedness), in which case, all the properties of the debtor, other than the mortgaged
property, are again opened up for the satisfaction of the deficiency.
Lastly, the creditor may opt to sue the debtor for violation of BP 22 if the checks securing the
obligation bounce. Circular 57-97 and Section 1 (b), Rule 111 of the Rules of Court both provide
that the criminal action for violation of BP 22 shall be deemed to necessarily include the
corresponding civil action, i.e., a collection suit. No reservation to file such civil action separately
shall be allowed or recognized. (Spouses Yap v. Frst e-Bank Corp., G.R. No. 169889, September 29,
2009)
41. Distinguish joinder from misjoinder of causes of action.

A joinder of causes of action is the uniting of two or more demands or right of action in a
complaint. Where two or more primary rights and wrongs appear, there is a joinder of causes of
action. Section 5, Rule 2 provides that a party may in one pleading assert, in the alternative or
otherwise, as many causes of action as he may have against an opposing party, subject to the

following conditions: (a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the rules on
joinder of parties; (b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions governed by
special rules; (c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties but pertain to different
venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may be allowed in the regional trial court provided one of the
causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and the venue lies therein; and (d) Where
the claims in all the causes action are principally for recovery of money, the aggregate amount
claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction (ROC, Rule 2, Sec. 5)
There is misjoinder of causes of action when the foregoing conditions under Section 5, Rule 2 are
not met. (Perez v. Hermano, G.R. No. 147417, July 8, 2005).
42. Should joinder of causes of action involve only the same parties?
No. Joinder of causes of action may involve the same parties or different parties. If it involves
different parties, there must be compliance with the rules on joinder of parties, meaning that there
must be a question of fact or of law common to both parties joined, arising out of the same
transaction or series of transaction (Spouses Perez v. Hermano, G.R. No. 147417, July 8, 2005;
Pantranco North Express Inc. v. Standard Insurance Co. Inc., G.R. No. 140746, March 16, 2005)
43. In a single complaint filed by X against Y in the RTC, X alleged that: (1) Y owed X
Php1,000,000.00 pursuant to a contract of loan, which Y failed to pay despite demand; (2) Y
breached his obligation under a contract of sale with X, to pay the purchase price for the car in
the amount of Php1,500,000.00, despite repeated demand; and (3) Y failed to pay X for the
services X rendered for Y in connection with construction of Y’s house, despite demand, in the
amount of Php500,000.00. Y moved to dismiss on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action,
claiming that the 3 causes of action do not arise out of the same or series of transaction. Will
the motion to dismiss prosper?
No. First, the motion to dismiss is prohibited. A motion to dismiss on the ground of misjoinder
of causes of action is not among the motions to dismiss allowed by the rules.
Second, assuming without admitting that there is misjoinder of causes of action, such is not a
ground for dismissal of an action. A misjoined cause of action may, on motion of a party or on
the initiative of the court, be served and proceeded with separately.
Third, there is no misjoinder of causes of action here. The parties involved for the 3 causes of
action are the same – X and Y. The requirement of compliance with the rule on joinder of parties,
i.e., there must be a question of fact or of law common to both parties joined, arising out of the
same transaction or series of transaction, is only required if the joinder of causes of action involves
different parties. Here, there is proper joinder of causes of action between X and Y, and the action
is properly filed with the RTC, because the claims in all the causes action are principally for
recovery of money, and hence the aggregate amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction,
which in this case is Php3,000,000.00, within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC.
(Spouses Perez v. Hermano, G.R. No. 147417, July 8, 2005; ROC, Rule 2, Sec. 5)
44. X filed an action for ejectment against Y after the lease contract terminated with prayer for
damages. X also filed a separate action for sum of money against Y for Php300,000.00,
pertaining to lease rentals not fully paid prior to the possession becoming unlawful, there
being periods during the lease not paid in full. Y filed a motion to dismiss the second case on

the ground of splitting of forum shopping. Should the 2 cases have been joined in a single
complaint?
NO. There is no forum shopping in this case. In determining whether a party violated the rule
against forum shopping, the most important factor to consider is whether the elements of litis
pendentia concur: (a) there is identity of parties, or at least, such parties who represent the same
interests in both actions; (b) there is identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief
being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity with respect to the two preceding particulars
in the two cases is such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless
of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case.
The second and third requirements are absent. While the complaints appear to involve the same
parties and properties, there is no identity of causes of action. In the unlawful detainer case, the
cause of action stemmed from the prejudice X suffered due to the loss of possession of his
properties, where Y refused to vacate the premises despite demand to do so after termination of
the contract of lease.
In the complaint for collection of sum of money, the same was founded upon alleged violation of
Y as lessee, of certain stipulations with regard to payment of the lease, i.e., whether Y correctly
paid the rental fees for the subject period as stipulated in the lease agreement.
Moreover, in unlawful detainer, the recoverable damages are reckoned from the time the
possession of the property becomes unlawful, which is different from the claim in the sum of
money case. The rentals in arrears that the trial court can award in ejectment cases also pertain to
rentals with specific or determinable amount from the time the cause of action for illegal detainer
accrued. In the sum of money case, the deficiency amounts claimed were before the cause of
action for unlawful detainer arose.
Finally, the action for collection of sum of money may not be properly joined with the action for
ejectment. The former is an ordinary civil action requiring a full-blown trial, while an action for
unlawful detainer is a special civil action which requires a summary procedure. (Lajave
Agricultural Management and Development Enterprises, Inc. v. Spouses Javellana, G.R. No. 223785,
November 7, 2018)
45. Common Carrier C, driven by its employee B, collided with a vehicle belonging to X. The
car was covered by insurance but the insurance company only paid X amount the amount of
80,000.00, leaving an unpaid balance for the repairs in the amount of Php500,000.00, which X
had to shoulder on his own. May X and the insurance company join their causes of action
against common carrier C, and its driver employee B, for reimbursement in the amount of
Php80,000.00 on the part of the insurance company, and Php500,000.00 on the part of X? Which
court will have jurisdiction?
Yes. In this case, there is a single transaction common to all, that is, the Common Carrier C hitting
the X’s car. There is also a common question of fact, that is, whether Common Carrier C and its
employee driver B were negligent. There being a single transaction common to the X and the
insurance company, consequently, they may bring their claims against C and B in a single case.
The claims in all the causes action are principally for recovery of money, and hence the aggregate
amount claimed shall be the test of jurisdiction, which in this case is Php580,000.00.

It depends on when the action was commenced because jurisdiction of the court is conferred by
the Constitution and by the laws in force at the time of the commencement of the action. If filed
after RA 11576 became effective on 21 August 2021, then the MTC has jurisdiction over the subject
matter, because the jurisdictional amount for MTC does not exceed Php2Million. If the
commencement of the action is prior to the effectivity of RA 11576, then the law in force would
be BP 129 as amended RA 7691. In which case, the RTC shall exercise exclusive and original
jurisdiction over civil actions where the amount of demand exceeds Php300,000.00 or, in Metro
Manila, where the amount of demand exceeds Php400,000.00. (BP 129, as amended by RA
7691/11576; Alemar's (Sibal & Sons), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94996, January 26, 2001;
Pantranco North Express Inc. v. Standard Insurance Co. Inc. , G.R. No. 140746, March 16, 2005)
46. X was the owner of a parcel of land, with a house constructed thereon, located in Parañaque.
X entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Y for the sale of the same payable
in 6 installments by post-dated checks (PDC). The MOA provides that if 2 of the PDC will be
dishonored, the Y is obliged to reconvey the property. The first 2 checks were dishonored.
Despite demand, Y did not reconvey the property or even pay for the unpaid price. Y remained
to possess the property. X, then a resident of Malolos, Bulacan, filed a complaint with the court
of Malolos for the annulment of the sale/MOA, recovery of possession and damages for
reasonable compensation for the use of the property and moral damages. Y moved to dismiss
on the ground of improper venue, since the reconveyance is a real action that should have been
brought in Parañaque and not in Malolos. Y also alleged there was misjoinder of cases of
action. Decide.
First, the case does not involve joinder of causes of action. X only has one cause of action against
Y, namely, the breach of the MOA upon the latter’s refusal to pay the first two installments in
payment of the property as agreed upon, and turn over to X the possession of the real property,
as well as the house constructed thereon occupied by Y. The claim for damages for reasonable
compensation for Y’s use and occupation of the property, in the interim, as well as moral and
exemplary damages suffered by X on account of the breach of contract of Y are merely incidental
to the main cause of action, and are not independent or separate causes of action.
Second, the case is not filed in the proper venue. X’s action for the rescission of the MOA on
account of Y’s breach thereof and failure to return the premises to X, and the Y’s eviction
therefrom is a real action. As such, the action should have been filed in the proper court where
the property is located, namely, in Parañaque City. (Spouses Decena v. Spouses Piquero, G.R. No.
155736, March 31, 2005)
47. The court ordered the severance of the misjoined causes of action for quieting of title, a
special civil action, and an ordinary action for declaration of nullity. Plaintiff refused to
comply for no justifiable cause. If you are counsel for defendant, what would you do?
I will move to dismiss the case, with prejudice, due to the fault of the plaintiff. Section 3, Rule 17
provides that if, for no justifiable cause, the plaintiff fails to appear on the date of the presentation
of his evidence in chief on the complaint, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length of
time, or to comply with the Rules or any order of the court, the complaint may be dismissed upon
motion of the defendant or upon the court’s own motion, without prejudice to the right of the
defendant to prosecute his counterclaim in the same or in a separate action. This dismissal shall
have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise declared by the court
(Salvador v. Patricia, Inc., G.R. No. 195834, November 9, 2016)

48. X filed a complaint against Y for damages. In the body of the complaint, X alleged that Y is
liable to X for the amount of Php68Million. However, in the prayer, X alleged that X was
praying for damages that the court may deem just and warranted under the circumstances,
without mentioning the Php68Million amount in the Complaint. Will X be excused from
payment of docket fees in the meantime and it will just constitute as a lien in the judgment
award?
No. This case is similar to the Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals case where
there is a fraudulent attempt to evade the payment of the correct filing fees. To put a stop to this
irregularity, the Supreme Court has ruled that all complaints, petitions, answers and other similar
pleadings should specify the amount of damages being prayed for not only in the body of the
pleading but also in the prayer, and said damages shall be considered in the assessment of the
filing fees in any case. Any pleading that fails to comply with this requirement shall not be
accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from the record. The Court acquires
jurisdiction over any case only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee. There being no
proper payment of docket fees and there being an attempt to circumvent such proper payment,
the Complaint in this case should be dismissed. (Intercontinental Broadcasting Corp. (IBC-13) v.
Alonzo Legasto, G.R. No. 169108, April 18, 2006)
49. Both the body and the complaint alleged that X prayed for Php1,000,000.00. Docket fees in
the amount of Php50,000.00 were assessed but X at the time of filing, could only pay
Php10,000.00. X said he would get the funds needed and come back to pay the full amount.
Should the complaint be dismissed outright?
No. The Manchester Rule will only apply when there is clearly an effort to defraud the
government in avoiding to pay the correct docket fees, whereas in this case, the plaintiff
demonstrated his willingness to abide by paying an initial amount of docket fees. Also, where the
filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of docket fee, the court may allow
payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or
reglementary period. Thus, the case should not be dismissed outright. (Sun Insurance Office, Ltd.,
v. Asuncion, G.R. No. 79937-38, 13 February 1989)
49. X filed an action against Y, praying for the recovery of the sum of the principal loan of
Php100,000.00, and prayed for such as may be awarded by the court as it may deem proper
under the circumstances. The court, in its ruling, directed Y to pay said principal amount and
moral damages in the amount of Php50,000.00. Y objects to the award of moral damages since
no docket fees were paid therefor as it was not alleged in the complaint and therefore not
included in the assessment of docket fees. Decide.
The additional filing fee for the claim not specified in the pleading or the claim specified but left
for the determination of the court shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall then be the
responsibility of the clerk of court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess
and collect the additional fee. (Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. V. Asuncion, G.R Nos. 79937-38, February
13, 1989)
50. What is the rule on payment of docket fees in criminal cases?

When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the accused by way of moral,
nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages without specifying the amount thereof in the
complaint or information, the filing fees therefor shall constitute a first lien on the judgment
awarding such damages.

Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified in the complaint or information, the
corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court.
No filing fees shall be required for actual damages, except when otherwise provided by the rules.
In BP 22 Cases, upon filing of the joint criminal and civil action, the offended party shall pay in
full the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved, which shall be considered as the
actual damages claimed. (ROC, Rule 111, Sec. 1)
51. Petitioners Association of Flood Victims is a non-profit and non-partisan organization in

the process of formal incorporation. Does it have the legal capacity to sue?
NO. It is still in the process of incorporation, cannot be considered a juridical person or an entity
authorized by law, which can be a party to a civil action. An unincorporated association, in the
absence of an enabling law, has no juridical personality and thus, cannot sue in the name of the
association. Instead, all members of the association must be made parties in the civil action.
(Association of Flood Victims v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 20377, August 5, 2014)
52. May there be an action instituted by those not directly injured by the assailed government
act?
Yes. There are 4 types of "non-traditional suitors" who, though not having been directly injured
by the assailed governmental act, were nonetheless allowed to file the petition because they raised
issues of critical significance: (1) For taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of
public funds or that the tax measure is unconstitutional; (2) For voters, there must be a showing
of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question; (3) For concerned citizens, there
must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental importance which must be settled
early; and (4) For legislators, there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes
their prerogatives as legislators. (Acosta v. Ochoa, G.R. Nos. 211559, 211567, 212570 & 215634,
October 15, 2019, J. Leonen)
53. May a deceased person be named as a defendant in an action for collection of sum of
money?
NO. A deceased person does not have the capacity to be sued and may not be made a defendant
in a case. Section 1, Rule 3 unequivocally states that only natural or juridical persons, or entities
authorized by law may be parties in a civil action. The proper remedy is to file the case against
the estate of the deceased, an entity authorized by law to be a party in a civil action (Gaffney v.
Butler, G.R. No. 219408, November 8, 2017)
54. Distinguish lack of legal capacity to sue from lack of personality to sue.
Lack of legal capacity to sue means that the plaintiff is not in the exercise of his civil rights, or
does not have the necessary qualification to appear in the case, or does not have the character or
representation he claims. It refers to a plaintiff's general disability to sue, such as on account of
minority, insanity, incompetence, lack of juridical personality or any other general
disqualifications of a party. This can be raised as a ground to dismiss in the Answer as an
affirmative defense, that the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue.
On the other hand, lack of personality to sue means that the plaintiff is not the real party-in-
interest. This can be raised as a ground to dismiss in the Answer as an affirmative defense, based
on the fact that the complaint, on the face thereof, states no cause of action. (Evangelista v. Santiago,
G.R. No. 157447, April 29, 2005)

55. Who is a real party in interest?
A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the
suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or the Rules,
every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. (ROC, Rule
3, Sec. 2)
56. X, Y, Z are co-owners of a parcel of land. X and Y filed an action for judicial partition of
land, together with W, Z’s eldest son. Z, at that time, was in the country, and gave no authority
for W to file the case on Z’s behalf. Z was not aware of the action for partition. The complaint
alleged that X, Y Z were co-owners. Should the court dismiss the case because Z is not
impleaded and W, was instead impleaded?
No. Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is a ground for dismissal of action. W was
misjoined as a party, not being a co-owner and having no authority to file on behalf of Z. W may
be dropped and any claim against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded with
separately.
There was non-joinder of Z, an indispensable party. All co-owners should be impleaded in an

action for partition, they are indispensable parties. Z shall be added by order of the court on
motion of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are
just. If Z’s consent cannot be obtained, Z, an unwilling co-plaintiff may be made a defendant and
the reason therefor shall be stated in the complaint. If the plaintiffs refuses to implead Z, despite
the order of the court, the court may dismiss the complaint for the plaintiff’s failure to comply
with the order of the court pursuant to Section 3, Rule 17 (ROC, Rule 17, Sec. 3; Rule 3, Sec. 10 and
11; Pamplona Plantation vs. Tinghil, G.R. No. 159121, February 3, 2005; Dinglasa v. Ayala Corporation,
G.R. No. 204378, August 5, 2019; Orencia v. Orencia, G.R. No. 216550, June 3, 2019).
57. Distinguish indispensable from necessary party.

An indispensable party is a party in interest without whom no final determination can be had of
an action and should be joined either as plaintiff or defendant. A necessary party is one who is
not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to
those already parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the
action (ROC, Rule 3, Sec. 7, 8)
58. A is the owner of a parcel of land. He mortgaged it to B, as security for the loan obtained
from B. The loan was not paid despite demand so was foreclosed, and B was the highest bidder.
A also sold the same property to C, who caused the cancellation of title in A’s name, and caused
a new title over the property to be issued in C’s name. The mortgage was annotated in the title
of A, as well as the judicial foreclosure case. B filed an action for reconveyance and annulment
of title against C, who argued that A should have been impleaded as an indispensable party.
Is C correct?
No. A is not an indispensable party in the action for reconveyance but rather it is only C who is
the indispensable party defendant. C is the absolute and registered owner of the subject property,
as such C possesses that certain interest in the property without which, the courts cannot proceed
for registered owners of parcels of land whose title is sought to be nullified should be impleaded
as an indispensable party. A, however, which already sold his interests in the subject land, is no
longer regarded as an indispensable party, but is, at best, considered to be a necessary party
whose presence is necessary to adjudicate the whole controversy, but whose interests are so far

separable that a final decree can be made in his absence without affecting it. When A sold the
property to C, it practically transferred all its interests therein to C. In fact, a new title was already
issued in the name of C. As such, A no longer stands to be directly benefited or injured by the
judgment in the instant suit regardless of whether the new title registered in the name of the C is
cancelled in favor of B or not. (Spouses Aboitiz v. Spouses Po, G.R. Nos. 208450 & 208497, [June 5,
2017, J. Leonen)
59. What is a class suit?

When the subject matter of a controversy is one of common or general interest to many persons
so numerous that it is impracticable to join all as parties, a number of them which the court finds
to be sufficiently numerous and representative as to fully protect the interests of all concerned
may suer or defend for the benefit of all. Any party in interest shall have the right to intervene to
protect his individual interest. (ROC, Rule 3, Sec. 12)
Note: A class suit shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court (ROC,
Rule 17, Sec. 2)
60. A, B, C, Stockholders of X Corporation, filed before the RTC a class suit in representation
of other stockholders, and against E, F, G, stockholders of X Corporation, for Declaration of
Nullity of Issuances, Transfers and Sale of Shares in X Corporation and All Posterior
Subscriptions and Increases thereto with Damages. Plaintiffs alleged that the transfer of shares
were invalid and in violation of law. Was the class suit proper?
No. When the object is a specific stockholder or a definite class of stockholders, an
individual suit or class/representative suit must be resorted to. When the object of the wrong
done is the corporation itself or the whole body of its stock and property without any severance
or distribution among individual holders, it is a derivative suit that a stockholder must resort to.
A shareholder's derivative suit seeks to recover for the benefit of the corporation and its whole
body of shareholders when injury is caused to the corporation that may not otherwise be
redressed because of failure of the corporation to act. Thus, 'the action is derivative, i.e., in the
corporate right, if the gravamen of the complaint is injury to the corporation, or to the whole body
of its stock and property without any severance or distribution among individual holders, or it
seeks to recover assets for the corporation or to prevent the dissipation of its assets, as in this case.
Erroneously pursuing a derivative suit as a class suit not only meant that the A, B, C lacked a
cause of action, it also meant that they failed to implead an indispensable party. In derivative
suits, the corporation concerned must be impleaded as a party. (Florete, Jr. v. Florete, G.R. No.
174909 & 177275, January 20, 2016, J. Leonen)
61. X filed an action for sum of money against Y. During the pendency of the case, Y died.
a. Will the case be dismissed due to Y’s death? If not, what will happen?
No. When an action is for sum of money and the defendant dies before entry of final judgment in
the court in which the action was pending at the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed but
shall be instead allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment therein
shall be enforced in the manner especially provided under the rules for prosecuting claims against
the estate of a deceased person.

It shall also be the duty of the deceased’s counsel to inform the court within 30 days after such
death of the fact thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal representative. Failure to
do so shall be a ground for disciplinary action.
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased, without requiring
the appointment of an executor and administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem
for minor heirs.
If no legal representative is named by counsel for the deceased party, or if the one named shall
fail to appear within the specified period, the court may order the opposing party, within a
specified time, to procure the appointment of an executor and administrator for the estate of the
deceased and the latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court
charges in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered as
costs. (ROC, Rule 3, Sec. 16 and 20)
b. What if Y dies after entry of final judgment against him and after Y’s property had been
levied upon pursuant to a writ of execution?
In case of death of the judgment obligor, after execution is actually levied upon any of his
property, the same may be sold for the satisfaction of the judgment obligation, and the officer
making the sale shall account to the corresponding executor or administrator for any surplus in
his hands. (ROC, Rule 39, Sec. 7(c))
62. X filed an action for sum of money against Y, who alleged in his answer that the loan subject
of the complaint had already in paid, attaching thereto a receipt for payment acknowledged
by X. The court motu proprio ruled on the affirmative defense, and dismissed the complaint.
Y then filed an action for moral damages against X, because the baseless case filed by X against
Y caused him sleepless nights and hurt feelings, and prayed also for attorney’s fees for those
incurred by Y in defending himself in that case filed by X. Should the case prosper?
No. The claims for moral damages and attorney’s fees in the second complaint should have been
raised as a compulsory counterclaim in Answer in the sum of money case because it arose out of
or are connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject matter of X’s claim
for sum of money and did not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom
the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. The compulsory counterclaim which was not raised in the
first action is now barred by res judicata. Y, for failing to raise the same in the first action, is deemed
to have waived it. (ROC, Rule 6, Sec. 7; Rule 9, Sec. 2)
63. What is an actionable document?

A written instrument or document is actionable when an action or defense is based upon such
instrument or document. To sufficiently allege the same, the substance of such instrument or
document shall be set forth in the pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall be attached
to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall be deemed as part of the pleading. (Young Builders Corp.
v. Benson Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 198998 (June 19, 2019; ROC, Rule 8, Sec. 7)
64. X filed an action for sum of money against Y, attaching to the complaint the promissory
note, which is basis of the loan, and further alleging that despite demand, no payment was
made. Y, in his unverified answer, alleged there was already full payment of the loan, without
attaching any other proof. Should the case be dismissed?

No. I will motu proprio act on the affirmative defense of payment and deny it, since the Answer
did not specifically deny the actionable document under oath, the defendant admitted the
genuineness and due execution of the promissory note, that X and Y indeed executed the
agreement between the parties was what was in words and figures in the promissory note. (ROC,
Rule 8, Sec. 8)
65. Can there be a proper denial of an actionable document even if the specific denial was not
under oath?
Yes. As a rule, the actionable document should be specifically denied under oath. However, the
requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to
the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is
refused. (ROC, Rule 8, Sec. 8)
66. When may a Reply be filed?

The plaintiff may file a reply only if the defending party attaches an actionable document to the
answer because a reply is a pleading, the office or function of which is to deny or allege facts in
denial or avoidance of new matters alleged in, or relation to said actionable document (ROC, Rule
6, Sec. 2 and 10).
67. When may a Rejoinder be filed?

A rejoinder may be filed if an actionable document is attached to the reply, and the rejoinder
would be based solely on the actionable document. (ROC, Rule 6, Sec. 10)
68. What is a cross-claim?

It is any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is
the subject matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim. It may cover all or part of the
original claim. A cross-claim not set up shall be barred (ROC, Rule 6, Sec. 8; Rule 9, Sec. 2)
69. What is a third-party complaint?

It is a claim that a defending party may, with leave of court, file against a person not a party to
the action call third-party defendant, for contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief,
in respect of his opponent’s claim. (ROC, Rule 6, Sec. 11)
70. What are the grounds to deny the admission of a third-party complaint and what is the
remedy against such denial?
The third-party complaint shall be denied admission where: (1) the third-party defendant cannot
be located within 30 calendar days from the grant of leave; (2) matter extraneous to the issue in
the principal case are raised; or (3) the effect would be to introduce a new and separate
controversy into the action. The remedy would be to institute a separate action on said complaint.
(ROC, Rule 6, Sec. 11)
71. What should be contained in a pleading?

It should contain the: (1) caption, which sets forth the name of the court, title of the action and
docket number if assigned; (2) body, which sets forth its designation, the allegations of a party’s
claims or defenses, the relief prayed for, and date of the pleading; (3) every pleading shall contain
in a methodical and logical form a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts,
including the evidence on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defense, as the case
may be, and if the action or defense relied on is based on law, the pertinent provisions thereof

and their applicability to him shall be clearly and concisely stated; (4) the signature of the party
or counsel if represented by counsel, which must include the address; and (5) if the pleading
states a party’s claims or defenses, it shall also state the: (a) names of the witnesses who will be
presented to prove a party’s claims or defenses; (b) summary of the witnesses’ intended
testimonies, provide that the judicial affidavits of said witnesses shall be an integral part thereof;
and (c) documentary and object evidence in support of the allegations contained in the pleading.
(ROC, Rule 7, Sec. 1, 2, 3, 6; Rule 8, Sec. 1)
72. What is the effect if the judicial affidavits of the witnesses to be presented to prove a party’s
claims or defenses are not attached to the pleading stating a party’s claims or defenses?
The witnesses whose judicial affidavits are not attached to the pleading stating a party’s claims
or defenses shall not be presented during trial. Except if a party presents meritorious reasons as
basis for the admission of additional witnesses, no other witness or affidavit shall be heard or
admitted by the court. (ROC, Rile 7, Sec. 6(b))
73. What is an affirmative defense?

It is an allegation of a new matter which, while hypothetically admitting the material allegations
in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery by him (ROC, Rule 6,
Sec. 5(b))
Action of the court on affirmative defenses and remedies against the ruling therein
Grounds Fraud, statute of The court has no The court has no

limitations, release, jurisdiction over the jurisdiction over the
payment, illegality, subject matter, that person of the
statute of frauds, there is another defending party,
estoppel, former action pending venue is improperly
recovery, discharge between the same laid, plaintiff has no
in bankruptcy, and parties for the same legal capacity to sue,
any other matter by cause, or that the the pleading
way of confession action is barred by a asserting the claim
and avoidance (ROC, prior judgement states no cause of
Rule 6, Sec. 5(b), first ((ROC, Rule 6, Sec. action, and that a
paragraph) 5(b), first paragraph) condition precedent
for filing the claim
has not been
complied with (ROC,
Rule 8, Sec. 12 (a))
Action of court The court may either: The court shall motu proprio resolve the
1. conduct summary affirmative defenses within 30 calendar days
hearing on the from the filing of the answer (ROC, Rule 8,
affirmative defenses Sec. 12 (c).
within 15 calendar
days from the filing
of the answer, and
rule thereon within
30 calendar days
from the termination

of the summary
hearing; or
2. If the court does
not decide to conduct
a summary hearing
on those affirmative
defenses, the court
shall motu proprio
resolve the
affirmative defenses
within 30 calendar
days from the filing
of the answer (ROC,
Rule 8, Sec. 12 (c) and
(d)).
Denial of Affirmative Shall not be the subject of a motion for reconsideration, petition for
Defense certiorari, prohibition or mandamus
May be among the matters to be raised on appeal after judgment on

the merits (ROC, Rule 8, Sec. 12 (e))
Grant of Affirmative Motion for reconsideration of the court’s action on the affirmative
Defense defenses is prohibited (ROC, rule 15, Sec. 12(c)
If dismissal is with prejudice, appeal: subject to the right of appeal,

an order granting a motion to dismiss or an affirmative defense the
cause of action is barred by prior judgment (res judicata) or by statute
of limitations (prescription), the claim or demand set forth in the
plaintiff’s pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned or otherwise
extinguished, or that the claim on which the action is founded is
unenforceable under the provisions of statute of frauds, shall bar the
refiling of the same action or claim (ROC, Rule 15, Sec. 13)
If dismissal is without prejudice, refile, unless the dismissal is tainted

with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, and there is no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy,
the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 (ROC, Rule 41, Sec. 1)
Effect of failure to raise It shall constitute a waiver thereof, except when it appears from the
the affirmative defense pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction
at the earliest over the subject matter, there is another action pending between the
opportunity same parties for the same cause (Litis pendentia), or that the action is
barred by prior judgment (Res judicata) or by statute of limitations
(Prescription), the court shall dismiss the claim (ROC, Rule 8, Sec 12.
(b); Rule 9, Sec. 1)
74. X filed a complaint in the RTC against Y, who filed alleged an affirmative defense in the
answer of failure to state a cause of action. Y then moved to set the case for preliminary hearing
on affirmative defenses. The court denied the motion, ruling that the issues threshed out are

too complex and should instead be resolved after a full-blown trial. Y moved for
reconsideration which was denied. In the meantime, the 2019 Amendments to the Rules of
Court took effect on 1 May 2020. More than 1 year since the answer with affirmative defense
was filed, and in view of the revised rules, the trial court dismissed the complaint by motu
proprio ruling on the affirmative defense of failure to state a cause of action, applying the
revised rules retroactively.
a. Is this proper?
No. The application of the 2019 amendments to resolve the affirmative defenses pleaded by
defendant should not have been done because it was both not feasible and would work injustice,
as provided under Rule 144 of the 2019 Rules, which provides that the amendments shall govern
all cases after their effectivity on 1 May 2020, and also all pending proceedings, except to the
extent that in the opinion of the court, their application would not be feasible or would work
injustice, in which case, the procedure under which the cases were filed shall govern.
Sec. 12, Rule 8 provides that the court shall motu proprio resolve the affirmative defenses within
30 calendar days from the filing of the Answer. Here, the said 30-day period form the filing of the
answer had long expired when the trial court issued the resolution on the affirmative defenses,
more than a year since the Answer was filed. The trial court should have desisted from applying
the 2019 amendments because when it did, the same was no longer feasible, as it was already
more than 30 days from the filing of the answer.
The application of the 2019 rules also caused injustice for as a consequence, plaintiff lost his
substantial right to be heard on the affirmative defense and his right to seek a reconsideration of
the order of dismissal or action on the affirmative defense, which were both granted him under
the 1997 Rules, but now prohibited under the revised rules
It was also inaccurate for the trial court to say that it was motu proprio acting on the affirmative
defenses. In truth, the trial court had already resolved this affirmative defense of failure to state
a cause of action, when the court held that the issues were complex and would be better threshed
out in trial. (Colmenar v. Colmenar, et al., G.R. No. 252467, 21 June 2021)
b. What is the remedy against that order of dismissal in this case?

X can go straight to the Supreme Court by Rule 45, filing a petition for review on certiorari on a
purely question of law. A question of law exists in this case as the issue in this case is whether the
trial court committed reversible error when it applied the 2019 Amendments to resolve the
affirmative defense pleaded by the defendant, albeit the same was already pending when the
amendments took effect. The issue of whether the trial court correctly applied a specific law or
rules to a particular case is a question of law. The issue of whether the complaint states a cause of
action also does not require the Court to re-evaluate the credibility of any witnesses or the veracity
of any evidence. The Court only needs to examine the Complaint itself, the allegations of which
are assumed to be true, to determine whether the complaint states a cause of action against
respondent companies for declaration of nullity of deeds of extrajudicial settlement of estate,
deeds of sale, cancellation of titles and damages against respondent companies. This is a pure
question of law as well. (Colmenar v. Colmenar, et al., G.R. No. 252467, 21 June 2021)
75. Distinguish failure to state a cause of action from lack of cause of action.
Failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action are distinct and separate grounds to
dismiss a particular action. Failure to state a cause of action reefers to the insufficiency of the

allegations in the pleading, while lack of cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the factual
basis of the action. Dismissal for failure to state a cause of action may be raised at the earliest
stage, such as an affirmative defense in the answer. Lack of cause of action may be raised any
time after the questions of fact have been resolved on the basis of stipulations, admissions or
evidence presented by the plaintiff, such as in a demurrer to evidence under Rule 33. In Failure
to state a cause of action, the veracity of the allegations is immaterial. In lack of cause of action,
this is invoked after the plaintiff has rested its case, and the judge must determine the veracity of
the allegations based on the evidence presented. (Colmenar v. Colmenar, et al., G.R. No. 252467, 21
June 2021)
78. What is a verification and how is it done?

Except when otherwise specifically required by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath or
verified. A pleading is verified by an affidavit of an affiant duly authorized to sign said
verification. The authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a party, whether in the form of a
secretary's certificate or a special power of attorney, should be attached to the pleading, and shall
allege the following attestations: (a) The allegations in the pleading are true and correct based on
his or personal knowledge, or based on authentic documents; (b) The pleading is not filed to
harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and (c) The factual
allegations therein have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likewise have
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.
The signature of the affiant shall further serve as a certification of the truthfulness of the
allegations in the pleading.
A pleading required to be verified that contains a verification based on "information and belief,"
or upon "knowledge, information and belief," or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an
unsigned pleading. (ROC, Rule 7, Sec. 4)
79. Is failure to verify a pleading required to be verified fatal?

No. The requirement regarding verification of a pleading is formal, not jurisdictional. Such
requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleading, the non-compliance of which
does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. Verification is simply intended to
secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product
of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith. The
court may order the correction of the pleading if the verification is lacking or act on the pleading
although it is not verified, if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the
rules may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may thereby be served. (Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas v. BF Homes, Inc., G.R. No. 228239, June 10, 2019)
80. What is a certification against forum shopping?

It is a certification where the plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint
or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto
and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he or she has not theretofore commenced any action
or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and,
to the best of his or her knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there
is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c)
if he or she should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is

pending, he or she shall report that fact within 5 calendar days therefrom to the court wherein
his or her aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
The authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a party, whether in the form of a secretary's
certificate or a special power of attorney, should be attached to the pleading. (ROC, Rule 7, Sec. 5)
81. X and Y are co-plaintiffs but only X executed a certification against forum shopping which
was attached to the complaint. Is this sufficient?
No. Where there are two or more plaintiffs, both should execute the certification unless one is
authorized by the other to sign and execute the certification on behalf of the other, and such
authority is attached to the pleading. (Pagtalunan v. Manlapig, G.R. No. 155738, August 9, 2005)
82 What is the effect of failure to comply with the certification against forum shopping?
Failure to comply shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory
pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise
provided, upon motion and after hearing. (ROC, Rule 7, Sec. 5)
83. What are the instances where the court allowed a belated filing of a certification against
forum shopping?
The court has allowed the belated filing one day after the filing of the initiatory pleading,
when there are special circumstances or compelling reasons that justify tempering the
requirement in regard to the certificate of non-forum shopping, and such as when there was
substantial compliance and justifiable reason. (LDP Marketing, Inc. v. Monter, G.R. No. 159653,
January 25, 2006)
84. What is the effect of the submission of a false certification against forum shopping or non-
compliance with any of the undertakings therein?
It shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding
administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his or her counsel clearly constitute
willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with
prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions
85. What are the 3 ways of committing forum shopping?

Forum shopping can be committed in three ways: (1) filing multiple cases based on the same
cause of action and with the same prayer, the previous case not having been resolved yet (litis
pendentia); (2) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of action and the same prayer, the
previous case having been finally resolved (res judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases based on the
same cause of action but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the ground
for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata ). (Ao-as v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128464,
June 20, 2006)
86. What are the elements of forum shopping?

The elements of forum shopping are: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent
the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and the relief prayed for, the relief
being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars, such that
any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount

to res judicata in the action under consideration. (Ao-as v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128464, June
20, 2006)
87. What is the period within which to file an Answer to the Complaint.
It is within 30 calendar days after service of summons, unless a different period is fixed by the
court. Where the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity and service of summons is made
on the government official designated by law to receive the same, the answer shall be filed within
60 calendar days after receipt of summons by such entity. (ROC, Rule 11, Sec. 1 and 2)
88. Is the period to file Answer extendible?

Yes. A defendant may, for meritorious reasons, be granted an additional period of not more than
30 calendar days to file an Answer. A defendant is only allowed to file 1 motion for extension of
time to file an answer. (ROC, Rule 11, Sec. 11)
89. May there be motion for extension of time to file pleadings other than the Answer?
No. A motion for extension of time file any pleading other than an answer is prohibited and
considered a mere scrap of paper. (ROC, Rule 11, Sec. 11)
90. Defendant X received summons on 1 March 2021. X filed his Answer on 1 May 2021. The
court then set the case for pre-trial. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the order, arguing
that the court should not have admitted the Answer and declared X in default for failure to file
Answer on time. Decide.
Plaintiff is incorrect, the motion for reconsideration should be denied. The court may allow any
other pleading to be filed after the time fixed by the rules, especially when the defendant had not
yet been declared in default. The court cannot motu proprio declare the defendant in default. If
the defendant fails to file the answer on time, the court shall declare him in default upon motion
of the claiming party, with notice on the defending party, and proof of such failure. Here, no
motion to declare defendant in default was filed. (ROC, Rule 9, Sec. 3; Rule 11, Sec. 11)
91. What is the consequence of an order declaring the defendant in default?

The court shall proceed to render judgment granting the claimant such relief as his pleading may
warrant, unless the court in its discretion requires the claiming to submit evidence, which
reception of evidence may be delegated to the clerk of court. A party in default shall be entitled
to notice of subsequent proceedings but shall not take part in the trial. A judgment rendered
against a party in default shall not exceed the amount or be different in kind from that prayed for
nor award unliquidated damages (ROC, Rule 9, Sec. 3)
92. The defendant filed an answer to the original complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was
amended/supplemented, and the defendant failed to answer the amended/supplemental
complaint. May the defendant be declared in default?
No. An answer earlier filed may serve as an answer to the amended complaint/supplemental
complaint if no new answer is filed. (ROC, Rule 11, Sec. 3 and 7)
93. What is the remedy of defendant against an order of default prior to judgment?
Defendant may, at any time after notice of the order of default and before judgment, file a motion
under oath to set aside the order of default, upon proper showing that his failure to answer was
due to fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, and that he has a meritorious defense. In

such a case, the order of default may be set aside on such terms and conditions as the judge may
impose in the interest of justice (ROC, Rule 9, Sec. 3(b))
94. Will all material allegations in a pleading asserting a claim or defense not specifically
denied be deemed admitted?
Material averments in a pleading asserting a claim or defense, other than those as to the amount
of unliquidated damages, shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied. (ROC, Rule 8,
Sec. 11)
95. X, Y, Z filed an action for quieting of title, claiming that the real property was alienable and
disposable land of the public domain and that they and their predecessor in interest have
occupied said property continuously, adversely, and exclusively for more than 30 years; and
that they have accordingly filed applications for land titling in their respective names with the
appropriate government agency. The defendants were several persons and corporations who
were titled owners of the subdivided parcels of land within the subject property, A, B, C and
D. A and B filed their answer, while C and D failed to do so. Upon motion, the court declared
C and D in default. The court allowed X, Y, Z to present evidence ex parte against C and D.
Was this proper?
No. When a pleading asserting a claim states a common cause of action against several defending
parties, some of whom answer and the others fail to do so, the court shall try the case against all
upon the answers thus filed and render judgment upon the evidence presented. Considering that
X, Y, Z, in their complaint stated a common cause of action against A, B, C and D, the court should
have heard the case as against all defendants, the defaulted defendants included. (Pinlac v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 91486, January 19, 2001)
96. Distinguish amendment as matter of right from amendment with leave of court of
pleadings.
The pleading may be amended once as a matter of right at any time before a responsive pleading
is served or in the case of a reply, at any time within 10 calendar days after it is served.
Amendment by leave of court pertains to substantial amendments after a responsive pleading
has been served or in the case of a reply, after the lapse of 10 calendar days from the time it is
served. Leave shall be refused if it appears to the court that the motion was made with intent to
delay or confer jurisdiction on the court, or the pleading stated no cause of action from the
beginning which could be amended. (ROC, Rule 10, Sec. 2 and 3)
97. When may a supplemental pleading be filed?

Upon motion of a party, the court may, upon reasonable notice and upon such terms as are just,
permit him to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions, occurrences or events
which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented. (ROC, Rule 11,
Sec. 6)
98. What is the effect of an amended pleading?
An amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. However, admissions in
superseded pleadings may be offered in evidence against the pleader; and the claims or defenses
alleged therein not interposed in the amended pleading shall be deemed waived. (ROC, Rule 11,
Sec. 8)
99. How is the filing of pleadings or other court submissions made?

It shall be made by: (a) submitting personally the original thereof, plainly indicated as such to the
court; (b) sending them by registered mail; (c) sending them by accredited courier service; or (d)
transmitting them by electronic mail or other electronic means as may be authorized by the court
in places where the court is electronically equipped. (ROC, Rule 13, Sec. 3)
101. What are the different modes of service of pleadings, motions, notices, orders, judgments
and other court submissions?
They shall be served personally or by registered mail, ordinary mail if no registry service is
available in the locality of either the sender or the addressee, accredited courier, electronic mail,
facsimile transmission, other electronic means as may be authorized by the court or as provided
for in international conventions to which the Philippines is a party. (ROC, rule 13, Sec. 3, 7)
101. Given that there are several modes of filing and service of pleadings or other court
submissions, does it mean that any of these modes may be availed of at any time?
No. The following orders, pleadings, and other documents must be served or filed conventionally
- personally or by registered mail when allowed, and shall not be served or filed electronically,
unless express permission is granted by the court: (a) initiatory pleadings and initial responsive
pleadings, such as answer; (b) subpoenae, protection orders and writs; (c) appendices and
exhibits to motions or other documents that are not readily amenable to electronic scanning may,
at the option of the party filing such, be filed and served conventionally; and (d) sealed and
confidential documents or records. (ROC, Rule 13, Sec. 14)
102. Distinguish personal service of court submissions from personal service of summons.
Court submissions may be served personally by: (a) personal delivery of a copy to the party or
his counsel, or to their authorized representative named In the appropriate pleading or motion;
or (b) by leaving it in his office with his clerk, or with a person having charge thereof; or (c) if no
person is found in his office, or his office is not known, or he has no office, then by leaving the
copy between the hours of 8:00 am and 6:00 pm, at the party’s or counsel’s residence, if known,
with a person of sufficient age and discretion residing therein.
In personal service of summons, whenever practicable, the summons shall be served by: (a)
handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person in his address indicated in the complaint,
informing the defendant that he is being served; or (b) if he refuses to receive and sign for it, by
leaving the summons within the view and in the presence of the defendant. (ROC, Rule 13, Sec. 6;
Rule 14, Sec. 5)
103. Distinguish substituted service of court submissions from substituted service of

summons.
If service of pleadings, motions, notices, resolutions, orders and other papers cannot be made
through personal service or service by mail, the office and place of residence of the party or his
counsel being unknown, service may be made by delivering the copy to the clerk of court, with
proof of failure of both personal service and service by mail. The service is complete at the time
of such delivery (ROC, Rule 13, Sec. 8).
In substituted service of summons, if, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served
personally after at least three (3) attempts on two (2) different dates, service may be effected: (a)
By leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence to a person at least 18 years of age
and of sufficient discretion residing therein; (b) By leaving copies of the summons at the

defendant's office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. A
competent person includes, but is not limited to, one who customarily receives correspondences
for the defendant; (c) By leaving copies of the summons, if refused entry upon making his or her
authority and purpose known, with any of the officers of the homeowners' association or
condominium corporation, or its chief security officer in charge of the community or the building
where the defendant may be found; and (d) By sending an electronic mail to the defendant's
electronic mail address, if allowed by the court. (ROC, Rule 14, Sec. 6)
104. When is there presumptive service of an order involving a court setting?

There shall be presumptive notice to a party of a court setting if such notice appears on the records
to have been mailed at least 20 calendar day prior to the scheduled date of hearing and if the
addressee is from within the same judicial region of the court where the case is pending, or at
least 30 calendar days if the addressee is from outside the judicial region. (ROC, Rule 13, Sec. 10)
105. X filed a specific performance case against Y, alleging in the complaint an incomplete
address of Y in the Philippines. The complaint alleged that Y was a resident of S Village,
Darasa, Tanauan Batangas. The complaint also alleges that Y’s whereabouts in Italy are
uncertain. Because the address was incomplete, the sheriff could not serve summons. He
sought the help of barangay officials who pointed him to a house belonging to Y’s father. The
sheriff went thereto, and was informed by the occupant that he was only a caretaker thereof
and that the residents thereof were already in Italy. The sheriff served summons on the
caretaker.
a. Was there valid service of summons?

No. The general rule is that summons must be personally served on the defendant in his address
indicated in the complaint. If for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be served personally
within a reasonable time after at least 3 attempts on 2 different dates, service may be effected by
substituted service but this presupposes hat the place where the summons is being served is the
defendant’s current residence or office/regular place of business. Residence is understood as the
place where defendant is living at the time of the service, even though he may be temporarily out
of the country at that time. Here, Y’s residence was not known, there being no specific address
provided for Y’s residence or even place of business, whether in the Philippines or in Italy. He is
also not a resident of the place where the summons was served. The substituted service of
summons was ineffective. (Express Padala S.P.A. v. Ocampo, G.R. No. 202505; September 06, 2017;
ROC, Rule 14, Sec. 4, 5, 6)
b. What is the remedy of X for him to serve summons on Y?

If X cannot ascertain by diligent inquire Y’s whereabouts within 90 calendar days from the
commencement of the action, service may, by leave of court, be effected on Y by publication in a
newspaper of general circulation and in such places and for such time as the court may order.
Any order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time, which shall not be less 60 calendar
days after notice, within which the defendant must answer. (Express Padala S.P.A. v. Ocampo, G.R.
No. 202505; September 06, 2017; ROC, Rule 14, Sec. 6).
106. What is the period of validity of summons?

Summons shall remain valid until duly served, unless it is recalled by the court. In case of loss or
destruction of summons, the court may, upon motion, issue alias summons. (ROC, Rule 14, Sec. 4)

107. Defendant X domestic private corporation was served summons through the security
guard of its building. X, through counsel, and by special appearance, assailed the propriety of
the service of summons. If you were the court, what will you do?
I will find that service of summons is not proper. In case of a domestic private juridical entity,
service of summons may be made on the president, managing partner, general manager,
corporate secretary, treasurer or in-house counsel of the corporation, wherever they may be
found.
In their absence or unavailability, summons may be made on their secretaries.
If such service cannot be made upon any of the foregoing persons, it shall be made upon the
person who customarily receives the correspondences for the defendant at its principal office.
In case of domestic juridical entity under receivership or liquidation, it shall be made on the
receiver or liquidator, as the case may be.
Should there be a refusal on the part of the persons above-mentioned to receive summons despite
at least 3 attempts on 2 different dates, service may be made electronically, if allowed by the court.
None of the foregoing was complied with. Thus, I shall deputize defendant’s counsel to serve
summons on his client X. (ROC, Rule 14, Sec. 13)
108. In what instances may extraterritorial service of summons be resorted to?

It may be resorted to by leave of court when: (1) the defendant does not reside and is not found
in the Philippines, and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff or relates to, or the
subject of which is, property within the Philippines, in which the defendant has or claims a lien
or interest, actual or contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in
excluding the defendant from any interest therein, or the property has been attached within the
Philippines; or (2) the defendant ordinarily resides within the Philippines but is temporarily out
of the Philippines. (ROC, Rule 14, Sec. 17, 18)
109. A filed a complaint for damages against B, a non-resident who is no found in the
Philippines. A moved for leave of court to avail of extraterritorial service of summons. The
court granted the motion for leave, and summons was served extraterritorially by publication.
Was there valid service of summons?
No, because the complaint for damages is in the nature of an action in personam, which does not
fall under the instances when extraterritorial service of summons may be availed of. In actions in
personam, jurisdiction over the person of a defendant can only be acquired through personal or
substituted service of summons for the court to validly try and decide the case. Since B is a non-
resident who is not found in the Philippines and summons cannot be served on him personally
or by substituted service of summons. The remedy is for the plaintiff to convert the action to a
proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, by attaching B’s property. In quasi in rem and in rem actions,
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the
court, provided the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. Thereafter, summons may be served
extraterritorially with leave of court, not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction,
but for the purpose of complying with the requirements of fair play and due process. (Tradition
Asia Pacific PTE., LTD., v. Moya, G.R. No. 232092, December 13, 2017)

110. A filed a civil case for issuance of protection order under RA 9262 against B, an American
citizen, who is a resident of the Philippines. At the time the sheriff attempted to serve
summons on B in his residence, B was not in the Philippines. How may summons be served
on B?
Summons may be served on B, a defendant who is temporarily outside of the Philippines, either
by: (1) substituted service of summons, such as by leaving it at B’s residence to a person at least
18 years of age and of sufficient discretion residing therein; or (2) by extraterritorial service of
summons, with leave of court, as provided under Section 16 in relation to Section 17 of Rule 14.
(Pavlow v. Menedilla, G.R. No. 181489, April 19, 2017, J. Leonen)
111. What are the requisites for the 2-dismissal Rule to apply?
For the two-dismissal rule to apply where the second dismissal, upon the instance of plaintiff,
would be with prejudice, the following requisites must be present: (1) there was a previous case
that was dismissed by a competent court; (2) both cases were based on or include the same claim;
(3) both notices of dismissal were filed by the plaintiff; and (4) when the motion to dismiss filed
by the plaintiff was consented to by the defendant on the ground that the latter paid and satisfied
all the claims of the former. (Ching v. Ching, G.R No. 175507, October 8, 2014), J. Leonen)
112. What is the effect of the party and counsel's failure to appear during pre-trial, court-
annexed mediation and judicial dispute resolution, if necessary, in civil cases, when they are
duly notified?
As a rule, it shall be the duty of the parties and their counsel to appear at the during pre-trial,
court-annexed mediation and judicial dispute resolution, if necessary. A representative may
appear on behalf of a party, but must be fully authorized in writing to enter into an amicable
settlement, to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution, and to enter into stipulations or
admission of facts and documents.
The failure of the plaintiff and counsel to appear without valid cause when so required shall be
cause for dismissal of the action, with prejudice, unless otherwise ordered by the court. A similar
failure on the part of the defendant and counsel shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his
evidence ex parte within 10 calendar days from termination of the pre-trial and the court to reader
judgment on the basis of the evidence offered. This is the same effect as the failure to file the pre-
trial brief.
If the failure to appear was with valid cause, it shall be excused and the foregoing effects will not
apply. The non-appearance of a party and counsel may be excused only for acts of God, force
majeure, or duly substantiated physical inability. (ROC, Rule 18, Sec. 4, 5, 6)
113. May additional evidence not previously pre-marked during pre-trial be allowed during
trial?
Yes, provided that the evidence was not available during pretrial and was reserved in the
following manner during pre-trial: (1) for testimonial evidence, by giving the name or position
and the nature of the testimony of the proposed witness; and (2) for documentary and other object
evidence, by giving a particular description of the evidence. No reservation shall be allowed if
not made in the foregoing manner. (ROC, Rule 18, Sec. 2(g)(4))
114. May the trial court render judgment after pre-trial?

Yes, should there be no more controverted facts, or no more genuine issue as to any material fact,
or an absence of any issue should the answer fail to tender an issue, the court shall, without
prejudice to a party moving for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment, motu proprio
include in the pre-trial order that the case be submitted for summary judgment or judgment on
the pleadings, without need of position papers or memoranda. In such cases, the court shall
render judgment within 90 calendar days from termination of the pre-trial. (ROC, Rule 18, Sec. 10)
115. May the order of the court in the pre-trial order to submit the case to judgment on the
pleadings or summary judgment be assailed by motion for reconsideration and certiorari?
It may be assailed by motion for reconsideration, since it is not among the prohibited motions.
However, Sec. 10, Rule 18 categorically prohibits said order from being the subject of an appeal
or certiorari. The remedy, if motion for reconsideration of the order is denied, is to appeal the
judgment later rendered.
116. What is the effect of failure to serve written interrogatories under Rule 25?
A party not served with written interrogatories may not be compelled by the adverse party to
give testimony in open court, or to give deposition pending appeal, unless allowed by the court
for good cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice (ROC, Rule 25, Sec. 6).
116. Who may intervene in an action? When may he do so?

A who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or
an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other
disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof, may, with leave of
court, be allowed to intervene. The motion to intervene may be filed at any time before rendition
of judgment by the trial court. (ROC, Rule 18, Sec. 1-2)
117. Is the rule requiring intervention before rendition of judgment by the trial court subject
to exceptions?
Yes, in the following instances: (a) When demanded by the higher interest of justice; (b) To afford
indispensable parties, who have not been impleaded, the right to be heard; (c) to avoid grave
injustice and injury and to settle once and for all the substantive issues raised by the parties; and
(4) because of the grave legal issues raised.
(Office of the Ombudsman v. Bongais, G.R. No. 226405, July 23, 2018)
118. What is the doctrine of immutability of final judgments and is it subject to exceptions?
Under the doctrine of finality of judgment or immutability of judgment, a decision that has
acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any
respect. There are recognized exceptions to this general rule such as: (1) the correction of clerical
errors, the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party; (2) void
judgments; and (3) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering
its execution unjust and inequitable. (Rivera v. Catalo, A.M. No. RTJ-15-2422, July 20, 2015)
119. What is the effect of judgment rendered without jurisdiction? May it be executed?
A void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It neither is a source of any right
nor the creator of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from
it have no legal effect. It can never become final and any writ of execution based on it is void.

A void judgment may not be executed. In other words, if there are facts and circumstances that
would render a judgment void or unjust after its finality, and render its execution a complete
nullity, such judgment cannot exude immutability. (Rivera v. Catalo, A.M. No. RTJ-15-2422, July
20, 2015)
120. Distinguish demurrer to evidence, judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment.
Demurrer to Evidence Judgement on the Pleadings Summary Judgment

Litigious motion
Upon motion Upon motion or by the court motu proprio, without prejudice
to the motion
By defendant By the claimant By (1) a claimant or party
seeking to recover upon a
claim, counterclaim or cross-
claim or to obtain a
declaratory relief; or (2)
defendant or party against
whom a claim, counterclaim
or cross-claim is asserted or a
declaratory relief is sought
In both instances, the motion

should be accompanied by
supporting affidavits,
depositions or admissions.
After plaintiff has completed If it is apparent that the A summary judgment may be
the presentation of his answer fails to tender an used to expedite the
evidence, on the ground that issue, or otherwise admits the proceedings and to avoid
upon the facts and the law, material allegations of the useless delays, when the
plaintiff has not shown a right adverse party’s pleadings. pleadings, depositions,
to relief affidavits or admissions on
file show that there exists no
It is a motion to dismiss for genuine question or issue of
lack of cause of action fact in the case, and the
moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law
(1) if by the claimant, filed at
any time after the pleading in
answer to the claim has been
served; or (2) if by the
defendant, filed at any time.
If defendant’s motion to Any action of the court on a Any action of the court on a
dismiss or demurrer to motion to render judgment on motion to render summary
evidence is denied, the the pleadings shall not be judgment shall not be subject
defendant shall have the right subject of an appeal, petition of an appeal, petition for
to present evidence. for certiorari, prohibition or certiorari, prohibition or
mandamus. It may be the mandamus. It may be the

The order denying demurrer subject of a motion for subject of a motion for
to evidence shall not be reconsideration. reconsideration.
subject of an appeal, petition
for certiorari, prohibition or The motu proprio order of the The motu proprio order of the
mandamus before judgment. court as contained in the pre- court as contained in the pre-
It may be the subject of a trial order to submit the case trial order to submit the case
motion for reconsideration. for judgment on the pleadings for summary judgment shall
shall not be subject of appeal not be subject of appeal or
The defendant may only or certiorari. It may be the certiorari. It may be the
appeal after an adverse subject of a motion for subject of a motion for
judgment is rendered against reconsideration. reconsideration.
him.
If judgment on the pleadings If summary judgment is
If the motion is granted, the is rendered, remedy is motion rendered, remedy is motion
remedy of the plaintiff is to for reconsideration and/or for reconsideration and/or
file a motion for appeal appeal
reconsideration or appeal.
If on appeal the order of

dismissal is reversed, the
defendant shall be deemed to
have waived the right to
present evidence
(ROC, Rule 15, Sec. 5; Rule 18, Sec. 10; Rules 33, 34, 35)
121. What is the Fresh period rule or the Neypes rule?

If the motion for new trial or reconsideration is denied, the movant has a fresh period of 15 days
from the receipt or notice of the order denying or dismissing the motion for reconsideration
within which to file an appeal. The new 15-day period may be availed of only if either motion is
filed. Otherwise, the decision becomes final and executory after the lapse of the original appeal
period provided under the Rules (Neypes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141524, September 14, 2005).
The Neypes Rule is also applicable in criminal cases. (Yu v. Samson-Tatad, G.R. No. 170979,
February 9, 2011)
122. What are the grounds for a motion for reconsideration and motion for new trial?
A motion for reconsideration may be filed on the grounds that the damages awarded are
excessive, that the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final order, or that the decision
or final order is contrary to law.
For motion for new trial, the grounds are: (a) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence
which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against and by reason of which such aggrieved
party has probably been impaired in his rights; or (b) newly discovered evidence which he could
not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at trial, and which if presented
would probably alter the result, (ROC, Rule 37, Sec. 1)
123. If the motion for reconsideration or motion for new trial is denied, may a second one be
filed?

No party shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final order. A
second motion for new trial, based on grounds not exiting nor available when the first motion
was made. (ROC Rule37, Sec. 5)
124. What may be the subject of an appeal?

An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or
of a particular matter therein when declared by the Rules of Court to be appealable (ROC, Rule
41, Sec. 1).
125. What may not be the subject of appeal?

No appeal may be taken from an: (1) order denying a petition for relief of judgment or any similar
motion seeking relief from judgment; (2) interlocutory order; (3) order disallowing or dismissing
an appeal; (4) order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession or
compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or any other ground vitiating consent; (5)
order of execution; (6) judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in
separate claims, counterclaims and third party-complaints, while the main case is pending, unless
the court allows an appeal therefrom; and (7) order dismissing an action without prejudice. The
remedy of the aggrieved party in these cases is to file an appropriate special civil action as
provided under Rule 65. (ROC, Rule 41, Sec. 1)
126. What is the material date rule and will the failure to comply therewith always lead to a
dismissal of the case?
The following material dates must be alleged to show timeliness of an appeal: (a) the date when
notice of the judgment or final order or resolution was received, (b) the date when a motion for
new trial or for reconsideration when one such was filed, and (c) the date when notice of the
denial thereof was received. These dates should be reflected to enable the reviewing court to
determine if appeal was filed on time because the perfection of an appeal in the manner and
within the period prescribed by law is jurisdictional and failure to perfect an appeal as required
by law renders the judgment final and executory.
By exception, failure to comply with alleging the material dates may be excused if the said dates
are evident from the records provided that to merit such liberality, a valid and compelling reason
or a reasonable cause justifying non-compliance with the rules must be shown and must convince
the court that the outright dismissal of the appeal would defeat the administration of substantive
justice (Yu v. SR Metals, Inc., G.R. No. 214249, September 25, 2017).
127. Judgment was rendered against X, who received notice thereof on 1 February 2021. Entry
of judgment was made on 20 February 2021.
a. Since X failed to appeal or file a motion for reconsideration or new trial, may he file a
petition for relief of judgment on the ground of extrinsic fraud?
No. A party who seeks to be relieved from the effect of the judgment is barred from such relief
when the loss of the remedy at law is due to his own negligence, or a mistaken mode of procedure;
otherwise, the petition for relief will be tantamount to reviving the right of appeal which has
already been lost either because of inexcusable negligence or due to a mistake in the mode of

procedure taken by counsel. (JRT Construction and Trading Corp. v. Hyosung Corp., G.R. No. 230793,
March 21, 2018)
b. May X file a petition for relief from judgment on 2 February 2021?

No. Relief from judgment under Rule 38 may not be availed of where a party has another
adequate remedy available to it, which is either a motion for new trial or appeal from the adverse
decision of the lower court, and he is not prevented from filing such motion or taking the appeal,
as in this case. (JRT Construction and Trading Corp. v. Hyosung Corp., G.R. No. 230793, March 21,
2018)
128. Is a petition for relief from judgment an available remedy in the Supreme Court?
NO. A petition for relief from judgment is not an available remedy in the Supreme Court. The
use of the phrase "any court" in Section 1, Rule 38 refers only to Municipal/Metropolitan and
Regional Trial Courts and the procedure in the CA and the SC are governed by separate
provisions of the Rules. It is not among the list of original cases cognizable by the Supreme Court
under Section 1, Rule 56 and, moreover, a petition for relief raises questions of facts on fraud,
accident, mistake or excusable negligence, which are beyond the concerns of the Supreme Court.
(Dela Cruz v. Andres, G.R. No. 161864, 27 April 2007)
129. What is the period within which to file a petition for relief from judgment?
It must be filed within 60 days from notice of the judgment or within 6 months from the entry of
judgment. Otherwise, the petition shall be dismissed. The double period required under Section
3, Rule 38 is jurisdictional and should be strictly complied with. A petition for relief from
judgment filed beyond the reglementary period is dismissed outright. This is because a petition
for relief from judgment is an exception to the public policy of immutability of final judgments
(AFP Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. v. RTC, Marikina City, Branch 193, G.R. No. 183906, February
14, 2011; Madarang v. Spouses Morales, G.R. No. 199283, June 9, 2014)
130. When may a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38 be availed of?
A verified petition for relief may be filed within 60 days after the petitioner learns of the
judgment, final order or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than 6 months after such
judgment or final order was entered, or such proceeding was taken, when: (1) a judgment or final
order is entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter taken against a party in any court through
fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, in which case, the petition shall be filed in such
court and in the same case, praying that the judgment, order or proceeding be set aside (ROC,
Rule 38, Sec. 1); or (2) a judgment or final order is rendered by any court in a case, and a party
thereto, by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, has been prevented from taking an
appeal, in which case the petition shall be filed in such court and in the same case, praying that
the appeal be given due course. (ROC, Rule 38, Sec. 2).
The petition must be accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or
excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the petitioner's good and substantial
cause of action or defense, as the case may be (ROC, Rule 38, Sec. 3).
131. A judgment was rendered holding X liable to pay a sum of money. The decision became
final and executory and a writ of execution was issued. How should the judgment be executed?
The sheriff shall enforce the judgment by demanding payment from the X in cash or any other
form of payment acceptable to the judgment obligee. If no payment can be made, the sheriff shall

levy on the properties of X not exempt from execution. After proper posting and publication, as
the case may be, the property levied shall be sold at an auction sale and the proceeds shall satisfy
the judgment award. (ROC, Rule 39, Sec 9)
132. If the judgment directs X to execute a conveyance of land, which X, on execution, fails to
comply with, how will the judgment be executed?
The court may direct the act be done at the cost of X by some other person appointed by the court
and the act when so done shall have the effect as if done by X. If the property is situated within
the Philippines, the court, in lieu of directing a conveyance thereof, may by an order divest the
title of any party and vest it in others, which shall have the force and effect of a conveyance
executed in due form of law. (ROC, Rule 39, Sec. 10(a))
132. If the judgment is for delivery of real property ruled against X, how shall it be executed?
The officer shall demand X to peaceably vacate the property within 3 working days and restore
possession thereof to the judgment obligee. Otherwise, the officer shall oust all such persons
therefrom with the assistance, if necessary, of appropriate peace officers, and employing such
means as may be reasonably necessary to retake possession and place the judgment obligee in
possession of that property. Any costs, damages, rents or profits awarded by the judgment shall
be satisfied in the same manner as judgment for money. (ROC, Rule 39, Sec, 10(c))
133. A judgment in an action for mandamus was rendered, directing the LCR to issue the
marriage license. On execution, the LCR refused to do so. What is the remedy?
The LCR may be punished for contempt for disobeying such judgment. (ROC, Rule 39, Sec. 11)
134. When may a judgment be executed upon motion and when by revival of judgment?
Sec. 6, Rule 39 provides that the final and executory judgment may be executed upon motion,
within 5 years from the date of its entry.
After the lapse of such time and before it is barred by statute of limitations, a judgment may be
enforced by an independent action for revival of judgment filed with the RTC, as it is an action
incapable of pecuniary estimation.
The revived judgment may also be enforced within 5 years from the date of its entry and
thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute of limitations. (ROC, Rule 39, Sec. 6)
135. If the property levied on execution is claimed by a third party, what is his remedy?
He may file am affidavit of his title thereto or right of possession thereof, stating the grounds for
such right or title, and serving the same upon the officer making the levy, and a copy thereof on
the judgment obligee. The officer shall not be bound to keep the property, unless such judgment
obligee, on demand of the officer, files a bond approved by the court to indemnify the third-party
claimant in a sum not less than the value of the property levied on. The third party may also file
an independent action to resolve the issue of title over the property. (ROC, Rule 39, Sec. 16)
136. When does ordinary appeal by record on appeal apply under Rule 41?
It applies in appeals to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals, where the law
or the Rules of Court require the same. (ROC, Rule 41, Sec. 2)

137. May an appeal by ordinary appeal under Rule 41 be availed of raising purely a question
of law?
No. An appeal under Rule 41 taken from the RTC to the CA raising only questions of law shall
be dismissed, issues purely of law not being reviewable by said court. (ROC, Rule 50, Sec. 2)
138. What is the period of ordinary appeal under Rule 41?

The appeal by notice of appeal shall be taken within 15 days from notice of the judgment or final
order appealed from. Where a record on appeal is required, the appellants shall file a notice of
appeal and a record on appeal within 30 days from notice of the judgment or final order.
However, an appeal in habeas corpus cases shall be taken within 48 hours from notice of the
judgment or final order appealed from. The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely
motion for new trial or reconsideration, and a fresh period shall apply from the denial of said
motion, pursuant to the Neypes Rule. (ROC, Rule 41, Sec. 3)
139. X entered into a contract of loan secured by real estate mortgage with Y for the loan amount
of Php100,000,000.00. Despite demand, X failed to pay the loan. Y filed a Petition for
Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage. The mortgaged properties were auctioned
and sold to Y, the highest bidder. X filed a complaint for annulment of real estate mortgage
before the RTC on the ground that it never received the loan amount. X paid the assessed filing
fees based on an action incapable of pecuniary estimation. Y contended that the RTC did not
acquire jurisdiction over the case since it was a real action to recover the mortgaged property,
and as such, the filing fees should have been based on the value of property. RTC dismissed
the case for lack jurisdiction over the annulment of mortgage case, which was held to be in the
nature of an action to recover real property and there was failure to pay the appropriate filing
fees for a real action. X filed a motion for reconsideration, insisting that its complaint is
incapable of pecuniary estimation. The RTC denied X’s Motion for Reconsideration. What is
X’s next remedy, if any?
X can seek direct recourse to the Supreme Court with a verified Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 within 15 days from notice of the order denying X’s motion for reconsideration,
since only a question of law is involved. The issue for the Supreme Court’s resolution pertains to
jurisdiction or whether the RTC attained jurisdiction over the Complaint with the amount of
docket fees paid. An issue of jurisdiction is a pure question of law. Pursuant to Rule 41, Sec. 2(c),
in all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal from the judgment of
the RTC rendered in its original jurisdiction shall be in the Supreme Court by petition for review
on certiorari, in accordance with Rule 45. (First Sarmiento Property Holdings, Inc. v. Philippine Bank
of Communications, G.R. No. 202836, June 19, 2018, J. Leonen).
140. A judgment was rendered by the RTC in an intra-corporate case. Raising pure questions
of law, the losing party appealed the decision to the Supreme Court by Rule 45. Is the appeal
proper?
No. All decisions and final orders in cases falling under the Interim Rules of Corporate
Rehabilitation and the Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies
under RA 8799 shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals (CA) through a petition for review
under Rule 43, which allows appeals to the CA to raise questions of fact, of law, or a mix of both.
A party assailing a decision or a final order of the trial court acting as a special commercial court,
purely on questions of law, must raise these issues before the CA through a petition for review
under Rule 43. (Belo Medical Group, Inc. v. Santos, G.R. No. 185894, August 30, 2017, J. Leonen)

141. What is annulment of judgment?
It is a recourse equitable in character, allowed only in exceptional cases as where there is no
available or other remedy. The ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other
appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. Judgments may
be annulled only on grounds of extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction, or denial of due process (Biaco
v. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, G.R. No. 161417, February 8, 2007).
141. Is the filing of the Petition for Annulment of Judgment proper, after an appeal is denied
on the ground of extrinsic fraud because the party’s counsel allegedly failed to file documents
in support of the party’s defenses?
No, because appeal was an available remedy and was already availed of. Assuming that no
appeal or other remedy was available, the petition is still improper for although it alleged fraud,
the failure of the petitioner’s counsel to file documents in support of their defense does not
constitute extrinsic fraud as a ground for annulment of judgment. Fraud is extrinsic when it
prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or where it
operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself, but to the manner in which the
judgment is procured. The overriding consideration is that the fraudulent scheme of the
prevailing litigant prevented the petitioner from having his day in court. N, as the prevailing
party, had no part in the commission of the fraud committed by the petitioners' counsel.
(Estrellado v. Presiding Judge of the MTC, G.R. No. 164482 & 211320, November 08, 2017).
142. What is the period to file a petition for annulment of judgment?

If based on extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed within 4 years from its discovery; and if based
on lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process, before it is barred by laches or estoppel. (Arrieta
v. Arrieta, G.R. No. 234808, November 19, 2018)
143. Which court has jurisdiction over an annulment of judgment of the RTC?
If it is the RTC judgment that is the subject of the petition for annulment, then the CA has original
jurisdiction over the same. (ROC, Rule 47, Sec. 1)
144. May there be an annulment of judgment of the MTC?

Yes. An action to annul a judgment of the MTC shall be filed with the RTC having jurisdiction
over the MTC. It shall be treated as an ordinary civil action and Sections 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Rule
47 shall be applicable thereto. (ROC, Rule 47, Sec. 10)
145. What is the effect of an annulment of judgment?

It shall set aside the questioned judgment or final order or resolution and render the same null
and void, without prejudice to the original action being refiled in the proper court. The
prescriptive period for the refiling of said original action shall be deemed suspended from the
filing of such original action until the finality of the judgment of annulment. However, the
prescriptive period shall not be suspended where the extrinsic fraud is attributed to the plaintiff
in the original action.
Where the judgment or final order or resolution is set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud, the
court may on motion order the trial court to try the case as if a timely motion for new trial had
been granted therein.

If the questioned judgment or final order or resolution had already been executed, the court may
issue such orders of restitution or other relief as justice and equity may warrant under the
circumstances. (ROC, Rule 47, Sec, 7-9)
146. May there be a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 to assail the RTC
judgment in a criminal case?
No, Sec. 1, Rule 47 limits the scope of the remedy of annulment of judgment to judgments or final
orders and resolutions in civil actions of RTC for which the ordinary remedies of new trial,
appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault
of the petitioner. Section 18, Rule 124 does not permit such recourse, for it excluded Rule 47 from
the enumeration of the civil procedure provisions which have suppletory application to criminal
cases. (People v. Bitanga, G.R. No. 159222, June 26, 2007).
147. What must be proven in order to warrant the issuance of injunctive relief?
It must be proven that: (1) the applicant must have a clear and unmistakable right to be protected,
that is a right in esse or clear legal right; (2) there is a material and substantial invasion of such
right; (3) there is an urgent need for the writ to prevent irreparable injury to the applicant; and
(4) there is no other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy exists to prevent the infliction of
irreparable injury (Municipality of Famy, Laguna v. Municipality of Siniloan, Laguna, G.R. No. 203806,
February 10, 2020, J. Leonen)
148. What are the grounds for a preliminary attachment? The following are the exclusive
grounds: (a) In an action for the recovery of a specified amount of money or damages, other than
moral and exemplary, on a cause of action arising from law, contract, quasi-contract, delict or
quasi-delict against a party who is about to depart from the Philippines with intent to defraud
his creditors; (b) In an action for money or property embezzled or fraudulently misapplied or
converted to his own use by a public officer, or an officer of a corporation, or an attorney, factor,
broker, agent, or clerk, in the course of his employment as such, or by any other person in a
fiduciary capacity, or for a willful violation of duty; (c) In an action to recover the possession of
property unjustly or fraudulently taken, detained or converted, when the property, or any part
thereof, has been concealed, removed, or disposed of to prevent its being found or taken by the
applicant or an authorized person; (d) In an action against a party who has been guilty of a fraud
in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation upon which the action is brought, or in the
performance thereof; (e) In an action against a party who has removed or disposed of his
property, or is about to do so, with intent to defraud his creditors; or (f) In an action against a
party who does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, or on whom summons may be
served by publication. (ROC, Rule 57, Sec. 1)
149. When may replevin be availed of and what are the requirements?
A party praying for the recovery of possession of personal property may, at the commencement
of the action or at any time before answer, apply for an order or the delivery of such property to
him, in the manner hereinafter provided.
The applicant must show by his own affidavit or that of some other person who personally knows
the facts: (a) That the applicant is the owner of the property claimed, particularly describing it, or
is entitled to the possession thereof; (b) That the property is wrongfully detained by the adverse
party, alleging the cause of detention thereof according to the best of his knowledge, information,
and belief; (c) That the property has not been distrained or taken for a tax assessment or a fine

pursuant to law, or seized under a writ of execution or preliminary attachment, or otherwise
placed under custodia legis, or if so seized, that it is exempt from such seizure or custody; and
(d) The actual market value of the property.
The applicant must also give a bond, executed to the adverse party in double the value of the
property as stated in the affidavit aforementioned, for the return of the property to the adverse
party if such return be adjudged, and for the payment to the adverse party of such sum as he may
recover from the applicant in the action. (ROC, Rule 60, Sec. 1-2)
150. What is the remedy against a judgment in a petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus,
quo warranto or habeas corpus case rendered by the RTC?
The party may either file a motion for reconsideration and from the denial thereof, or without
filing a motion for reconsideration, avail of an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 by filing a notice of
appeal with the RTC, to appeal to the CA. (ROC, Rule 44, Sec. 10)
151. When may a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 be availed of?
Under Section 1, Rule 65, it may be availed of when any tribunal, board, or officer exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law. Under the expanded certiorari jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1, Article
VIII of the Constitution, the writ may be availed of when there is grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
government.
152. What are the remedies against the ruling of the Secretary of Justice in a preliminary
investigation and the rulings of the Ombudsman in an administrative case and in a
preliminary investigation, after motions for reconsideration assailing the foregoing have been
denied?
Provided there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the
remedies are as follows: (1) against the ruling of the Secretary of Justice, Rule 65 petition for
certiorari filed with the CA; (2) against the ruling of the Ombudsman in a preliminary
investigation, Rule 65 petition for certiorari filed with the SC; (3) against the ruling of the
Ombudsman in an administrative case where the penalty is not light or does not absolve the
respondent of the charge, petition for review under Rule 43 with the CA; and (5) against the ruling
of the Ombudsman in an administrative case where the penalty is light or absolves the
respondent of the charge, Rule 65 petition for certiorari filed with the CA. (Fabian v. Disierto, G.R.
No. 129742, September 16, 1998; Dagan v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 184083, November 19, 2013; Go v.
King, G.R. No. 194063, March 11, 2015)
153. What is a writ of prohibition?

It is a preventive remedy seeking a judgment ordering the respondent to desist from continuing
with the commission of an act perceived to be illegal. It lies against the exercise of judicial, quasi-
judicial or ministerial functions, where the respondent judge or tribunal issued the order without
or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, or the assailed interlocutor order is
patently erroneous, and there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law (Rivera v. Espiritu, G.R. No. 135547, January 23, 2002)

154. A petition for prohibition was filed to prohibit the ombudsman from implementing its
decision finding petitioners guilty of grave misconduct and imposing a penalty of dismissal.
The petition was filed before the ombudsman could rule on the motion for reconsideration
filed before it. During the pendency of the prohibition, the ombudsman ruled on the motion
for reconsideration and modified the decision finding petitioners liable for conduct
prejudicial to the service, punishable by suspension. With the petition for prohibition
prosper?
No. First, because petitioners had another plain, speedy and adequate remedy under the ordinary
course of law, such as the pending motion for reconsideration. Second, the assailed decision had
already been modified. The act sought to be enjoined had already been modified, there was
nothing more to restrain. (Belmonte v. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, G.R. No. 197665, 13 January
2016.
155. X was convicted. He timely filed a motion for reconsideration of his conviction, which was
denied. Within 15 days from the notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration, X filed
a notice of appeal, invoking the Neypes Ruling as applicable in criminal cases. A motion to
dismiss appeal was filed on the ground that the Neypes Ruling was inapplicable in criminal
cases. A motion for execution was thereafter filed. The trial court considered the motions
submitted for resolution. What is the remedy of X?
X may file a petition for prohibition, to restrain the Trial Court from acting on the motion to
dismiss and the motion for execution. The Neypes Ruling as applicable in criminal cases. The
appeal should instead be given due course. (Yu v. Samson-Tatad, G.R. No. 170979, February 9, 2011)
156. What is a writ of mandamus?

It is a command issuing from a court of law of competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state,
directed to some inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or person requiring the
performance of a particular duty therein specified, which duty results from the official station of
the party to whom the writ is directed or from operation of law. Before the writ is issued, the
following requisites should be satisfied: (1) petitioner must show a clear legal right to the act
demanded; (2) respondent must have the duty to perform the act because the same is mandated
by law; (3) respondent unlawfully neglects the performance of the duty enjoined by law; (4) the
act to be performed is ministerial, not discretionary; and (5) there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. (ROC, Rule 65, Sec. 3; Abaga v. Panes, G.R. No.
17044, August 24, 2007)
157. X failed to comply with his obligation to deliver the car in violation of the contract of sale
he entered into with Y. May Y file a petition for mandamus to compel X to deliver the car?
No. Mandamus cannot be used to enforce contractual obligations, for Y has other remedies under
law for a breach of contract, such as one for damages. (COMELEC v. Quijano-Padilla, G.R. No.
151992, September 18, 2002)
158. May mandamus lie to compel the Secretary of Justice to act on the petition for review filed
before it?
Yes, if the Secretary of Justice does not act on the petition for review, since it is a duty enjoined
by law for the Secretary of Justice to act on the same. However, mandamus will not lie to compel
the Secretary of Justice to act a certain way, such as to grant or deny said petition, because the
ruling on the petition requires the exercise of discretion which is beyond the ambit of a writ of
mandamus. (Ampatuan, Jr. v. De Lima, G.R. No. 197291, April 3, 2013)

159. What is the scope of enforceability of the writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, habeas corpus, and injunction issued by the RTC?
It may be enforced in any part of their respective regions. (BP 129, Sec. 21)
160. May the SC entertain direct resort to it of a petition for quo warranto?
Yes, as an exception to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, where the petition is of transcendental
importance, where the ruling would have far-reaching implications that it is paramount that the
SC make definite pronouncements on the issues presented for the guidance of the bench, bar and
public in future analogous cases, or where the petition involves the qualification of a member of
the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice thereof, the highest official of the judiciary. (Republic v.
Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018)
161. X, a private individual, filed a petition for quo warranto against a Sandiganbayan justice,
praying that the latter be prevented from exercising his powers on the ground of his
disqualification to hold said office, owing to his alleged foreign citizenship. Will the petition
prosper?
No, because X did not show any sufficient proof of a clear and indubitable franchise to the office
of the Justice of the Sandiganbayan. There being no showing that X is entitled to assume said
office, the petition should be denied. (Topacio v. Ong, G.R. No. 179895, December 18, 2008)
162. What is the remedy to determine the right of exercise of franchise or whether the right to
enjoy such privilege has been forfeited by non-user?
Such determination is properly the subject of the prerogative writ of quo warranto, the right to
assert which, as a rule, belongs to the state, upon complaint or otherwise, because the abuse of a
franchise is a public wrong and not a private injury. A forfeiture of franchise will have to be
declared in a direct proceeding for the purpose brought by the State because franchise is granted
by law and its unlawful exercise is primarily a concern of government. (Divinagracia v.
Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc, G.R. No. 162272, 7 April 2009)
163. What is the period within which to institute a petition for quo warranto under Rule 66?
It is within 1 year after the cause of such ouster or the right of the petitioner to hold such office or
position arose. However, the SC clarified in Republic v. Sereno that 1-year reglementary period
does not apply where it is the government itself that sues for public interest and seeks relief for a
public wrong. The 1-year limitation applies when the petition is instituted by an individual
claiming a right to a public office. (G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018)
164. May a quo warranto case under Rule 66 be filed against an impeachable officer during the
pendency of an impeachment proceeding against said officer?
Yes. The pendency of the impeachment proceeding is not inconsistent with and will not bar the
institution of a quo warranto proceeding. Impeachment and quo warranto are not mutually
exclusive and may proceed simultaneously because their nature, purpose, grounds, jurisdiction,
and limitations are different. (Republic v. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018)
165. A judgement for quo warranto was rendered against Y, the usurper, upon petition by X.
Before the judgment could be executed, Y was replaced by newly appointed A. Will the
judgment against Y be binding on A, the successor, but was not a party to the quo warranto
case and be executed?

No. A quo warranto judgment does not bind respondent’s successor in office, even though such
successor may trace his title to the same source. Quo warranto is never directed to an officer as
such, but always against the person, to determine whether he is constitutionally and legally
authorized to perform any act in or exercise any function of the office to which he lays claim.
Execution cannot be had. The quo warranto was not against the new appointee A. (Mendoza v.
Allas, G.R. No. 131977, 4 February 1999)
167. Distinguish Quo Warranto under OEC from that under Rule 66 (ROC).
Under OEC, Quo Warranto petition involves elective office. Under the ROC, it involves
appointive office.
Under the OEC, the petition must be filed within 10 days after the proclamation of the results of
the election, by any voter even if he is not entitled to the office.
Under the ROC, the petition must be filed within 1 year from the petitioner’s ouster from the
office, or the right of the petitioner to hold the office or position, arose. The 1-year reglementary
period does not apply where it is the government itself that sues for public interest and seeks
relief for a public wrong (Republic v. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018) It may be filed in the
name of the Republic of the Philippines by the Solicitor General, or a public prosecutor; or by the
person claiming to be entitled to the office and would assume it if the action succeeds, in his own
name.
Under the OEC, the grounds are ineligibility or disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines.
Under ROC, the court will oust the person illegally appointed and will order the seating of the
person who was legally appointed and entitled to the office.
Under the OEC, the petition is brought in the: (1) COMELEC – if against a regional provincial, or
city officer; (2) or RTC – if against a municipal officer; or (3) MTC – if against a barangay officer.
But if the winning candidate in congress has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office
as Member of the House of Representatives/ Senate, the COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election
contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRET’s/SET’s own
jurisdiction begins (Rivera v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 210273 & 213069, April 19, 2016).
The petition under Rule 66 is brought in the SC, the CA or the RTC. The Sandiganbayan has
exclusive original jurisdiction on quo warranto arising or that may arise in cases filed under E.O.
Nos. 1, 2, 14, 14-A S. 1986.
168. X was appointed as acting Chairman of GSIS. Y was then appointed later as regular
chairman. May X bring an action for quo warranto against Y?
No. An acting appointee has no cause of action for quo warranto. The essence of an acting
appointment is its temporariness and its consequent revocability at any time by the appointing
authority. (General v. Urro, G.R. No. 191560, 29 March 2011)
169. May property owned by the state be the subject of expropriation?

Yes, when it is under the possession of private individuals under a just title. In such a case, the
Republic shall file the complaint against the private persons occupying the property. (Republic v.
Mangotaray, G.R. No. 170375, 7 July 2010)
170. What is expropriation?

Expropriation is the procedure for enforcing the right of eminent domain. It is the procedure by
which the government takes possession of private property for public use, with payment of just
compensation (National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106804, 12 August 2004)
171. What is the remedy against an order of expropriation?

The remedy to assail such order of expropriation is an appeal. If no appeal is taken, the order
becomes final and a final order of expropriation would mean that the authority to expropriate
and the public use of the property can no longer be questioned. (Estate of Jimenez v. Philippine
Export Processing Zone, G.R. No. 137285, 16 January 2001)
172. What may be the court’s action on the commissioners’ report in the determination of just
compensation?
The court may, after hearing: (1) accept the report and render judgment in accordance therewith
or; (2) for cause shown, recommit the report to the commissioners for further report of facts; (3)
set aside the report and appoint new commissioners; or (4) accept the report in part and reject it
in part; and (5) make such order or render such judgment as shall secure to the plaintiff of the
property essential to the exercise of his right of expropriation, and to the defendant just
compensation for the property given. (ROC, Rule 67, Sec. 8)
173. When may the court disregard the findings of the commissioner?
The court may disregard the findings of commissioners and substitute its own estimate of the
value, for valid reasons, such as when: (1) the commissioners applied illegal principles to the
evidence submitted to them; (2) the commissioners disregarded a clear preponderance of
evidence; or (3) the amount allowed is either grossly inadequate or excessive (Spouses Ortega v.
City of Cebu, G.R. Nos. 181562-63 & 181583-84, 2 October 2009)
174. What is Inverse Condemnation?

Inverse condemnation is when the government takes property for public purpose without
payment of just compensation or instituting expropriation proceedings, which constrains the
landowner to bring an action for the payment of just compensation, to be reckoned from the time
of taking or filing of the complaint, whichever comes first. Here, the propriety of the
expropriation would no longer be questioned because of equitable estoppel, public policy and
necessity. It contemplates the situation where the structures were already built on the land, the
landowner did not immediately assail the propriety of such taking, and the structures already
serve the public needs. Here the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the value of the land
(real action) (National Transmission Corp. v. Oroville Development Corp., G.R. No. 223366, August 1,
2017).
175. The LGU instituted expropriation proceedings for the taking of A’s land. After
proceedings, judgment was rendered on the amount of just compensation. The LGU claims it
did not enact an ordinance to satisfy the judgment declaring the amount of just compensation.
A motion for execution was filed, which was granted, and the trial court ordered that the
properties of the LGU be attached to satisfy the judgment. Is this valid?
No. Government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution, attachment or
garnishment, to satisfy judgments, based on considerations of public policy. Disbursements of
public funds must be covered by corresponding appropriations as required by law. The proper
remedy for enforcing final money judgments against the government or any of its agencies or
instrumentalities is to seek relief with the Commission on Audit, which must act upon it within

60 days. Any rejection of the claim will authorize the claimant to elevate the matter to the Supreme
Court on certiorari and, in effect, sue the State thereby, pursuant to the Supreme Court
Administrative Circular No. 10-2000 dated October 25, 2000. (Star Special Watchman & Detective
Agency Inc. v. Puerto Princesa City, G.R. No. 181792, April 21, 2014)
176. X is an illegal settler on the land sought to be expropriated. Should X be impleaded in the
expropriation case?
No. Mere possessors without any legal interest on the land do not have the right to be joined as
defendants in the expropriation case involving the land they are occupying. (De Knecht v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 108015, 20 May 1998)
177. May there be a motion to dismiss in an expropriation case?

No, it is prohibited. The defendant should instead allege all defenses in an Answer. (Lourdes
Masikip v. City of Pasig, G.R. No. 136349, January 23, 2006)
178. How can there be immediate possession of the property sought to be expropriated under
Rule 67?
Pursuant to Section 2, Rule 67, the plaintiff shall have the right to take or enter upon the
possession of the real property involved if he deposits with the authorized government
depositary an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation
to be held by such bank subject to the orders of the court.
What about for national infrastructure projects?

There should be deposit with the court the sum of:
(1) 100% of the value of the land based on the current zonal valuation of the BIR issued not
more than 3 years prior to the filing of the expropriation complaint. Where there is no lang
classification, the city or municipal assessor is mandated, within a period of 60 days from
date of filing of expropriation case, to come up with the required land classification and
corresponding declaration of real property and improvement for the area. In areas where
there is no zonal valuation, or where the current zonal valuation has been in force or more
than 3 years, the BIR is mandated, within a period of 60 days from date of filing the
expropriation case, to conduct a zonal valuation of area, based on the land classification
done by the city or municipal assessor.
By exception, if the completion of the project is of utmost urgency and importance, and
there is no land classification or no existing zonal valuation of the area concerned or the
zonal valuation has been in force for more than 3 years, the implementing agency shall
use the BIR zonal value and land classification of similar lands within the adjacent vicinity
as basis for the valuation;
(2) Replacement cost at current market value of the improvements and structures as
determined by: (a) implementing agency; (b) government financial institution with
adequate experience in property appraisal; (c) an independent property appraiser
accredited by the BSP; and
(3) The current market value of crops and trees located within the property as determined by
a government financial institution or an independent property appraiser. (RA, 10752, Sec.
6)
179. What are the modes of acquiring property for national infrastructure projects?

The modes are: donation, negotiated sale, expropriation, or any other modes of acquisition as
provided by law such as exchange or barter, easement of right of way, acquisition of subsurface
right of way, among others, and acquisition of lands granted through Commonwealth Act No.
141. (RA 10752, Sec. 4)
180. What is the reckoning point for ascertainment of just compensation?

It is ascertained from the time of taking, which usually coincides with the commencement of
expropriation proceedings. But if the institution of the action precedes entry into the property,
then the just compensation is to be ascertained as of the time of the filing of the complaint. (B.H.
Berkenkotter & Co. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. NO. 89980, December 14, 1992)
181. When may the property owner reacquire expropriated property?

There may be recovery if the expropriation was not for a public purpose as it would lack a
mandatory requirement, specifically, that the taking be for a particular public purpose which is
an implied condition that should be complied with to enable the expropriating authority to keep
the property expropriated. (Vda. De Ouano v. Republic, G.R. No. 168770, 9 February 2011)
182. What is a writ of habeas corpus?

It is a writ of inquiry granted to test the right under which a person is detained. If the confinement
or detention is lawful, or it is by virtue of a process or a valid judgment, the writ should not be
issued. To justify the grant of the writ of habeas corpus, the restraint of liberty must be in the
nature of an illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom of action. (Tung Chin Hui v. Rodriguez,
G.R. No. 141938, April 2, 2001)
183. X was illegally arrested and has been in detention, without any charge against him for 2
months. An Information for illegal possession of drugs was filed against X and the court where
the information was filed issued an order for X’s confinement. X filed a petition for habeas
corpus for his release from custody. Will the petition prosper? If not, what is X’s remedy?
No. Although the arrest of X was inceptively illegal, the filing of information and the issuance of
the confinement order against him are supervening events that bar his release or discharge from
custody. What is to be inquired into in habeas corpus is the legality of his detention as of, at the
earliest, the filing of the application for a writ of habeas corpus, for even if the detention is at its
inception illegal, it may, by reason of same supervening events such as filing of the information
and the issuance of a judicial process preventing the discharge of the detained person, be no
longer illegal at the time of the filing of the application. (Jackson v. Macalino, G.R. No. 139255,
November 24, 2003)
Rather than availing of the extraordinary remedy of a petition for habeas corpus, persons
restrained under a lawful process or order of the court must pursue the orderly course of trial
and exhaust the usual remedies, such as a motion to quash the information. X can also file criminal
and administrative cases against those responsible for his illegal arrest and failure to follow the
periods under Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. (Caballes v. Court of Appeals G.R.
No. 163108, February 23, 2005)
184. Police officer X was detained during an inquest proceeding for the charge of murder
against him. The Prosecutor recommended his release as further investigation was required.
However, X remained in detention after administrative charges for grave misconduct were
filed against him by the PNP. X filed a petition for habeas corpus, arguing he should be

released due to the recommendation of the prosecutor, there being no more ground for his
detention, which was unlawful. Will the petition prosper?
No. While the Office of the Prosecutor recommended X’s release from custody, the same was
made only insofar as the criminal action for murder that was filed with the prosecution office,
without prejudice to other legal grounds for which X may be held under custody. While X was
under custody, administrative charges for Grave Misconduct were filed against him. X was
therefore validly placed under Restrictive Custody pursuant to Republic Act No. 6975 or the
Department of Interior and Local Government Act of 1990 as amended by Republic Act No. 8551
or the Philippine National Police Reform and Reorganization Act, which provides that members
of the police force, such as X, are subject to the administrative disciplinary machinery of the PNP.
Among the disciplinary actions provided under said law is restrictive custody that may be
imposed by duly designated supervisors and equivalent officers of the PNP as a matter of internal
discipline. The restrictive custody and monitoring of movements or whereabouts of police
officers under investigation by their superiors is not a form of illegal detention or restraint of
liberty. Restrictive custody is, at best, nominal restraint which is beyond the ambit of habeas
corpus. It is neither actual nor effective restraint that would call for the grant of the remedy
prayed for. It is a permissible precautionary measure to assure the PNP authorities that the police
officers concerned are always accounted for. Being placed under valid restrictive custody, X
remained under valid detention, warranting the denial of the petition. (Ampatuan v. Macaraig,
G.R. No. 182497, June 29, 2010)
185. To whom is a writ of habeas corpus directed?

In case of imprisonment or restraint by an officer, the writ shall be directed to him, and shall
command him to have the body of the person restrained of his liberty before the court or judge
designated in the writ at the time and place therein specified.
In case of imprisonment or restraint by a person not an officer, the writ shall be directed to an
officer, and shall command him to take and have the body of the person restrained of his liberty
before the court or judge designated in the writ at the time and place therein specified, and to
summon the person by whom he is restrained then and there to appear before said court or judge
to show the cause of the imprisonment or restraint (ROC, Rule 102, Sec. 6)
186. What is the effect of a return in habeas corpus?

If it appears that the prisoner is in custody under a warrant of commitment in pursuance of law,
the return shall be considered prima facie evidence of the cause of restraint.
But if he is restrained of his liberty by any alleged private authority, the return shall be considered
only as a plea of the facts therein set forth, and the party claiming the custody must prove such
facts. (ROC, Rule 102, Sec. 13)
187. What is the remedy of the convict if the post-conviction DNA Testing Result is favorable
to him?
A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus may be filed by the convict/prosecution in the court of
origin, Court of Appeals (or any member thereof), Supreme Court (or any member thereof). The
Court of Appeals/Supreme Court or any member thereof may conduct a hearing thereon or
remand the petition to the court of origin and issue the appropriate orders. If the court finds that
the petition is meritorious, it shall reverse or modify the judgment of conviction and order the

release of the convict, unless continued detention is justified for a lawful cause (A.M. No. 06-11-
5-SC, Sec. 10).
188. When may there be post-conviction DNA testing without need of prior court order?
Post-conviction DNA Testing may be available, without need of prior court order, to the
prosecution or any person convicted by final and executory judgment, provided that: (a) a
biological sample exists; (b) such sample is relevant to the case; and (c) the testing would probably
result in the reversal or modification of the judgment of conviction. (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, Sec. 6).
189. When may the writ of Habeas Corpus be allowed as a Post-Conviction Remedy?
The writ may be allowed as a post-conviction remedy when the proceedings leading to the
conviction were attended by any of the following exceptional circumstances: (1) there was
deprivation a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person; (2) the
court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; (3) the imposed penalty was excessive, thus
voiding the sentence to such access; (4) when the results of the post-conviction DNA testing are
favorable to the convict. (Barredo v. Vinarao, G.R. No. 168728, August 2, 2007; A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC,
Sec 10)
190. When may writ of habeas corpus be availed of in relation to the custody of minors?
Habeas corpus may be resorted to in cases where the rightful custody of a minor is withheld from
the person entitled thereto. In custody cases involving minors, the writ of habeas corpus is
prosecuted for the purpose of determining the right of custody over a child. The grant of the writ
depends on the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) that the petitioner has the right of
custody over the minor; (2) that the rightful custody of the minor is being withheld from the
petitioner by the respondent; and (3) that it is to the best interest of the minor concerned to be in
the custody of petitioner and not that of the respondent. (Masbate v. Relucio, G.R. No. 235498, July
30, 2018).
191. If the petition for writ of habeas corpus is ruled in favor of the petitioner, when shall he
be released?
When the court or judge has examined into the cause of caption and restraint of the prisoner, and
is satisfied that he is unlawfully imprisoned or restrained, he shall forthwith order his discharge
from confinement, but such discharge shall not be effective until a copy of the order has been
served on the officer or person detaining the prisoner. If the officer or person detaining the
prisoner does not desire to appeal, the prisoner shall be forthwith released. (ROC, Rule 102, Sec.
15)
192. FS filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with GY on the ground of
psychological incapacity, praying that she be awarded sole custody of their minor child. FS
also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, praying for the sole custody of the minor child.
Will the petition for habeas corpus prosper?
No, it should be dismissed on the ground of litis pendentia, because there is identity of parties, FS
and GY, identity of rights asserted and reliefs pray for, insofar as who is entitled to the custody
of the minor child, and the identity of the 2 cases is such that the judgment rendered in the petition
for declaration of nullity of marriage case would, regardless of which party is successful, amount
to res judicata in the habeas corpus case. The petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is the
more appropriate action to determine the issue of who between the parties should have custody
over the minor child since the Family Code provides that the final judgment in the nullity of

marriage case shall provide for the custody and support of the children, unless it had already
been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings. (Yu v. Yu, G.R. No. 164915, March 10, 2006)
193. What is the writ of amparo?

The Writ of Amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security
is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or of a private individual or entity. It covers extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances or threats thereof. (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, Sec. 1)
The Rule on the Writ of Amparo is presently confined to cases involving extralegal killings and/or
enforced disappearances, or threats thereof. The indispensable element of government
participation should also be proven by substantial evidence. There must be a showing that the
extralegal killings and/or enforced disappearances, or threats thereof was carried out by, or with
the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State or a political organization. There must be
showing by substantial evidence of direct or indirect government participation in order for the
Rule to apply. (Spouses Santiago v. Tulfo, G.R. No. 205039, October 21, 2015).
194. Who may file a petition for writ of amparo?

A petition for writ of amparo may be filed by the aggrieved party or by any qualified person or
entity in the following order: (1) Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party
namely: the spouse, children and parents of the aggrieved party; (2) Any ascendant, descendant or
collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or
affinity, in default of those mentioned in the preceding number; or (3) Any concerned citizen,
organization, association or institution, if there is no known member of the immediate family or
relative of the aggrieved party.
The filing of the aggrieved party himself suspends the right of all other authorized parties to file
similar petitions. The filing of the petition by an authorized party on behalf of the aggrieved party
suspends the right of all others, observing the foregoing order established. (A.M. 07-9-12-SC, Sec.
2)
195. Where can you file a petition for writ of amparo and where shall be the writ returnable?
Where to File Petition Where Writ is Returnable
RTC of the place where the threat, act or Writ is returnable before such court or judge
omission was committed or any of its
elements occurred
Sandiganbayan or Court of Appeals or any of Writ is returnable before such court or any
its justices justice thereof, or to any RTC of the place
where the threat, act or omission was
committed or any of its elements occurred
Supreme Court or any of its justices Writ is returnable before such court or any
justice thereof, Sandiganbayan or any justice
thereof, CA or any of its justices, or to any RTC
of the place where the threat, act or omission
was committed or any of its elements occurred

(A.M. 07-9-12-SC, Sec. 3)
196. What is the extent of enforceability of the writ of amparo as compared to that of the writ
of habeas corpus?
The writ of amparo is enforceable anywhere in the Philippines, regardless of which court issued
it. (A.M. 07-9-12-SC, Sec. 3)
If the writ of habeas corpus is issued by the Supreme Court, or any member thereof, or the Court
of Appeals, or any member thereof, it shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. If granted
by the RTC, it shall be enforceable within its judicial region. (ROC, Rule 102, Sec. 2)
197. Is there payment of docket fees in a petition for writ of amparo?

No. The Petitioner shall be exempted from payment of docket and other lawful fees (A.M. 07-9-
12-SC, Sec. 4)
198. What are the interim reliefs available in amparo cases?

Temporary Protection Order may be issued upon motion or motu proprio so that the Petitioner
or aggrieved party or any member of the immediate family may be protected in a government
agency or by any accredited person or private institution capable of keeping and securing their
safety. If petitioner is an organization, association or institution, protection may be extended to
officers involved
Inspection order may be issued upon verified motion, stating in detail the place to be inspected
and supported by affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledge of enforced
disappearances or whereabouts of aggrieved party, and after due hearing. The purpose of which
is to permit entry for inspecting, measuring, surveying or photographing the property or any
relevant object or operation thereon. The movant must show inspection order is necessary to
establish the right of the aggrieved party alleged to be threatened or violated. This is also
aavailable to the respondent upon motion, supported by affidavits or testimonies of witnesses
having personal knowledge of the defenses of respondent.
Production Order may be issued upon verified motion and after due hearing to order any person
in possession, custody or control of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
photographs, objects or tangible things or objects in digitized or electronic form, which constitute
or contain evidence relevant to the petition or return, to produce and permit their inspection,
copying or photographing by or on behalf of the movant. The motion may be opposed on the
ground of national security or privileged nature of the information, in which case the hearing
may be conducted in chambers to determine the merit of the opposition. This interim relief is also
aavailable to the respondent upon motion, supported by affidavits or testimonies of witnesses
having personal knowledge of the defenses of respondent (A.M. 07-9-12-SC, Sec. 14)
199. When shall the return in writ of amparo be filed and what should it contain?
Within 5 working days after service of the writ, the respondent shall file a verified written return
together with supporting affidavits which shall, among other things, contain the following:
(a) The lawful defenses to show that the respondent did not violate or threaten with violation the
right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party, through any act or omission;
(b) The steps or actions taken by the respondent to determine the fate or whereabouts of the
aggrieved party and the person or persons responsible for the threat, act or omission;

(c) All relevant information in the possession of the respondent pertaining to the threat, act or
omission against the aggrieved party; and
(d) If the respondent is a public official or employee, the return shall further state the actions that
have been or will still be taken:
(i) to verify the identity of the aggrieved party;
(ii) to recover and preserve evidence related to the death or disappearance of the person
identified in the petition which may aid in the prosecution of the person or persons
responsible;
(iii) to identify witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning the death or
disappearance;
(iv) to determine the cause, manner, location and time of death or disappearance as well as
any pattern or practice that may have brought about the death or disappearance;
(v) to identify and apprehend the person or persons involved in the death or disappearance;
and
(vi) to bring the suspected offenders before a competent court.
The return shall also state other matters relevant to the investigation, its resolution and the
prosecution of the case.
A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed. All defenses shall be raised
in the return, otherwise, they shall be deemed waived. (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, Sec. 9-10)
200. What is the remedy against a judgment in an amparo case?

Any party may appeal from the final judgment or order to the SC under Rule 45 within 5 working
days from the date of notice of the adverse judgment, and the appeal may raise questions of fact
or law or both. (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, Sec. 19)
201. What is the relaxed rule on admissibility of evidence in amparo cases?

It provides that the court will consider all the pieces of evidence adduced in their totality, and
will consider any evidence otherwise inadmissible under our usual rules to be admissible if it is
consistent with the admissible evidence adduced. In other words, rules are reduced to the most
basic test of reason — i.e., to the relevance of the evidence to the issue at hand and its consistency
with all the other pieces of adduced evidence, Thus, even hearsay evidence can be admitted if it
satisfies this minimum test. However, the relaxed rule on admissibility of evidence did not
dispense with the substantial evidence rule. (Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis, G.R. No. 182498, February 16,
2010)
202. The RTC granted the privilege of the writ of amparo, thereby commencing the conduct of
several investigations by the AFP and the PNP to determine the whereabouts and the
circumstances behind the disappearance of A. In its Formal Report submitted to the RTC, the
PNP stated that it encountered problems in gathering evidence, there were no more active
leads to pursue. As a result, the RTC recommended, among others, the archiving of the case,
considering that the ongoing investigation had reached an impasse. Is archiving of the case
proper?
Yes, Archiving of cases is a procedural measure designed to temporarily defer the hearing of
cases in which no immediate action is expected, but where no grounds exist for their outright
dismissal. Under this scheme, an inactive case is kept alive but held in abeyance until the situation
obtains in which action thereon can be taken. The Amparo rule sanctions the archiving of cases,

provided that it is impelled by a valid cause, such as when the witnesses fail to appear due to
threats on their lives or to similar analogous causes that would prevent the court from effectively
hearing and conducting the amparo proceedings (Balao, et.al v. Secretary Ermita, G.R. Nos. 186050
& 186059, August 1, 2017).
203. What is a writ of habeas data?

The Writ of Habeas Data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty
or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of
data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved
party (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC, Sec. 1)
Availment of the writ of habeas data requires the existence of a nexus between the right to privacy
on the one hand, and the right to life, liberty or security on the other.
The existence of a person's right to informational privacy and a showing, at least by substantial
evidence, of an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of
the victim are indispensable before the privilege of the writ may be extended. Without an
actionable entitlement in the first place to the right to informational privacy, a habeas data
petition will not prosper. (Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College G.R. No. 202666 September 29, 2014)
The writ of habeas data is a protection against unlawful acts or omissions of public officials and of
private individuals or entities engaged in gathering, collecting, or storing data about the
aggrieved party and his or her correspondences, or about his or her family. (Vivares v. St. Theresa’s
College G.R. No. 202666 September 29, 2014)
204. What is the meaning of an entity engaged in gathering, collecting, or storing data about
the aggrieved party?
To “engage” in something is different from undertaking a business endeavor. To “engage” means
“to do or take part in something.” It does not necessarily mean that the activity must be done in
pursuit of a business.
What matters is that the person or entity must be gathering, collecting, or storing said data or
information about the aggrieved party or his or her family. Whether such undertaking carries the
element of regularity, as when one pursues a business, and is in the nature of a personal endeavor,
for any other reason or even for no reason at all, is immaterial and such will not prevent the writ
from getting to said person or entity (Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College, G.R. No. 202666, September 29,
2014).
205. Who may file a petition for writ of habeas data?

Petitions for writ of habeas data may be filed by the aggrieved party. But in cases of extralegal
killings and enforced disappearances, may be filed by: (1) Any member of the immediate family
of the aggrieved party, namely: the spouse, children and parents; or (2) Any ascendant,
descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity, in default of those mentioned in the preceding number. (A.M. No. 08-1-
16-SC, Sec. 2)
206. Where can you file a petition for writ of habeas data and where shall be the writ
returnable?

Where to File Petition Where Writ is Returnable
RTC where the petitioner or respondent Writ is returnable before such court
resides, or that which has jurisdiction over the
place where the data or information is
gathered, collected or stored, at the option of
the petitioner
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or When issued by CA/Sandiganbayan or any of

Sandiganbayan where the action concerns its justices, returnable before such court or any
public data files of the government justice thereof, or to any RTC where the
petitioner or respondent resides, or that which
has jurisdiction over the place where the data
or information is gathered, collected or stored
When issued by the SC or any of its justices,
returnable before such court or any justice
thereof, or before the CA /Sandiganbayan or
any of its justices, or to any RTC where the
petitioner or respondent resides, or that which
has jurisdiction over the place where the data
or information is gathered, collected or stored
(A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC, Sec. 3-4)
207. What is the scope of enforceability of the writ of habeas data?

The writ is enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC, Sec. 4)
208. Is there payment of docket fees in habeas data cases?
Yes, unless the petitioner is an indigent, in which case, no docket and other lawful fees shall be
required from an indigent petitioner. (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC, Sec. 5)
209. When can there be hearing in chambers in habeas data cases?

A hearing in chambers may be conducted where the respondent invokes the defense that the
release of the data or information shall compromise national security or state secrets, or when the
data or information cannot be divulged to the public due to its nature or privileged character
(A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC, Sec. 12)
210. Define Environmental Protection Order (EPO) and Temporary Environmental Protection
Order (TEPO)
An EPO refers to an order issued by the court directing or enjoining any person or government
agency to perform or desist from performing an act in order to protect, preserve or rehabilitate
the environment. The TEPO is issued if it appears from the verified complaint with prayer for
issuance of EPO that the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice
and irreparable injury. The applicant shall be exempted from the posting of a bond for the
issuance of a TEPO. (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, Rule 1, Sec. 4 (d); Rule 2, Sec. 8).
211. What is the period of effectivity of the TEPO?

A TEPO issued ex parte is effective only for 72 hours from the date of receipt of the TEPO by the
party or person enjoined. Within said period, the court where the case is assigned, shall conduct
a summary hearing to determine whether the TEPO may be extended until the termination of the
case.

The court where the case is assigned shall periodically monitor the existence of acts that are the
subject matter of the TEPO even if issued by the executive judge, and may lift the same at any
time as circumstances may warrant. (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, Rule 2, Sec. 8).
212. What is the precautionary principle in environmental cases?

It states that when human activities may lead to threats of serious and irreversible damage to the
environment that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or
diminish that threat. (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, Rule 1, Sec. 4, par. [f]).
213. What is Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)?

It refers to an action whether civil, criminal or administrative, brought against any person,
institution or any government agency or local government unit or its officials and employees,
with the intent to harass, vex, exert undue pressure or stifle any legal recourse that such person,
institution or government agency has taken or may take in the enforcement of environmental
laws, protection of the environment, or assertion of environmental rights (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC,
Rule 1, Sec. 4, par. [g]).
214. May TRO or writ of preliminary injunction be issued in environmental cases?

Yes. However, except the Supreme Court, no court can issue a TRO or writ of preliminary
injunction against lawful actions of government agencies that enforce environmental laws or
prevent violations thereof.
The judge shall report any action taken on a TRO or a preliminary injunction, including its
modification and dissolution to the Supreme Court, through the Office of the court administrator,
within 10 days from the action taken. (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, Rule 2, Sec. 10-11)
215. May judgments in environmental cases be stayed by appeal?

If the judgment directs the performance of acts for the protection, preservation or rehabilitation
of the environment, it shall be executory pending appeal, unless restrained by the appellate court.
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, Rule 5, Sec. 2)
216. What is the writ of kalikasan?

The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, people’s
organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest group accredited by or
registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental
damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in 2 or more
cities or provinces. A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, Rule 7, Sec. 1)
217. Where may you file a petition for writ of kalikasan?

The verified petition may be filed with the SC or with any of the stations of the CA, where the
petitioner shall be exempt from the payment of docket fees. (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, Rule 7, Sec. 2-4)
218. What are the requisites for the writ of kalikasan to issue?
For a writ of kalikasan to issue, the following requisites must concur: (1) there is an actual or
threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology; (2) the actual

or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee,
or private individual or entity; and (3) the actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to
an environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of
inhabitants in 2 or more cities or provinces. (LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. v. Agham Party List,
G.R. No. 209165, 12 April 2016)
219. Why is a petition for writ of kalikasan in the nature of a citizen suit
It may be filed by any Filipino citizen, in representation of others, including minors or generations
yet unborn, to enforce rights or obligations under environmental laws. A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, Rule
2, Sec. 5)
220. What should be alleged in the return of the writ of kalikasan?

The verified return must contain all the respondent’s defenses, that show that respondent did not
violate, threaten to violate, allow the violation of any environmental rule or regulation or commit
ay act resulting to environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or
property of inhabitants in 2 or more cities or provinces.
All defense not raised shall be waived.
The return should include the affidavits of witnesses, documentary evidence, scientific or other
expert studies, and if possible, object evidence in support of the defense of the respondent. A.M.
No. 09-6-8-SC, Rule 7, Sec. 8)
221. What is the effect of failure to file the return for the writ of kalikasan?
Respondent shall not be declared in default for a motion to declare respondent in default is a
prohibited motion. The court shall instead proceed to hear the petition ex parte. (A.M. No. 09-6-
8-SC, Rule 7, Sec. 10)
222. What are the discovery measures in kalikasan cases?

These are: Ocular inspection order and production order for the production or inspection of
documents or things. In both instances, there will be a hearing on the motions (A.M. No. 09-6-8-
SC, Rule 7, Sec. 12)
223. May there be award for damages in kalikasan?

The court cannot grant an award of damages to individual petitioners and instead, may grant
any of the following reliefs under the writ of kalikasan: (a) directing the respondent to
permanently cease and desist from committing acts or neglecting the performance of a duty in
violation of environmental laws resulting in environmental destruction or damage; (b) directing
the respondent public official, government agency, private person or entity to protect, preserve,
rehabilitate or restore the environment; (c) directing the respondent public official, government
agency, private person or entity to monitor strict compliance with the decision and orders of the
court; (d) directing the respondent public official, government agency, or private person or entity
to make periodic reports on the execution of the final judgment; and (e) such other reliefs which
relate to the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology or to the protection,
preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of the environment. (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, Rule 7, Sec. 15)
224. What is the remedy after the motion for reconsideration of judgment in kalikasan is
denied?

The adverse party may appeal to the Supreme Court under Rule 45, within 15 days from notice,
and it can involve both questions of law and fact. (Paje v. Casino, G.R. No. 207257, 3 February 2015.
225. What is a writ of continuing mandamus?

It is a remedy that may be applied for when any agency or instrumentality of the government or
officer thereof unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as
a duty resulting from an office, trust or station in connection with the enforcement or violation of
an environmental rule or regulation or a right therein, or unlawfully excludes another from the
use or enjoyment of such right and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law (A.M. No, 09-6-8-SC, Rule 8, Sec 1)
To prosper, there must be showing of unlawful neglect on the part of respondents to perform any
act that the law specifically enjoins as a duty (Segovia v. Climate Change Commission, G.R. No.
211010, March 7, 2017)
226. Which courts have jurisdiction over petitions for writ of continuing mandamus?
The petition may be filed in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or RTC exercising Jurisdiction
over the territory where the actionable neglect or omission occurred. (A.M. No, 09-6-8-SC, Rule 8,
Sec 3)
227. Is there payment of filing fees in petitions for writ of continuing mandamus?
No. Petitioner shall be exempt from the payment of docket fees (A.M. No, 09-6-8-SC, Rule 8, Sec 3)
228. May there be an award for damages in petitions for writ of continuing mandamus?
Yes. The court may render judgment directing payment of damages sustained by petitioner by
reason of the malicious neglect to perform the duties of the respondent under the law, rules or
regulations (A.M. No, 09-6-8-SC, Rule 8, Sec 1)
229. How shall the judgment be enforced in petitions for writ of continuing mandamus?
After the judgment becomes final, the court retains jurisdiction to ensure the government agency
concerned is performing its tasks as mandated by law and to monitor the effective performance
thereof. The court shall require respondent to submit periodic reports detailing the progress and
execution of the judgment. The court may, by itself or through a commissioner or appropriate
government agency, evaluate and monitor compliance. Periodic reports shall be contained in
partial returns of the writ. The Petitioner may submit comments or observations on the execution
of the judgment (A.M. No, 09-6-8-SC, Rule 8, Sec 7-8)
230. What is the mode of appeal in continuing mandamus cases?

It is by Rule 45 to the Supreme Court. (Dolot v. Paje, G.R. No. 199199, August 27, 2013)
231. Distinguish executive from judicial determination of probable cause in relation to

issuance of warrants of arrest.
The executive determination of probable cause is one made during preliminary investigation. It
is a function that properly pertains to the public prosecutor who is given a broad discretion to
determine whether probable cause exists and to charge those whom he believes to have
committed the crime as defined by law and thus should be held for trial or whether a criminal
case must be filed in court.

The judicial determination of probable cause is one made by the judge to ascertain whether a
warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused. The judge must satisfy himself that based
on the evidence submitted, there is necessity for placing the accused under custody in order not
to frustrate the ends of justice. If the judge finds no probable cause, the judge cannot be forced to
issue the arrest warrant. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly
fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall immediately issue a warrant
of arrest or a commitment order if the accused has already been arrested. In case of doubt on the
existence of probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence
within 5 days from notice and the issue must be resolved by the court within 30 days from the
filing of the complaint or information,
The public prosecutor exercises a wide latitude of discretion in determining whether a criminal
case should be filed in court, and that courts must respect the exercise of such discretion when
the information filed against the person charged is valid on its face, and that no manifest error or
grave abuse of discretion can be imputed to the public prosecutor. Thus, courts do not meddle
with the prosecutor's conduct of a preliminary investigation because it is exclusively within the
prosecutor's discretion, unless there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
However, once the information is already filed in court, the court has acquired jurisdiction of the
case. Any motion to dismiss or determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused is within
the court’s discretion. (Corpus, Jr. v. Pamular, G.R. No. 186403, September 5, 2018; Philippine Deposit
Insurance Corporation v. Gidwani, G.R. No. 234616, June 20, 2018; J. Leonen)
232. When may there be preliminary investigation?

Except when there is a warrantless arrest where an inquest is instead conducted, a preliminary
investigation is required to be conducted before the filing of complaint or information for an
offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least 4 years, 2 months and 1 day, without regard
to the fine. (ROC, Rule 112, Sec. 1)
However, in case of a warrantless arrest, before a complaint or information is filed, the person
arrested may ask for a preliminary investigation provided he signs a waiver of the provisions of
Article 125 of the RPC, in the presence of his counsel. Any waiver by a person arrested or detained
under the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation,
shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver
shall be null and void and of no effect.
Likewise, after the filing of the complaint or information in court without a preliminary
investigation, in case of a warrantless arrest, the accused may, within 5 days from the time he
learns of the filing, ask for a preliminary investigation with the same right to adduce evidence in
his defense. (ROC, Rule 112, Sec. 6; RA 7438, Sec. 2(e))
234. When may there be a formal amendment of the complaint or information?

It may be done before accused enters his plea, without leave of court. After plea the plea and
during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of court, and when it can be
done without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused. (ROC, Rule 110, Sec. 14)
235. When may there be a substantial amendment of the complaint or information?

It may be done before accused enters his plea, without leave of court, except if the amendment
downgrades the nature of the offense charged in or excludes any accused from the complaint or
information, in which case, it may only be done by motion of the prosecutor, with notice to
offended party, and with leave of court. (ROC, Rule 110, Sec. 14)
While as a rule, substantial amendments are only allowed before accused enters his plea, by
exception the Supreme Court allowed a substantial amendment of downgrading an offense from
murder to homicide after the accused entered his plea, since it benefitted the accused and the
amendment did not deprive him of defenses available before the amendment. (People v. Janairo,
G.R. No. 129254, 22 July 1999)
236. What is a substitution of a complaint or information?

There may be substitution of complaint or information if it appears at any time before judgment
that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense, and the accused cannot be convicted
of the offense charged or any other offense necessarily included therein, in which case, the court
shall dismiss the original complaint or information upon the filing of a new one charging the
proper offense, provided the accused would not be placed in double jeopardy.
The accused shall not be discharged if there appears good cause to detain him. The court shall
commit the accused to answer for the proper offense and dismiss the original case upon the filing
of the proper information (ROC, Rules 110, Sec. 14; 119, Sec. 19)
237. What are the elements of a prejudicial question?

The elements are: (1) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately
related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action; and (2) the resolution of such issue
determines whether the criminal action may proceed (ROC, Rule 111, Sec. 7)
238. When may there be a valid warrantless arrest?

A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (1) when, in his
presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense (In Flagrante delicto arrest); (2) when An offense has just been committed and
he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the
person to be arrested has committed it (hot pursuit arrest); and (3) when the person to be arrested
is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or is temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another (ROC,
Rule 113, Sec. 5)
239. What is the overt act test?

It is the test to determine the validity of an in flagrante delicto arrest. Two elements must concur:
(1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he or she has just committed,
is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) that such overt act is done in
the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. An in flagrante delicto arrest that does not
comply with the overt act test is constitutionally infirm (Duropan v. People, G.R. No. 230825,
June 10, 2020, J. Leonen)
240. Should the officer making the arrest be in possession of the warrant of arrest issued to
make a valid arrest with a warrant?

No. It need not be in the possession of the officer at time of arrest, but after the arrest, if the person
arrested so requires, the warrant shall be shown to him as soon as practicable (ROC, Rule 113, Sec.
7)
241. What is the period of enforceability of a warrant of arrest?

It is enforceable indefinitely until it is enforced or recalled. No period is provided for the
enforceability of warrants of arrest, and although within 10 days from the delivery of the warrant
of arrest for execution, a return thereon must be made to the issuing judge, it does not become
functus officio. (Malaloan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104879, 6 May 1994)
242. May there be a valid extrajudicial confession during custodial investigation?

Yes, provided that it be in writing, signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the
latter’s absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, elder brothers and
sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest
or minister of the gospel as chosen by him. Otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be
inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding (RA 7438, Sec. 2(d))
Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised
Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such person in the
presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null and void and of no effect. (RA 7438,
Sec. 2(e))
243. When is bail a matter of right and a matter of discretion?

Bail is a matter of right before or after conviction by the inferior or first level courts, and before
conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment. If the offense involved is punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, and the evidence of guilt is not strong, bail becomes a matter of right.
Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. If the court imposed a penalty of imprisonment
exceeding 6 years but not more than 20 years, bail is a matter of discretion, except when any of
the enumerated circumstances under paragraph 3, Section 5, Rule 114 is present, then bail shall
be denied. If all the circumstances under paragraph 3, Section 5, Rule 114 are absent, bail does not
become a matter of right and remains discretionary on the court.
When the accused is charged with an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, and the evidence of guilt is strong, bail shall be denied as it is neither a matter of
right nor of discretion. (Padilla v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121917, July 31, 1996; Leviste v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 189122, 17 March 2010)
244. When may a person be released even without bail?

When a person has been in custody for a period equal to or more than the possible maximum
imprisonment prescribed for the offense charged, he shall be released immediately, without
prejudice to the continuation of the trial or the proceedings on appeal. If the maximum penalty
to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after 30 days of
preventive imprisonment (ROC, Rule 114, Sec. 16)
243. Give an instance when a detained person may be released on reduced bail or recognizance.

A person in custody for a period of equal to or more than the minimum of the principal penalty
prescribed for the offense charged, without application of the ISL or any modifying
circumstances, shall be released on a reduced bail or on his own recognizance, at the discretion
of the court (ROC, Rule 114, Sec. 16)
244. May there be bail after finality of a judgment of conviction?

As a rule, no bail shall be allowed after judgment of conviction has become final.
By exception, if before such finality, the accused applies for probation, he may be allowed
temporary liberty under his bail. When no bail was filed or accused is incapable of filing one, the
court may allow his release on recognizance to the custody of a responsible member of the
community
In no case shall bail be allowed after the accused has commenced to serve sentence (ROC, Rule
114, Sec. 24)
245. How can there be a plea of guilty to a lesser offense?
At the arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, may
be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in
the offense charged. If the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the
prosecutor and the offended party, the conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to another
prosecution for an offense which necessarily include the offense charged in the former complaint
or information.
By exception, if the offended party fails to appear at the arraignment despite due notice, the court
may allow the accused to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included
in the offense charged with the conformity of the trial prosecutor alone.
After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to plead guilty to said lesser
offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty.
No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary. (ROC, Rule 116, Sec. 1(f) and 2; Rule
117, Sec. 7(c))
246. What are the duties of a court when an accused enters a plea of guilty to a capital offense?
When an accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court is required to accomplish 3 things:
(1) to conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of the accused's plea; (2) to require the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused
and the precise degree of his culpability; and (3) to inquire whether or not the accused wishes to
present evidence on his behalf and allow him to do so if he so desires. This procedure is
mandatory, and a judge who fails to observe it commits a grave abuse of discretion (People v.
Dayot, G.R. No. 88281, July 20, 1990)
247. What is the effect of sustaining a motion to quash?

If the motion to quash is granted, the court may order that another complaint or information be
filed, unless the motion to quash was based on the ground that: (1) the criminal action or liability
has been extinguished; or (2) the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the

offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his
express consent, in which cases the order sustaining the motion to quash shall be a bar to another
prosecution for the same offense. (ROC, Rule 117, Sec. 5)
248. What is the effect of a failure to raise grounds for a motion to quash before the accused
pleads?
The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the
complaint or information, either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the
same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections except those based on the
following: (1) the facts charged d not constitute an offense; (2) the court trying the case has no
jurisdiction over the offense charged; (3) the criminal action or liability has been extinguished; (4)
the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against
him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent; and (5) the officer who
filed the information had no authority to do so (ROC, Rule 117, Sec. 9; Villa v. Ibanez, 88 Phil. 402
(1951); People v. Garfin, G.R. No. 153176, 29 March 2004)
249. What is double jeopardy?

When an accused has been convicted or acquitted or the case against him dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent, by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid
complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a
conviction, after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the conviction, acquittal or dismissal shall
be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or
frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the
offense charged in the former complaint or information (ROC, Rule 117, Sec. 7)
250. When may the conviction of the accused not be a bar to another prosecution for an offense
which necessarily includes the offense charged in the former complaint or information?
The conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution for an offense which
necessarily includes the offense charged in the former complaint or information, under any of the
following circumstances: (1) The graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from
the same act or omission constituting the former charge; (2) The facts constituting the graver
charge became known or where discovered only after a plea was entered in the former complaint
of information; or (3) The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the
prosecutor and of the offended party, except as provide in Section 1(f) Rule 116, specifically, when
the offended party fails to appear at the arraignment despite due notice, the court may allow the
accused to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense
charged with the conformity of the trial prosecutor alone.
In any of the foregoing cases, where the accused satisfies or serves in whole or in part the
judgment, he shall be credited with the same in the event of conviction for the graver offense
251. When can there be a provisional dismissal?

It occurs when there is a dismissal with the express consent of the accused and with notice to the
offended party (ROC, Rule 118, Sec. 8)
However, a dismissal on the ground of the denial of the accused’s right to a speedy trial, with the
consent of the accused, will not have the effect of a provisional dismissal but will have the effect

of acquittal that would bar further prosecution of the accused for the same offense. (Saldariega v.
Panganiban, G.R. Nos. 211933 and 211960, April 15, 2015).
When the delays are due to the absence of an essential witness whose whereabouts are unknown
or cannot be determined and are subject to exclusion in determining compliance with the
prescribed time limits which caused the trial court to exceed 180 days, the court shall
provisionally dismiss the action with the express consent of the detained accused (A.M. No. 12-
11-2-SC, Sec. 10(a))
When the delays are due to the absence of an essential witness whose presence cannot be obtained
by due diligence though his whereabouts are known, the court shall provisionally dismiss the
action with the express consent of the detained accused, provided:
(1) Hearing is previously twice postponed due to non-appearance of essential witness and
both the witness and offended party, if they are 2 different persons, have been given notice
of the setting of the case for the third hearing, which notice contains a warning that the
case would be dismissed if the essential witness continues to be absent; and
(2) There is proof of service of pertinent notices of hearings or subpoenas upon the essential
witness and the offended party at their last known postal or e-mail addresses or mobile
phone numbers (A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC, Sec. 10(b))
252. When will a provisional dismissal become permanent?

A provisional dismissal of an offense punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 6 years or a fine
of any amount or both shall become permanent 1 year after issuance of the order without the case
having been revived. A provisional dismissal of an offense punishable by imprisonment of more
than 6 years shall become permanent 2 years after issuance of the order without the case having
been revived (ROC, Rule 117, Sec. 8)
253. When may an accused be discharged as a state witness under Rule 119, Sec. 17?
When 2 or more persons ae jointly charged with the commission of any offense, upon motion of
the prosecution, before resting its case, the court may direct one or more of the accused to be
discharged with their consent so that they may be witnesses for the state when, after requiring
the prosecution to present evidence and the sworn statement of each proposed state witness at a
hearing in support of the discharge the court is satisfied that: (1) There is absolute necessity for
the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested; (2) There is no other direct evidence
available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said
accused; (3) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points;
(4) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and (5) Said accused has not at any time
been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude (ROC, Rule 119, Sec. 17).
254. What is the effect of a discharge of an accused as a state witness under Rule 119, Sec. 17?
The order amounts to an acquittal of the discharged accused and it shall be a bar to future
prosecution for the same offense, unless accused fails or refuses to testify against the co-accused
in accordance with his sworn statement constituting the basis for his discharge (ROC, Rule 119,
Sec. 18)
255. When may there be a demurrer to evidence in criminal cases?

After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency
of evidence on its own initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be heard or upon
demurrer to evidence filed by the accused, with or without leave of court.
266. What are the effects of the grant or denial of demurrer to evidence, and the denial of a
motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence?
If the demurrer is granted, with or without leave of court, it results in the acquittal of the accused.
If the demurrer with leave of court is denied, the accused may adduce evidence in his defense. If
the demurrer without leave of court is denied, the accused waives right to present evidence and
submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the prosecution
The order denying motion for leave of court to file demurrer or the demurrer itself shall not be
reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment. However, by exception, when the denial
of the demurrer is tainted with grave abuse of discretion as when the demurrer to evidence was
denied despite the absence of competent and sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment and
despite the absence of factual bases to expect a guilty verdict. In the absence of the foregoing
circumstances, the proper remedy is to proceed to presentation of accused’s evidence, if the
demurrer was with leave of court, or to later on appeal the judgment of conviction rendered, if
the demurrer was without leave of court. (Arroyo v. People, G.R. No. 220598, April 18, 2017).
267. What should be the ruling when there is variance between offense charged in
complaint/information and that proved, and the offense charged is included or necessarily
includes the offense proved?
The accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or
the offense charged, which is included in the offense proved (ROC, Rule 120, Sec. 4)
268. Is it correct to say that the absence of the accused during promulgation of judgment is
always prejudicial to him?
No. As a general rule, the judgment is promulgated in the presence of the accused, except if: (a)
the conviction is for a light offense, in which case the judgment may be pronounced in the
presence of his counsel or representative; or (b) the judgment is for acquittal, in which case the
presence of the accused is not necessary. There is no prejudice to the accused in such exceptions.
If the judgment is for conviction and the accused fails to appear without justifiable cause, he shall
lose the remedies available in the rules against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest.
If the absence is justifiable, the accused has 15 days from promulgation of judgment within which
to surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of said remedies, stating in the motion
the reasons for his absence. If accused proves that his absence was for a justifiable cause, then he
shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within 15 days from notice. (ROC, Rule 120, Sec. 6; Pascua
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140243, December 14, 2000)
269. What is probation?

Probation is a disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released
subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer (PD 968,
Sec. 3) Subject to the provisions of the Decree, the trial court may, after it shall have convicted and
sentenced a defendant for a probationable penalty and upon application by said defendant within

the period for perfecting an appeal, suspend the execution of the sentence and place the defendant
on probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it may deem best.
Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine only.
The filing of the application shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal. An order granting
or denying probation shall not be appealable.
The benefits of Probation shall not be extended to those: (a) sentenced to serve a maximum term
of imprisonment of more than 6 years; (b) convicted of any offense against national security; (c)
who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment
of not less than 6 months and 1 day and/or a fine of not less than Php1,000.00; (d) who have been
once on probation; and (e) who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions
of this Decree became applicable (RA 10707, Sec. 1-2)
270. May there be probation after appeal?

No application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the
appeal from the judgment of conviction.
However, when a judgment of conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty is appealed or

reviewed, and such judgment is modified through the imposition of a probationable penalty, the
defendant shall be allowed to apply for probation based on the modified decision before such
decision becomes final. The application for probation based on the modified decision shall be
filed in the trial court where the judgment of conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty
was rendered, or in the trial court where such case has since been re-raffled. The trial court shall,
upon receipt of the application filed, suspend the execution of the sentence imposed in the
judgment. This notwithstanding, the accused shall lose the benefit of probation should he seek a
review of the modified decision which already imposes a probationable penalty. (RA 10707, Sec.
1)
277. Are all warrantless searches invalid?

Not all warrantless searches are invalid. The constitution prohibits unreasonable searches. There
may be valid warrantless searches such as: customs searches, searches of moving vehicles, seizure
of evidence in plain view, consented searches,” stop and frisk" measures and searches incidental
to a lawful arrest. (Martinez y Goco v. People, G.R. No. 198694, February 13, 2013)
278. The lawful occupant was in the premises of the house to be searched for drugs, pursuant
to a search warrant. In implementing the search warrant, the police directed the lawful
occupant and his relatives to stay instead in the living room while they conducted the search
and confiscation of drugs in the other areas of the house in the presence of 2 witnesses of
sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. Is this valid? What is its effect?
NO. Section 8, Rule 126 is a mandatory rule and preventing the lawful occupant or a member of
his family from actually witnessing the searching and choosing instead 2 other witnesses to
observe the search taints the search with the vice of unreasonableness, rendering the seized
articles inadmissible due to the application of the exclusionary rule or for being the fruit of the
poisonous tree. Since the drugs are the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, the accused must
be acquitted. (Bulauitan y Mauayan v. People, G.R. No. 218891, September 19, 2016)

279. X was standing around with a companion and handing over something to the latter. The
police stopped and frisked X and seized shabu from him. Are the drugs admissible in
evidence?
NO. The acts do not constitute criminal acts and do not create a reasonable inference of criminal
activity which would constitute a genuine reason for a police officer to conduct a "stop and frisk"
search. There being no valid warrantless arrest nor a valid stop and frisk search, the shabu seized
is inadmissible in evidence for being the fruit of the poisonous tree. (Comerciante y Gonzales v.
People, G.R. No. 205926, July 22, 2015)
280. A went to the police station to report B regarding a mauling incident. A also reported that
B was illegally planting marijuana. The police and A proceeded to B’s home and arrested B as
he was walking the trail leading towards his house, after A identified B. After the arrest, the
police found marijuana plants planted beneath the gabi plants outside B’s home and a meter
away from where he was arrested. Upon seeing the marijuana plants, the police called the
barangay captain and a representative of the farmer’s association to witness the uprooting of
the marijuana plants, which were taken to the police station for marking and inventory, in the
presence of said witnesses. The plants were tested positive for marijuana. B objected to the
admissibility of the plants as they were allegedly not validly seized. Are the plants admissible
in evidence?
NO. The plants were illegally seized without a warrant and are inadmissible in evidence against
B for being fruits of the poisonous tree. When the police officers proceeded to B’s home, they were
already they were already alerted to the fact that there could possibly be marijuana plants in the
area. The discovery of the plants was not inadvertent and the seizure thereof cannot fall under
the plain view doctrine. The seizure of evidence in plain view applies only where the police
officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but inadvertently comes across an
incriminating object. The police proceeded to B's home, not only to arrest him for the mauling
incident, but also to verify A's report that B was illegally planting marijuana. The seized
marijuana plants are inadmissible in evidence against Acosta for being fruits of the poisonous
tree. (People v. Acosta, G.R. No. 238865, January 28, 2019)
281. X was arrested without a warrant. The police then conducted an initial cursory body search
on X, and nothing was found in his person. After X was brought to the police station, the police
conducted another thorough search on the person of X which yielded 5 sachets of shabu. Is the
shabu admissible in evidence?
NO. The shabu was obtained on the second search, after a substantial amount of time had elapsed
from the time of the arrest, and at a place other than the venue of the place of actual arrest. The
lawful search as an incident of a lawful arrest was done during the first search, where no shabu
was found. The subsequent search was unlawful and unreasonable. The shabu is inadmissible in
evidence pursuant to the exclusionary rule. (Vaporoso v. People, G.R. No. 238659, June 3, 2019)
282. May the failure to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule still sustain a finding of
guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
Yes. The failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over
the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is
justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved.

RA 10640, amending RA 9165, provides that the inventory and photography may be conducted
at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team in instances of warrantless seizure,
and that non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, — under
justifiable grounds — will not render void and invalid the seizure and custody over the seized
items so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by
the apprehending officer or team. For the exception to apply, the prosecution must explain the
reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
evidence had nonetheless been preserved. The justifiable ground for non-compliance must be
proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even
exist. Prosecutors have the positive duty to prove compliance. They must have the initiative to
not only acknowledge but also justify any perceived deviations from the said procedure during
the proceedings before the trial court. (People v. Delociembre y Andales, G.R. No. 226485, June 6,
2018)
283. A buy bust operation was done by the PDEA at 8:00 pm. Briefing for this started as early
as 2:30 pm of the same day. The marking and inventory was done in the presence of the
accused, an elected official but without the presence of a representative from the DOJ and the
media. When asked why there was no signatures in the space provided for the representative
of the DOJ and media, the police testified that there was no media available because it was
already past office hours. Is this sufficient justification to warrant exception to chain of
custody rule?
No. The PDEA had hours to spare from the time of briefing to implementation of buy bust
operation (2:30 to 8:00 pm). They could have used that time to secure the presence of
representatives from the DOJ and the media who would have accompanied them in the conduct
of the inventory and photography of the items to be seized from Ramos on account of the buy-
bust. There was no justifiable reason for the failure to comply and no showing of any genuine
and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses.
Prosecution must show earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives
enumerated under the law. A sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so
much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other
representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse. Mere statements of
unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable
as justified grounds for non-compliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police
officers are ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they have received the
information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest — to prepare for a buy-
bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing full
well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of
RA 9165. Police officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their non-compliance, but
must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the
mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were
reasonable. (People v. Ramos y Cabanatan, G.R. No. 233744, February 28, 2018)
284. May inadmissibility of evidence be waived?

Yes. The right to object is a privilege which the parties may waive; and if the ground for objection
is known and not seasonably made, the objection is deemed waived and the Court has no power,
on its own motion, to disregard the evidence. (People v. Yatco, G.R. No. L-9181, November 28, 1955)

285. What is the exclusionary rule under the constitution?
To protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures, Section 3 (2), Article III of
the Constitution provides an exclusionary rule which instructs that evidence obtained and
confiscated on the occasion of such unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed tainted and
should be excluded for being the fruit of a poisonous tree. Evidence obtained from unreasonable
searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.
(Comerciante y Gonzales v. People, G.R. No. 205926, July 22, 2015)
286. Distinguish Burden of Proof from Burden of Evidence.

Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to
establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. It never shifts. Burden
of evidence is the duty of a party to present evidence to establish or rebut a fact in issue or to
establish a prima facie case. It may shift from one party to the other in the course of the
proceedings, depending on the exigencies of the case. (ROC, Rule 131, Sec. 1)
287. What is judicial notice?

It is the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act on without proof
because they already know them. (Republic v. Science Park of the Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 237714,
November 12, 2018)
Its object is to save time, labor and expense in securing and introducing evidence on matters that
are not ordinarily capable of dispute or actually bona fide disputed, and the tenor of which can
safely be assumed from the tribunal's general knowledge or from a slight search on its part.
Habagat Grill v. DMC-Urban Property Developer Inc., G.R. No. 155110, March 31, 2005)
288. May the appellate court consider theories or arguments raised for the first time on appeal?
Generally, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court will not
be considered by a reviewing court, except when their factual bases would not require
presentation of any further evidence by the adverse party in order to enable him to properly meet
the issue raised, such as when the factual bases of such novel theory, issue or argument
is (a) subject of judicial notice; or (b) had already been judicially admitted. (Borromeo v. Mina, G.R.
No. 193747, June 5, 2013)
289. What is documentary evidence?

Documents as evidence consist of writings, recording, photographs or any material containing
letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, or their equivalent, or other modes of written
expressions offered as proof of their contents. Photographs include still pictures, drawings, stored
images, x-ray films, motion pictures or videos (ROC, Rule 130, Sec. 2).
290. What is an original document?

It is the document itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by a person executing
or issuing it. An “original” of a photograph includes the negative or any print therefrom. If data
is stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight or other
means, shown to reflect the data accurately, is an “original” (ROC, Rule 130 Sec. 4(a)).
291. What is a Duplicate of a document?

It is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or
by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic

re- recording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately
reproduce the original (ROC, Rule 130, Sec. 4(b)).
292. Are duplicates admissible in evidence?

Yes. A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original unless (1) genuine question is
raised as to the authenticity of the original, or (2) in the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable
to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original (ROC, Rule 130, Sec. 4(c)).
293. What is the original document rule and what are its exceptions?
The original document rule provides that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
document, writing, recording, photograph or other record, no evidence is admissible other than
the original document itself (ROC, Rule 130, Sec. 3). The rule is not absolute and admits of the
following exceptions:
(1) When the original is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith
on the part of the offeror;
(2) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the
evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice, or the original
cannot be obtained by local judicial processes and procedures;
(3) when the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be
examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them
is only the general result of the whole;
(4) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a
public office; and
(5) When the original is not closely-related to the controlling issue. (ROC, Rule 130, Sec. 3)
294. What is the parol evidence rule and its exceptions?

The Parol Evidence Rule provides that when the terms of an agreement have been reduced to
writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, as between the
parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the
written agreement.
However, by exception, a party may present evidence to modify, explain or add to the terms of
the written agreement if he puts in issue in a verified pleading: (a) an intrinsic ambiguity, mistake
or imperfection in the written instrument; (b) the failure of the written agreement to express the
true intent and agreement of the parties thereto; (c) the validity of the written agreement; or (d)
the existence of other terms agreed to by the parties or their successors in interest after the
execution of the written agreement. (ROC, Rule 130, Sec.10).
295.What is the marital disqualification rule and what are its exceptions?
It provides that during the marriage, the husband or wife cannot testify against the other without
the consent of the affected spouse. Its exceptions ae: (1) when there is the consent of the spouse
against whom testimony is to be made; (2) in a civil case by one against the other; and (3) in
criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or
ascendants (ROC, Rule 130, Sec. 23)
296. What is the marital privileged communication rule and what are its exceptions?
It provides that the husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined
without the consent of the other, as to any communication received in confidence by one from

the other during the marriage. Its exceptions are: (1) when there is consent of the other spouse;
(2) in a Civil case by one against the other; and (3) in a criminal case for a crime committed by one
against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants (ROC, Rule 130, Sec. 24(a))
297. What is the principle of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet?
The principle of res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet means that “things done between
strangers ought not to injure those who are not parties to them” (Dynamic Signmaker Outdoor
Advertising Services, Inc., et al. v. Potongan, G.R. No. 156589, June 27, 2005).
This rule provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
omission of another. Consequently, an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant
and not admissible against his or her co-accused because it is considered as hearsay against them
(People v. Cachuela, G.R. No. 191752, June 10, 2013).
The rule, however, admits of exceptions: (1) admission by co-partner or agent; (2) act or
declaration of a joint owner, joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party; (3)
admission by conspirator; (4) admission by privies; and (5) admission by silence. (ROC, Rule 130,
Sec. 30-33)
298. How may the act or extrajudicial declaration of a conspirator be admissible against the co-
conspirator?
In order that the admission of a conspirator may be received against his co-conspirator, it is
necessary that (a) the conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself; (b)
the admission relates to the common object; and (c) it has been made while the declarant was
engaged in carrying out the conspiracy. (People v. Tena, G.R. No. 100909, 21 October 1992)
If the foregoing requisites are not present, does this mean that the extrajudicial confession will
be inadmissible?
No. Although not admissible against the co-conspirators, it is still against the confessant. (People
v. Palijon, G.R. No. 123545, 18 October 2000)
An accused testified in open court implicating his co-accused. Is this inadmissible because the
declaration was not made during the existence of the conspiracy?
No, it is admissible. The requisites for admissibility of statements of a conspirator against co-
conspirators under Sec. 31, Rule 130 only apply to extrajudicial declarations, where the
conspirators have no opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. A judicial confession is
admissible against the declarant's co-accused since the latter are afforded opportunity to cross-
examine the former. The co-accused’s admission implicating his co-accused was given on the
witness stand. where several accused are tried together for the same offense, the testimony of a
co-accused implicating his co-accused is competent evidence against the latter. (People v. Palijon,
G.R. No. 123545, 18 October 2000)
290. When is a statement hearsay and when is it not considered hearsay?

Hearsay is a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at a trial or
hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein. A statement is (1) an oral
or written assertion or (2) a non-verbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by him or her
as an assertion. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible except as otherwise provided in these
Rule.

A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to
cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (a) inconsistent with
the declarant's testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a
trial hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition; (b) consistent with the declarant's
testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of
recent fabrication or improper influence or motive; or (c) one of identification of a person
made after perceiving him or her. (ROC, Rule 130, Sec. 37)
291. What is an independently relevant statement?

Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, regardless of their truth or falsity, the
fact that such statements have been made is relevant. The hearsay rule does not apply, and the
statements are admissible as evidence. Evidence as to the making of such statement is not
secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or be circumstantially
relevant as to the existence of such a fact. (Buenaflor Car Services, Inc. v. David, Jr., G.R. No. 222730,
November 7, 2016)
A report made by a person is admissible if it is intended to prove the tenor, not the truth, of the
statements. Independent of the truth or the falsity of the statement given in the report, the fact
that it has been made is relevant. Here, the hearsay rule does not apply (Lea Mer Industries Inc. v.
Malayan Insurance Co. Inc., G.R. No. 161745, September 30, 2005)
292. What are the admissible hearsay evidence?

These are: Dying Declaration, Statement of Decedent or Person of Unsound Mind, Declaration
Against Interest, Act or Declaration About Pedigree, Family Reputation or Tradition Regarding
Pedigree, Common Reputation, Res Gestae, Records of Regularly Conducted Business Activity,
Entries in Official Records, Commercial Lists and the like, Learned treatises, Testimony or
deposition at a former proceeding and Residual Exception. (ROC, Rule 130, Sec. 38-50)
293. What is the residual exception to the hearsay rule?

It provides that a statement not specifically covered by the exceptions under Sections 38-49, Rule
130, having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is admissible if the court
determines that:
(a) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact;
(b) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence
which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and
(c) the general purposes of the rules and the interests of justice will be best served by
admission of the statement into evidence.
However, a statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent makes
known to the adverse party, sufficiently in advance of the hearing, or by the pre-trial stage in the
case of a trial of the main case, to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to meet it, the
proponent’s intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the name and
address of the declarant. (ROC, Rule 130, Sec. 50)
294. What are the requisites of a dying declaration?

A dying declaration is admissible provided the following requisites are present:
(1) the statement concerns the crime and surrounding circumstances of the declarant's death;
(2) at the time it was made, the declarant was under the consciousness of an impending death;

(3) the declarant would have been competent as a witness had he survived; and
the declaration was offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide in which the
declarant was the victim. (People v. De Las Eras y Zafra, G.R. No. 134128, September 28, 2001)
295. What is the rule on declaration against interest?
It provides that the declaration made by a person deceased or unable to testify against the interest
of the declarant, if the fact asserted in the declaration was at the time it was made so far contrary
to the declarant's own interest that a reasonable person in his or her position would not have
made the declaration unless he or she believed it to be true, may be received in evidence against
himself or his successors in interest and against third persons.
However, a statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to
exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the
trustworthiness of the statement. (ROC, Rule 130, Sec. 40)
296. What are the requisites of res gestae for it to be admissible?

For spontaneous exclamations, it is required that: (1) the principal act be a startling occurrence;
(2) the statements were made before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood;
and (3) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediate attending
circumstances.
For verbal acts, it is required that: (1) the principal act to be characterized must be equivocal; (2)
the equivocal act must be material to the issue; (3) the statement must accompany the equivocal
act; and (4) the statements give a legal significance to the equivocal act. (Talidano v. Falcon Maritime
& Allied Services, Inc., G.R. No. 172031, July 14, 2008)
The rule on res gestae encompasses the exclamations and statements made by the participants,
victims or spectators to a crime immediately before, during or immediately after when the
circumstances are such that the statements were made as spontaneous reaction inspired by the
excitement of the occasion and there was no opportunity to fabricate. (People v. Estibal, G.R. No.
208749, November 26, 2014; People v. Sace, G.R. No. 178063, April 5, 2010)
297. How can you impeach an adverse party’s witness?

It may be done: (1) by contradictory evidence; (2) by evidence that his general reputation for truth,
honesty or integrity is bad; or (3) by evidence that he has made at other times statements
inconsistent with his or her present testimony, but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts,
except that it may be shown by examination of the witness, or the record of judgment, that he has
been convicted of an offense
For impeaching a witness, evidence that he has been convicted by final judgment of a crime shall
be admitted if: (a) the crime was punishable by a penalty in excess of1 year; (b) the crime involved
moral turpitude, regardless of the penalty
Evidence of conviction not admissible if conviction has been the subject of an amnesty or
annulment of conviction (ROC, Rule 132, Sec. 11-12)
298. What are public and private documents?

Public Documents are: (a) Written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines or of a

foreign country; (b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public, except last wills and
testaments: (c) Documents that are considered public documents under treaties and conventions
which are in force between the Philippines and the country of source; and (d) Public records, kept
in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein
All other writings are private (ROC, Rule 132, Sec. 19)
If it is a private document, as a rule, it must be authenticated before they may be received in

evidence (ROC, Rule 132, Sec. 20). If it is a public document, it is admissible in evidence even
without further proof of their due execution and genuineness (Salas v. Sta. Mesa Market Corp., G.R.
No. 157766, July 12, 2007).
299. How do you prove private documents?

The due execution and authenticity of a private document must be proved either by:
(a) anyone who saw the document executed or written;
(b) evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker; or
(c) by other evidence showing its due execution and authenticity
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be (ROC, Rule
132, Sec. 20).
However, evidence of authenticity of a private writing is not required when the private document
is more than 30 years old, produced from a custody in which it would naturally be found if
genuineness and is unblemished by any alterations or circumstances of suspicion. (ROC, Rule 32,
Sec. 21)
300. What do public documents prove?

Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public
officer are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.
All other public documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave rise
to their execution and of the date of the latter (ROC, Rule 132, Sec. 23)
***


Preweek - Remedial Law - Vice Dean Cheska Senga - Senga Remedial Law Preweek 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preweek - Remedial Law - Vice Dean Cheska Senga - Senga Remedial Law Preweek 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Preweek - Remedial Law - Vice Dean Cheska Senga - Senga Remedial Law Preweek 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REMEDIAL LAW

2022 Remedial Law Pre-Week 1

b. If you were the judge, what would you do? Explain.

2022 Remedial Law Pre-Week 2

6. What is the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, and is it subject to exceptions?

2022 Remedial Law Pre-Week 3

9. Coverage of Summary Procedure

10. Small Claims Coverage

2022 Remedial Law Pre-Week 4

11. May a lawyer appear at a small claims proceeding?

12. What is the rule on venue in Small Claims?

13. May there be joinder of claims in Small Claims?

14. What is the rule on payment of docket fees in Small Claims?

2022 Remedial Law Pre-Week 5

2022 Remedial Law Pre-Week 6

19. Is a permissive counterclaim allowed under Small Claims?

21. What is an accion publiciana?

2022 Remedial Law Pre-Week 7

22. Distinguish venue in civil cases from jurisdiction.

24. Give examples of cases incapable of pecuniary estimation

2022 Remedial Law Pre-Week 8

28. How is jurisdiction over the defendant acquired?

2022 Remedial Law Pre-Week 9

32. Distinguish personal from real actions.

2022 Remedial Law Pre-Week 10

35. What is splitting of a cause of action?

2022 Remedial Law Pre-Week 11

36. How can you determine if there is splitting of cause of action?

37. What is res judicata?

38. What is litis pendentia?

2022 Remedial Law Pre-Week 12

41. Distinguish joinder from misjoinder of causes of action.

2022 Remedial Law Pre-Week 13

2022 Remedial Law Pre-Week 14

2022 Remedial Law Pre-Week 15

2022 Remedial Law Pre-Week 16

50. What is the rule on payment of docket fees in criminal cases?

2022 Remedial Law Pre-Week 17

51. Petitioners Association of Flood Victims is a non-profit and non-partisan organization in

2022 Remedial Law Pre-Week 18

There was non-joinder of Z, an indispensable party. All co-owners should be impleaded in an

57. Distinguish indispensable from necessary party.

2022 Remedial Law Pre-Week 19

59. What is a class suit?

2022 Remedial Law Pre-Week 20

63. What is an actionable document?

2022 Remedial Law Pre-Week 21

66. When may a Reply be filed?

67. When may a Rejoinder be filed?

68. What is a cross-claim?

69. What is a third-party complaint?

71. What should be contained in a pleading?

2022 Remedial Law Pre-Week 22

73. What is an affirmative defense?

Grounds Fraud, statute of The court has no The court has no

2022 Remedial Law Pre-Week 23

May be among the matters to be raised on appeal after judgment on

If dismissal is with prejudice, appeal: subject to the right of appeal,

If dismissal is without prejudice, refile, unless the dismissal is tainted